This next is from Robert S. Griffin:
# The decadence of a civilization by loss of faith and vigour can be observed more than once in history. What is extraordinary about the American situation is the stupidity. The Romans, such is my impression, did not become stupid and incompetent with their decadence. Americans have not lost faith in their cultural inheritance — they have been entirely separated from it.
Amen. Very much our story over here too, under the global left hegemony. Claes Ryn:
# For the conservative, the universal imperative that binds human beings does not announce its purpose in simple, declaratory statements. How, then, does one discern its demands? Sometimes only with difficulty.
What I think he’s saying is that manifestos, labels, declared positions are not as useful as just “being” what we are. This next one is difficult:
# The paleocon flavor urges honoring the principle of subsidiarity, that is, decentralized government, local rule, private property and minimal bureaucracy.
The problem with that is – it is the very thing the global left, through the UN, is pushing and they’re also calling it Subsidiarity – more hijacking and twisting of labels, in order to con people to come in and support their [not so] hidden agenda [anymore].
And this is the great danger of the hijacked label. I’m certain that my own personal unpopularity is in no small part down to attacking “the left” without anyone being clear precisely what is mean by that in the context of the past.
In the case of the global left, Subsidiarity means something quite different to what we might mean. They mean a federalist structure with a politburo at the top, then subsidiarized plebs in each corner of the bloc, the Soviet model.
I read people like David Phipps, Dan Hannan, on localism and wonder if they know the global left are employing precisely the same language, albeit in bastardized form. We might have this lovely,Utopian ideal of our affairs being taken care of at local level but the global left is going to have its Common Purpose person in there running it, make no mistake. Liek a cancer, they’re in there, leading beyond authority.
This corruption therefore renders useless the concept of Subsidiarity. Yes, the idea in its pure form is good but to fight for that in the context of today’s hegemony means it can only be localized tyranny.
A perfect example of that was Citizen’s Juries which my blog covered quite a bit some years back. What the local councillor who attended noted was how someone was “in charge” of the meeting and ran things, curtailed this topic, expanded that one and used NLP to get a “well-formed outcome” which, of course, was then binding – citizens themselves had approved of those measures, hadn’t they?
Actually they’d been manipulated and conned into supporting prearranged positions – the meeting was just to make those legitimate.
Federalism is a major paleo concern and it is like quicksand. We can so often go off on tangents due to forced definitions. In America, it’s far worse because States Rights is a mantra. All well and fine but if the enemy is already in charge within the States, then how much further along is States Rights v Washington?
Moving along, Alan C. Carlson:
# The family is the natural and fundamental social unit, inscribed in our nature as human beings, rooted in marriage, rooted in the commitment to bring new life into the world, and rooted in a deep respect for both ancestors and posterity.
Naturally, this brings in gay “marriage” and the efforts of the feminazis. We’ve devoted enough posts to that but the article itself says:
# Joseph Sobran picks up this same theme, saying that heterosexual marriage is hard-coded into human nature:
[Even] the Pope can’t change the nature of marriage. It existed, by necessity of human nature, long before Jesus or even Abraham … This has nothing to do with mere disapproval of sodomy.
Even societies that were indifferent to sodomy saw no reason to treat same-sex domestic partnerships as marriages. Why not? Because such unions don’t produce children…. To put it as unromantically as possible, people who have children should be stuck with each other, sharing the responsibility.
Paleocons also question the validity of gender feminism in similar ways, some questioning feminism in both its radical and moderate forms. They say that the push for total gender equality dehumanizes both men and women
Moving along again, just a quick look at the American southern tradition, it not being all that germane to our British situation:
# In the 1995 “New Dixie Manifesto”, Fleming and Michael Hill argued that Southerners are pelted with ethnic slurs, denied self-government and stripped of their symbols, including the Confederate flag. Like any other people, they have the right to their history and cultural identity.
“After so many decades of strife”, they wrote, “black and white Southerners of good will should be left alone to work out their destinies, avoiding, before it is too late, the urban hell that has been created by the lawyers, social engineers and imperial bureaucrats who have grown rich on programs that have done nothing to help anyone but themselves.”
Moving along, on managerialism -Samuel Francis:
# If we could somehow take out the ideology, change the minds of those who control the state, and convert them into paleo-conservatives, the state apparatus itself would be neutral.
What really animates its drive toward a totalitarian conquest and reconfiguration of society and the human mind itself comes from the ideology that the masters of the managerial state have adopted, a force that is entirely extraneous and largely accidental to the structure by which they exercise power.[
It is in the long-term interest of the overclass (not of anyone else) to managerialize society so that all aspects of life are organized, packaged, routinized and subjugated to manipulation by the technical skill the overclass possesses, and that interest requires the undermining of institutions and norms that are independent of, and impediments to, overclass control.
There are strong overtones of not adopting ideology in order to “manage” other people. Just stick with your own life and we’ll stick with ours. That’s a very libertarian stance. Many have expressed this as Statism v Libertarianism and paleos agree with much of this.
# [T]here are parallels in the traditional Old Right of other Western nations. French conservatives such as Jean Raspail, and British conservatives such as Enoch Powell, Peter Hitchens, Antony Flew (whom the Rockford Institute awarded the Ingersoll Prize), John Betjeman, and Roger Scruton as well as Scruton’s Salisbury Review and Derek Turner’s Quarterly Review, as well as Australia’s Sydney Traditionalist Forum all emphasize skepticism, stability, and the Burkean inheritance, and may be considered broadly sympathetic to paleo values.
James Wilson attacks Hitchens but then again, as an American viewing through that lens, with deep suspicion for such people as Hitchens [and incidentally myself] who were former Fabian socialists – it’s understandable.
No matter, it does not alter the tone and theme of this post overall – individual writers on things are a matter of individual taste. One is judged by what one writes, not by the declared labels.
Lastly, the neo-cons:
# Pat Buchanan calls neoconservatism “a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology.” The paleoconservatives argue that the “neocons” are illegitimate interlopers in the conservative movement. In 1986, historian Stephen Tonsor, who rejects the label paleoconservative”, said:
It has always struck me as odd, even perverse, that former Marxists have been permitted, yes invited, to play such a leading role in the Conservative movement of the twentieth century. It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church.
Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, matters have been carried too far.
This puts Blair and his shadow, Cameron, in context. Labour and Lib Dem see Blair as rightwing, showing how far removed from reality and history they are. What in fact is going on here is that both are global neo-con. Don’t judge Cameron by his rhetoric, judge by his airstrikes in Syria.
Blair and Cameron are “Them” but in a world which has not yet taken on the Higham label “Them”, it’s difficult to identify just where they are. I can – they’re with Sutherland, Mandelson, Juncker, Kofi Annan, Gore, Bush, Clinton, Prince Bernhard, Davignon, Maurice Strong, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers – it goes on and on.
That’s precisely where they are – people after power alone, using ideology and national identity only as markers and tools, stateless people with no sense of countrymen or humans in general.
Perhaps we need a new political division – Human and Anti-human.