Pages

 

Recent Pages by shecky:
How a former Virginia lawmaker made a bad situation even worse, in 1 picture Mother Jones Told Interns to Go on Food Stamps Because It Pays So Little Prosecutors: U.S. Soldiers Plotted to Kill President Obama Krauthammer: Romney's Olympics Gaffe 'Unbelievable,' 'Beyond Human Understanding,' 'Incomprehensible'

Jump to bottom

11 comments

1 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Dec 6, 2013 7:32:54pm

Here’s the full article. It’s actually more thoughtful and better than its title would suggest. The author isn’t hostile to the pope so much as he thinks that American political discourse has by-and-large ignored Catholic thought on economics.

So downding Shecky if you wish, but please read the article before you downding me.

2 Randall Gross  Fri, Dec 6, 2013 8:38:14pm

You really should warn people that the link is to a paleo conservative piss pot that hosts bigots and tribal nationalists like Patrick Buchanan, Steve Sailer, Daniel larison, Justin Raimondo, and others from that “we aren’t racists, we are racialists” VDARE pseudo academic nationalist crowd.

3 zora  Fri, Dec 6, 2013 11:05:34pm

I read this article earlier today and enjoyed it. It’s not anti-pope or anti-Catholic. just the opposite.

4 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 7, 2013 6:12:43am

re: #2 Randall Gross

You really should warn people that the link is to a paleo conservative piss pot that hosts bigots and tribal nationalists like Patrick Buchanan, Steve Sailer, Daniel larison, Justin Raimondo, and others from that “we aren’t racists, we are racialists” VDARE pseudo academic nationalist crowd.

Concur. Patrick J. Deneen doesn’t seem to be in that vein, but he’s keeping company with some seriously bad actors.

5 shecky  Sat, Dec 7, 2013 7:20:03am

Sorry about the link. I could have sworn I put it in there.

I’m not sure what’s gotten into the folks lately, but you’d be sadly mistaken to dismiss The American Conservative’s regular columnists outright for some ideological reasons, despite its provenance. The likes of Sailer (who seems to get more dissection than publishing there), and even Buchanan (despite being a founder) are fairly rarely featured. And I defy you to find a better class of wonk than Daniel Larison anywhere, who seems to focus mostly on foreign policy. Most of the regular contributors are fairly decent.

I find the most objectionable regular to be Rod Dreher, because of his eye rolling passive aggressive religious fingerwagging blog hosted there. I find his reasoning laughable, largely gutless, and his readership isn’t all that willing to call him out.

You’d also be sadly mistaken for not reading the Deneen article in particular (thanks Dark Falcon for the link I neglected) because The American Conservative!, or paleo conservatives! or any other intellectual shortcut you’d be inclined to give.

6 wrenchwench  Sat, Dec 7, 2013 8:29:42am

re: #5 shecky

Sorry about the link. I could have sworn I put it in there.

I’m not sure what’s gotten into the folks lately, but you’d be sadly mistaken to dismiss The American Conservative’s regular columnists outright for some ideological reasons, despite its provenance. The likes of Sailer (who seems to get more dissection than publishing there), and even Buchanan (despite being a founder) are fairly rarely featured. And I defy you to find a better class of wonk than Daniel Larison anywhere, who seems to focus mostly on foreign policy. Most of the regular contributors are fairly decent.

I find the most objectionable regular to be Rod Dreher, because of his eye rolling passive aggressive religious fingerwagging blog hosted there. I find his reasoning laughable, largely gutless, and his readership isn’t all that willing to call him out.

You’d also be sadly mistaken for not reading the Deneen article in particular (thanks Dark Falcon for the link I neglected) because The American Conservative!, or paleo conservatives! or any other intellectual shortcut you’d be inclined to give.

Daniel Larison:

The Hegemonists, Thomas Woods and the League of the South

Tuesday, March 1st, 2005 in politics by Daniel Larison

Thomas E. Woods Jr.’s Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, recently put out by Regnery, the venerable conservative publisher, has caused a storm of controversy, the outlines of which define the parameters of the politically permissible. In today’s constricted political “debate” - especially when it comes to foreign policy - only two flavors are allowed: right-wing neocon and left-wing neocon. A “right-wing” writer who opposes foreign interventionism, condemns World War I as the senseless slaughter it indubitably was, and shows how FDR (and the Brits) dragged us into a second world war is bound to come under attack from the battalions of the neoconized Right as well as the Left, and the frenzied response to the Woods volume has not disappointed. ~Justin Raimondo

As a member of the League of the South (though, I must admit to my discredit that I am not by any stretch of the imagination an active member), I would like to congratulate Dr. Woods on the publication of his new book. I would also like to thank him for what appears to be a restatement of the view of American history that was once a common sense, majority view, at least among self-styled conservatives, and which needs to be instilled in the modern American public again and again. It is to be expected that the awful Max Boot and his ilk would find fault with an organisation dedicated to the preservation and restoration of American constitutional traditions, traditional Christianity and especially Southern culture and identity by all honourable means. All of these things are hateful to those who want to obliterate particular loyalties, federalism, political and cultural diversity (the historical sort that arises everywhere naturally, not the artificial, ‘multiculti’, coerced sort championed by neocon and liberal) and subjugate all men to a stale and fatal creed for homogenous slaves serving faceless masters in their anti-personal and anti-religious world of abstractions and social engineering.

Let me take this opportunity to say a few words about the League of the South, a group to which I am proud to belong for these past ten years. This group of ladies and gentlemen, for whom such terms still have their traditional meaning, endeavours to preserve their Southern, Christian cultural, religious and political heritage from the ravages of the same freethinking, Yankee spirit and empire that has gone on to devastate so many other societies, including that of those northern states gulled into the cause of Unionism. Though my lineage is almost entirely from the North, ours were the sort of conservative and republican people who opposed usurpation at every turn, and as much as my kinsman, William Plumer of New Hampshire, was right in arguing for secession over the illegalities of the Louisiana Purchase the Southern states were even more justified in resisting the usurpation of their rights. In the League of the South, I see the natural home of anyone who would honour and venerate the legacy of his ancestors and the early fathers of this country.

If the first-generation American (and I apply the term here very loosely) Boot is offended by us, it is little wonder: we have an American identity that actually has meaning and an inheritance from the past before our country had been overwhelmed by the follies of modernity and the fragmenting, dehumanising forces of industry and ideology. If the modern neocon or liberal cannot sympathise with the Old America, and cannot really muster even a grudging respect for the Old South, it is because these represent a world to which such alienated and disconnected people can never belong, and so they despise it to the same degree that they deeply, naturally desire to have such bonds with their past.

We in the League believe, if I can speak for the League in general terms, that faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity is imperative for salvation, loyalty to kith and kin is natural, necessary, sane and admirable, and veneration for one’s ancestors and their struggles is worthy and indeed a duty for decent people. In specifically political terms we hold that the decentralised confederation of states that we once possessed best suits the interests of local communities, traditional Christian religion, the integrity of the family, the conservation of constitutional liberties received from our fathers and is the rightful legacy of our free and honourable ancestors.

The humane and decent civilisation of the South that took root in the Southland, though of course it was never without flaws (as no earthly society could be lacking in them), informed and shaped the creation of that political structure in large measure and was the guarantor of its authentic form for several decades, both through political influence and through the cultivation of a classically educated body of men who rose to defend, first by the pen and oration and then by the sword, the true political inheritance of the Republic.

The defeat of the Confederacy, though the Confederate political experiment does not exhaust the richness of Southern culture and identity, was a defining moment when the United States took its steps towards the abyss of the monstrous centralised state, rootless society and decadent culture that we have today. In sum, the Confederacy represented much of the Old America that was swept away, and with it went everything meaningful about the constitutional republican system, and the degeneration of that system in the next hundred years was the logical and ultimately unstoppable result of Lincoln’s victory. All of this is in recognition that we are beholden to our ancestors for who we are, and we honour and remember their struggles and accomplishments not only because they can be established as reasonable, good and true but because they are the struggles and accomplishments of our people, who have made this land ours and sanctified it with their blood in defense against the wanton aggression of a barbarous tyranny.

The dumber of my two cats is a ‘better class of wonk’ than Daniel Larison, so I can find one under my bed.

What the hell is wrong with you?

7 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 7, 2013 10:47:27am

re: #5 shecky

Shecky, that rotten magazine was founded by Patrick Buchanan and it’s a revolving freak show of the ideological descendants of Father Coughlin. Get a brain friend.

8 wrenchwench  Sat, Dec 7, 2013 12:01:06pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

Here’s the full article. It’s actually more thoughtful and better than its title would suggest. The author isn’t hostile to the pope so much as he thinks that American political discourse has by-and-large ignored Catholic thought on economics.

So downding Shecky if you wish, but please read the article before you downding me.

OK, I read it, and I read some other stuff he wrote. He is not simple-minded. He’s a libertarian dudebro, though. He fits well at TAC, with their Buchanan-led brand of dudebro-Catholicism (for lack of a better term).

Deneen has a unique critique/defense of Allan Bloom in this essay. Here’s an excerpt:

At his best, Bloom sees through the sham of yesterday’s “multiculturalism” and today’s push for “diversity”—little of which had to do with enthusiasm for real cultural diversity, but which was then and remains today a way for individuals in under-represented groups to advance entitlement programs within America’s elite institutions. Those individuals, while claiming special benefits that should accrue to members in a particular group, had no great devotion to any particular “culture” outside the broader American anti-culture of liberalism itself. Indeed, the “cultures” in question were never really cultures at all, if by a culture we mean an identifiable group of people who share a generational, geographical, and distinctive set of customs aimed at shaping the worldview and practices of successive generations.

By this measure, women, blacks, Hispanics, and so on were people who might once have belonged to a variety of particular cultures, albeit not specifically as women or blacks or Hispanics. These new categorical groupings came to be based on claims of victimhood rather than any actual shared culture; many cultures have been persecuted, but it does not follow that everyone who has been mistreated constitutes a culture. While in passing Bloom acknowledged the paucity of such claims to cultural status, too often he was willing to take seriously professions of “multiculturalism” and to lament the decline of the American project of universalist natural rights.

The stronger case would have been to expose the claims of multiculturalism as cynical expressions from members of groups that did not, in fact, share a culture, while showing that such self-righteous claims, more often than not, were merely a thin veneer masking a lust for status, wealth and power. If the past quarter century has revealed anything, it has consistently shown that those who initially participated in calls for multiculturalism have turned out to be among the voices most hostile to actual cultures, particularly ones seeking to maintain coherent religious and moral traditions.

Not stupid, but it is an analysis that, to me anyway, looks like it is firmly seated in white male privilege. Cultures other than the dominant white one are dismissed as not really being cultures. From other readings, including the one you linked, he obviously is more concerned about Catholic doctrine than he is with a woman’s autonomy.

Should I downding you now? :)

9 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 7, 2013 4:52:08pm

re: #8 wrenchwench

OK, I read it, and I read some other stuff he wrote. He is not simple-minded. He’s a libertarian dudebro, though. He fits well at TAC, with their Buchanan-led brand of dudebro-Catholicism (for lack of a better term).

Deneen has a unique critique/defense of Allan Bloom in this essay. Here’s an excerpt:

Not stupid, but it is an analysis that, to me anyway, looks like it is firmly seated in white male privilege. Cultures other than the dominant white one are dismissed as not really being cultures. From other readings, including the one you linked, he obviously is more concerned about Catholic doctrine than he is with a woman’s autonomy.

Should I downding you now? :)

Do what you feel on that point. It’s just that in this case the book didn’t have very good dust jacket and I wanted to make sure people at least opened it before they downdinged me for my review of it.

10 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 7, 2013 4:54:50pm

re: #6 wrenchwench

I’d only point out that Daniel Larison isn’t stupid, but since he’s a Neo-Confederate he is most definitely one of the worse kinds of wonk.

11 wrenchwench  Sat, Dec 7, 2013 5:10:51pm

re: #10 Dark_Falcon

I’d only point out that Daniel Larison isn’t stupid, but since he’s a Neo-Confederate he is most definitely one of the >worse kinds of wonk.

No, he’s not stupid. I am flabbergasted over and over by how many people, particularly people with leftish views, see him as a reasonable person and don’t know he’s a neo-confederate. As with the author of the piece featured on this Page, he’s a good writer and a serious thinker, but has some preconceived notions that are wrong and need to be ferreted out and argued against. Not with any hope of changing their minds, but to enlighten their readers.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
A Water War Is Brewing Between the U.S. And Mexico. Here’s Why A water dispute between the United States and Mexico that goes back decades is turning increasingly urgent in Texas communities that rely on the Rio Grande. Their leaders are now demanding the Mexican government either share water or face ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 87 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Harper’s Magazine: Slippery Slope - How Private Equity Shapes a Ski Town …Big Sky stands apart for other reasons. The obvious distinction is the Yellowstone Club, a private resort hidden in the mountains above the community that Justin Farrell, a professor of sociology at Yale and the author of Billionaire Wilderness, ...
teleskiguy
2 days ago
Views: 296 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2