Richard Spencer’s discussion of the neoconservative gestalt popping out of Glenn Beck’s program puts a number of things in perspective. For several years now I’ve been hearing Beck’s tirades courtesy of my wife, who tunes in on his attacks on the Obama administration. While listening to Beck in recent months, while trying to work on the internet, I found myself heartily agreeing with his characterization of Woodrow Wilson as “undoubtedly our worst president.” I also thought that the briefs Beck presented against Wilson and FDR as the creators of morphing managerial states and as bellicose inciters of hate against “undemocratic” minorities showed some independent judgment. In fact I began to wonder how a network as thoroughly controlled as FOX by neocon money and GOP influence could allow this alcoholic-turned-Mormon to go on railing against their authorized heroes. Surely Kristol, Krauthammer, Barnes, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc. could not agree with what he was saying, beyond his ritualistic invectives against Democratic spending habits!

But Richard explains quite convincingly how Beck is on the same page with his sponsors. It is not by accident that he brings on to his program almost exclusively neoconservative guests, like the pseudo-historian and passionate advocate of anti-discrimination legislation, Jonah Goldberg. Beck’s neoconservative pals provide the proper context for his remarks, which are typically aimed at safe targets. These include spendthrift Democrats and long-dead Progressives, who supposedly paved the way for the current Democratic administration.

Over the past year and half, I’ve always had at least one colleague who has liked Glenn Beck. First there was Jack Hunter and Dylan Hales (though the later had reservations). More recently Richard Hoste has taken up the charge.

Beck is certainly more unsettled in his opinions than Hannity, Limbaugh & Co, which means that he’s more willing to put on his show people with an “alternative” right-wing perspective, whether it be strict Constitutionalists or Austrian-inflected economists.

In my sporadic viewings of The Glenn Beck Program, I often get the impression that the host is, in a sense, going to school with each new show, likely in an attempt to make up for decades spent boozing. The Founding Fathers, Woodrow Wilson, Fascism, Objectivism and Ayn Rand -- all subjects Beck approaches with a bright-eyed innocence and ignorance. I find programs on, say, American imperialism more interested than updates on the run-away bride, to be sure, but I’d prefer hearing this subject discussed by someone who hadn’t just discovered it existed shortly before going on air at 5 PM.

Beck’s “curiosity” aside, whenever he has been faced with a serious moment of decision, he has invariably come down on the side of the conservative-GOP establishment, and the Washington Power Elite more generally. Beck supported the Wall Street bailouts as not only “necessary” but “not nearly enough”; he was a terror warrior indistinguishable from Hannity throughout the Bush years; and after being invited to the Whitehouse, he discussed how Dubya felt the pain of dead soldiers. Beck found “libertarian” and “antiwar conservative” religion conveniently after the inauguration of a Democratic president.

The Federal Government is taking steps to make sure Americans vote sufficiently along racial lines.

PORT CHESTER, N.Y. — Arthur Furano voted early – five days before Election Day. And he voted often, flipping the lever six times for his favorite candidate. Furano cast multiple votes on the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a new election system crafted to help boost Hispanic representation.

Voters in Port Chester, 25 miles northeast of New York City, are electing village trustees for the first time since the federal government alleged in 2006 that the existing election system was unfair. The election ends Tuesday and results are expected late Tuesday.

Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats, which until now were chosen in a conventional at-large election. Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.

Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas...

Vote coordinator Martha Lopez said that if turnout is higher than in recent years, when it hovered around 25 percent, the election would be a success – regardless of whether a Hispanic was elected.

"I think we'll make it," she said. "I'm happy to report the people seem very interested."

But Randolph McLaughlin, who represented a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the goal was not merely to encourage more Hispanics to vote but "to create a system whereby the Hispanic community would be able to nominate and elect a candidate of their choice."

That could be a non-Hispanic, he acknowledged, and until exit polling is done, "it won't be known for sure whether the winners were Hispanic-preferred."

Is there nothing too petty for Holder’s Justice Department?  A little town of 30,000 needs to have its election rigged so Hispanics win?

This is a perfect example of why conservatives who approve of mass immigration from the third world aren’t thinking hard enough.  No non-racial issue could ever prompt the feds to look into the voting practices of a small village.  And on no non-racial issue would conservatives be such push overs.  

That means that if the Hispanic population is growing the only way for this not to lead to bigger government is for conservatives to stop being scared of the “racist” charge.  Since at this point this seems like the most unlikely thing in the world we will have see the state usurp more and more power.  

Those able to think for ourselves read stories like this noticing these patterns and assume that others must be coming to the same conclusions.  But your average Joe Sickpack or even movement conservatism isn't very good at putting seemingly unrelated stories about school achievement gaps, voting rights legislation, healthcare disparities, etc. together.  He needs to have things spelled out for him and right now nobody's opposing the multicultural state from a libertarian or classical liberal position, much less a racialist one.  Not Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Michelle Malkin. Not Tea Party radicals who wear wigs and carry assault rifles.  Not the Ron Paul movement (notice Rand Paul denying that his position on private discrimination is anything but hypothetical as if the state is race nuteral today).  The 99% of conservative leaning America that doesn't read Alternative Right, VDare or Steve Sailer has no idea this is going on. 

For these reasons, I don't believe that the Left has come close to maximizing the benefits it could potentially derive from racial politics.

While ads like Rick Barber’s are encouraging, it’s fascinating how people will hint at secession and revolution but not even mention in their litany of complaints against the state the Diversity Jacobinism Washington imposes on us. I predict that liberals will come to rely on racial egalitarianism more and more as an excuse for a powerful, centralized state.  Raise taxes?  White America erupts.  Add a new entitlement program?  They start showing up with guns at rallies telling you that they’re going to take their country back.  Require private businesses to discriminate against whites and all but set up a quota system for election results?  Listen to the crickets chirping! If you find one area of your enemy's defense line completely undefended-or better yet, the enemy refuses to notice when you attack him there-and resistance everywhere else is fanatical the decision of where to send the bulk of your army is a very easy one.

Meet Rick Barber.  

Let's hope rhetoric has consequences.

As part of the process of developing what might be called a “revolutionary Right” for North America, I have endorsed both anarchism and secession. Yet anarchism is merely a theory of the state (or against the state) and secession is simply a tactic. Anarchist theory per se has little to say about what kinds of communities might exist independently of an overarching state, and no one is going to endorse secession for its own sake without some wider end in sight. I suggested in a recent interview with Dr. Tomislav Sunic that anarchism, secession, and white nationalism have something of natural triangular relationship with each other. While I do, indeed, believe this to be the case, the question remains as to whether white nationalism is an adequate intellectual or strategic paradigm for the growing alternative right. I would maintain that it is not.

This is not to say that white nationalists do not raise many perfectly reasonable and legitimate issues. Such issues include affirmative action and other forms of “reverse discrimination,” mass immigration and immigration abuse, the high rates of violent crime in minority communities, the formal or informal forms of censorship associated with “political correctness,” state interference with associational liberties, anti-white bias in hate crimes reporting, the desire for cultural self-preservation, the double standards involved with the label of “racist,” the extra-legal actions by left-wing vigilantes against those with views on race that defy liberal orthodoxy, the suppression of scientific inquiry in the name of egalitarian ideology, the influence of foreign lobbies on U.S. foreign policy, and a good number of other things. Nor should we be interested in taking seriously the liberal dogma that any sort of expression of political and racial self-interest, or ethnic pride and celebration, by whites constitutes “hate” or “racism.” One can love one’s wife or mother without hating all other women. One can have a preference for one’s own family without feuding with other families. One can favor one’s own children without abusing or mistreating other children. So the issue is not whether white nationalism violates this or that liberal taboo, but whether white nationalism “alone and unaided” is the most effective way of addressing matters such as the aforementioned.

The first order of business is the identification of the enemy, and the enemy is clearly those who are currently in control of the institutions that rule us: the state, the corporate plutocracy, the banking cartel, the mass media, academia, the legal system, and others whom our fearless editor has with great perspicacity dubbed the “sociopathocracy.” Nowadays, even an ostensibly “conservative” institution such as the military has succumbed to political correctness. White nationalists and those who share their concerns are certainly under attack by these institutions, but so are plenty of other people. Consequently, a resistance movement that defines itself exclusively, or even primarily, under the banner of race will be unnecessarily self-limiting. Far better to incorporate the issues raised by white nationalists, immigration restrictionists, and others with related concerns into a wider paradigm that packages together the issues raised by parallel movements and overlapping interests who are under attack by the same institutional authorities. There is a nearly inexhaustible list of such tendencies, including advocates for fathers’ rights, men’s rights, family sovereignty, religious liberty, the right to bear arms and act in self-defense, anti-tax, pro-life, national sovereignty, property rights, cultural preservation, quality and freedom in education, local autonomy, and many other things. Additionally, there is the growing list of economic issues generated by the ongoing dispossession and eradication of the traditional middle class courtesy of our plutocratic overlords.

The label of “white nationalism” brings with it a good deal of baggage that is not easily discarded. What do most people think of when they hear the term “white nationalism”? Do they think of Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, and Steve Sailer or do they think of the KKK, David Duke, Tom Metzger, uniform fetishists, the Aryan Nations, and The Turner Diaries? If we must choose a label, would not something along the lines of “conservative revolution” be more appropriate? Such self-identification puts us squarely in the tradition of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Junger, Schmitt, Spengler, Pareto, Mosca, Michels, Evola, De Benoist, and Faye. Such a label allows us to group together a wide assortment of issues and movements under a common banner and against a common enemy. Beyond that, we need to consider the not insignificant number of minority, mixed race, or persons from mixed families that share many of our ideological and cultural concerns, or at least sympathize with many of our issues. Is it wise to push away an Elizabeth Wright, Paul Gottfried, Norman Finkelstein, David Yeagley, Carol Swain, Michael Hart, Michael Levin, Jesse Lee Peterson, Israel Shamir, or Mayer Schiller?

“Conservative Revolution” is conceptually broad enough to accommodate an array of anti-liberal forces within a framework of respect for natural hierarchies and particular attachments to family, community, religion, tribe, ethnicity, and other primary reference groups, and in a way that is compatible with traditional conservative and libertarian skepticism of “big government” and overly centralized power. On a horizontal level, it can accommodate tendencies ranging from fervent white nationalists to religious conservatives who are indifferent to race issues per se but oppose Cultural Marxist attacks on their faith and traditions to Jews and African-Americans who oppose mass immigration from the Third World. On a vertical level, it can include scholars of Machiavelli, Burke, and Nietzsche on the high end and conspiracy-mongers or Alex Jones fans on the low end. Such a framework also opens the door to wider acceptance by a threatened middle class that is rapidly sinking into the ranks of the lower proletariat and lumpen sectors. It is those sectors that will ultimately feed the numerical ranks of our movement, and in politics there is no victory without numbers.

William F. Buckley, Jr.: The Maker of a Movement. By Lee Edwards. ISI Books, 2010. 223 pages. Originally published at LewRockwell.com.

Lee Edwards has written a very useful book. He is a longstanding conservative activist and intends to celebrate William F. Buckley as the founder of the political movement to which he adheres. For Edwards, Buckley’s "vision of ordered liberty shaped and molded and guided American conservatism from its infancy to its maturity, from a cramped suite of offices on Manhattan’s East Side to the Oval Office of the White House, from a set of ‘irritable mental gestures’ to a political force that transformed American politics." (p.191) But this book discloses a great deal that supports Lew Rockwell’s verdict that the "‘conservatism created by William Buckley . . . gave us the most raw and stupid form of imperial big government one can imagine.’" (p.175) Edwards, by the way, calls Rockwell an "ultralibertarian," in the same way leftists used to call those on the Right "ultraconservatives."

Buckley, Edwards tells us, began as a follower of the libertarian Albert Jay Nock; and Nock’s disciple, Frank Chodorov, guided his early writing. (To Edwards, Nock is an "archlibertarian." Whether there is a difference between "arch" and "ultra," Edwards does not disclose.) Edwards mentions Nock’s "radical antistatism" but he tells us next to nothing about the views of Nock and his great follower. From Edwards’s account, one might imagine that Nock wished merely to curtail the New Deal. In fact, of course, Nock condemned the "political means," i.e., the State, as of its nature predatory. Edwards also ignores completely Nock’s views on foreign policy. Nock opposed militarism and interventionism and his Myth of a Guilty Nation was an early revisionist classic.

The following address was given to the 2010 meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. It was originally published at VDARE.com. 

When I first envisioned the idea of this Society, more than 10 years ago and then still a society without a name, I had direct experience with only two other Societies from which to learn.

My first experience was with the Mont Pelerin Society which Friedrich Hayek had founded in 1947.

During the 1990s, I was three times invited as a speaker to Mont Pelerin Society meetings in Cannes, Cape Town, and Barcelona. Each time, with papers attacking democracy and egalitarianism, defending monarchies vs. democracies, eviscerating the classical-liberal idea of a minimal-state as self-contradictory, and propagating a stateless, anarcho-capitalist natural order, my appearance was considered somewhat scandalous: too irreverent, too confrontational, and too sensational.

Whatever the function of the Mont Pelerin Society may have been in the immediate aftermath of WW II, at the time of my encounter with it, I did not find it particularly to my liking.

To be sure, I met many bright and interesting people. But essentially, Mont Pelerin Society meetings were junkets for "free-market" and "limited-government" think-tank and foundation staffers, their various professorial affiliates and protégées, and the principal donor-financiers of it all, mostly from the U.S., and more specifically from Washington D.C. Characteristically, Ed Feulner, long-time President of the Heritage Foundation, the major GOP think-tank and intellectual shill to the welfare-warfare state politics of every Republican government administration, from Reagan to Bush, Junior, is a former Mont Pelerin Society president and, more significantly, has been its long-time treasurer.

[The ninth in a series on inclusiveness. Read parts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX.]

Western societies treat liberal ideals of freedom, equality, diversity, tolerance, and inclusiveness as uniquely authoritative. Those ideals increasingly trump all other considerations and silence all criticism.

As a practical matter, they mean rule by experts, bureaucrats, and commercial interests that promise to give everyone what he wants, as much and as equally as possible. Other authorities aren't rational and neutral enough.

Under such circumstances, the function of representative institutions becomes legitimating decisions already reached in other ways. Traditional less formal institutions such as family and religion become strictly private in significance. The point of multiculturalism and similar tendencies is to keep them so by destroying the public relevance of every particular tradition.

Lady Marian in Sir Ridley Scott's new Robin Hood is faithful, truthful, honorable, and compassionate -- character traits in women that seldom are promoted by the our media and entertainment industry. The website of Cosmopolitan magazine, for example, has seven features on the new film Sex and the City 2, a franchise that promotes vastly different values to today's women. In the film, there is a gay marriage, the main character cheats on her husband by kissing an ex-boyfriend, and the women continue to focus on fashion, this time in Abu Dhabi rather than New York City. The franchise's TV show dealt with abortion, massive consumerism, and promiscuity, culminating in the most conservative cast member, Charlotte, converting to Judaism to marry Harry Goldenblatt, then adopting a Chinese girl.

Lady Marion comes as a breath of fresh air in movies dominated by such portrayals of women, which are destructive to European Americans.

Truthfulness often is declared to be the primary value of Indo-European peoples. For example, the philosopher Julius Evola recounts that a lie was punishable by death in ancient Iran. This is in part because our ancestors were bound by a Truth that was higher than personal whims and material gains -- Duty was first to the gods and the folk.

Tom Fleming has written a excellent article on the Rand Paul controversy, and since he brings up many valid points that haven't yet been mentioned at AltRight, I'll reproduce it here.

(Über-moderate, Sam's Club socialist, and beloved conservative commentator for the New York Times Ross Douthat has warned Times subscribers about reading "extremist," "ideological" material such as this, and thus I must advise that thoughtful, sensitive souls proceed with caution.)