Surprising, But Wholly Appropriate
The American Conservative cover. Excellent. By strange coincidence, I followed a lot of what this supreme mutherfucker was up to as a U.S. Attorney. You can look into it, and you can disagree, but this is the most dangerous candidate in the race. It’s not close. (Via Rockwell)
3 Comments
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
1k
118k
40
45
8k
780
The sight of the paleocons over at American Conservative portraying anyone as a fascist is pretty, uh, ironic.
Apparantly Mr. Guiliani lacks the commitment to individual liberty and free enterprise so well exemplified by Pat Buchanan.
Not that I have any intention of voting for Guiliani, of course. However, as a rule of thumb, if you assume that a paleoconservative is a lying, treacherous, hypocritical swine, you won't go far wrong.
Well you've got a point there, John.
Serious question: on what essentials (if any) would you differentiate a "paleoconservative" from "Old Right," perhaps as portrayed by Rothbard in "The Betrayal of the American Right?"
"Murray Rothbard is beyond the consideration of any decent human being because he cheered the fall of Saigon." – me
I've never read any of his writings and I never will. According to the filth over at True Blue Confederate Lew Rockwell's, Rothbard wrote that the fall of Saigon was cause for "libertarian rejoicing" which is disgusting.
In any case, I suspect that any writings by Rothbard on the "Old Right" partake of the same kind of fatal wishful thinking seen in his choice of heroes seen above.
If I wanted to be unfair, I could observe that the primary difference between the Old Right and the modern paleocons is that the Old Right wanted to sell out to Adolf Hitler and the paleocons want to sell out to Osama Bin Laden. This is unfair only partly because undoubtedly the paleocons would prefer Adolf Hitler, if he were still available.