No, it’s not wholly true but:

a) a story with the same demonstrative effect is true and
b) most people on FPR seem to think it is true and though I am not a moral relativist (perish the thought) I am perfectly willing to use things that men (wrongly) believe to be true to illustrate a larger point, noble lie or what-not and
c) I was half-joking in my comments (you’ll notice my second example was armed revolt)

Yours, &c,

With the end of the Cold War, these charlatans were shivering in their retainered boots over the prospect of a Peace Dividend but just in the nick of time, one of their U.S. Military Trained and Financed nuts came to their service and gave them the fight they were in the process of trying to invent. The Terrorists and the Neo-cons are two sides of the same coin and you lose whether it lands on heads or tails.

One has to at least tip a hat to their effective insertion into positions of power and influence after a career as the crazy nephew kept around for brief spins as the conditions warranted but keep in mind, this is a group that is backed by big money and so any meager talent is magnified way beyond real ability.

While no-one associated with FPR is at Strauss’s level(w/i a century, it will be conventional wisdom that he was one of the foremost giants of 20th century philosophy), you’re right that from small and obscure beginnings of quality ideas, great things can grow. So, if the ignoble lie about Straussians and neo-cons inspires you to greater FPR deeds, then it becomes a noble lie that I have no problem with you being misled by! ;)

From a bunch of quasi-Jewish-quasi-Marxist geeks studying at the feet of an obscure and arcane University of Chicago professor to dictating policy within two or three generations isn’t so bad, is it? An organized localist intellectual movement can find its way in either party (I suggest the Republicans at the moment because a)the demographics of that party suggest a greater openness to traditionalism and b) that party is currently in chaos and a principled minority of scholars can conceivably shape its policy, whereas the Democratic party is in power and established, anda similar feat may be more difficult).

If that is not possible, then I suggest the “Napoleon of Notting Hill” approach -small-scale rebellions of small, local neighborhoods, using cabs, pikes, and waterworks as weapons.

Yours, &c,

You said the “S” word. I’m telling Caleb, Patrick, et al!!!!!

Well you got some good ideas. I had a 53′ Buick Special back in 75′, paid $250.00 for it, and repaired a front ball joint for $50.00 back then. I loved that car….one of the best we ever had.

Let me know which option you wanna do, or at least discuss….I grow weary of these two party sh*ts!

Maybe a monarch, I remember the classic line in Monty Python about how you tell which one is King!

I’ve got to go now, it’s time for my prayers! Shalom

2. Supporting an established third party serial failure is no different than not voting….or voting for one of the established candidates, a distinction of little note.

3. Beyond guns and ammunition, an armada of 1976 Ford LTD Station Wagons supported by a phalanx of 1953 Buick Specials for their superior armor might just be in order…..if only for the picturesque quality of the comic action. Buxom Wimmen would be important in this effort.

4. The “none of the above” option becomes more logical all the time.

5. Dare I?….uhh, ahhh, uhhhh ok sssseeeecceshun..ok , I said it.

6. More to the point, any reform movement must come from the bottom up, via Town or County Meeting and spread from there. Nothing whatsoever will come from on high because the Establishment is barricaded in a bus chartered to Entropy Falls. A commitment to gaining control of this government by the people , with representatives responsive to the people and a concomitant respect for States Rights and the U.S. Constitution under a Republic possessing a vibrant Separation of Powers can now only come from below and within, as well it should. The gutting of both States Rights and local economies has made this nigh unto impossible now. Obviously, this would require a people with an attention span longer than a Cocker Spaniel and so this might be the longest of long shots. I generally prefer amiable mutts and what we have now is an inbred Poodle with a nervous disorder and Brain Hip Dysplasia from having its silly little head impacted up the wazoo for such an extended period that they smell methane and think it a sunny spring day.

7. Dragging a chrome plated revolver across the thick skull of the RNC might not be a bad idea either. As Harvey Keitel recommended in “Reservoir Dogs: ” if they give you any lip, break their nose with the butt of yer gun.”

8. Lastly, one can consign ones self to the ongoing show, grumble loudly and colorfully but enjoy the historic level of satire as the lapsed-Republic goes down with vigor.

The Republican party is not a conservative political organization. It ceased being one over 40 years ago and within the last 16, it has become a parody in search of a good laugh.

One could chose the default mode and abide a lesser of parodies but the essential de facto satire remains.
It is little consolation but at least the Democrat actually likes the obese government they are force feeding
like a fat Foie Gras goose.

I certainly do not draw a simplistic 1:1 equation between FT & neoconservatism, nor do I dismiss Strauss as a thinker — but I must point out that hostility to neoconservatism as a political / intellectual movement is hardly unfounded.

Michael Ledeen: “Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law.

Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.

They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”

So… I mean… how, exactly, am I supposed to take that?

Who, exactly, sounds more like revolutionary Marxism?

Yes, yes — neocons are people too.

So is Nancy Pelosi, the current president, and Fidel Castro.

I simply believe, with St. Matthew (18:6), that Our Lord takes an exceedingly dim view of those who inflict harm upon children — whether directly, or via saturation-advertising, Big Macs, and Whoppers.

Thus crippling them before their race has even begun, and habituating them into shallowness and superficiality so that they are more likely to choose injuring themselves once they grow to be adults.

“the reason to produce more is because that will allow me to consume more.”

What Smith is digging into here is division of labor and efficiency of production. The reason to produce more of X is to trade the surplus for A, B, C, and D. One could try to produce all five but one wouldn’t ever really rise above subsistence level without the division of labor.

“But in any event, the confusion you point out between “better lives” and “higher standards of living” is the whole point of my comment: anyone who advocates for unbridled consumption or has much support for the notion of a growth economy—which contemporary Progressives, Liberals, Neo-Conservatives, Post-Modern Conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans of every stripe surely do—cannot be simultaneously advocating for Berry’s one human value, because the practice of restraint is necessary for manifesting that value, and the practice of restraint is antithetical to the notion of the growth economy.”

I guess what I am saying is that one can support a liberalized economy without supporting unbridled consumption. Isn’t this Weber’s thesis in a nutshell? Also, can one practice restraint if one lives in an economy where indulgence is not possible?

“What I’m trying to say, if ineloquently, here is that you can be a liberal who believes that St. Francis led a better life than Pope Julius II, but you can’t be one who believes this and and then goes around advocating for policies (e.g. an ever-growing economy) that make Pope Julius’ life a far more likely one than St. Francis’. And as soon as you’re advocating for policies that make St. Francis’ life the more likely, my sense is that you will have ended your stint as a liberal and began one on the Front Porch.”

The fundamental question here seems to be one of economic determinism. I simply believe, with St. John Chrysostom, that no one can harm the man who does not injure himself. Not advertisers, not Big Macs, and not Whoppers. There are grounds for resistance found in the human spirit that need not the aid of “human scale systems” but only human persons. In fact, one thing that liberal economies allow as a byproduct of their support for property rights, freedom of association, and economic choice is a means to refuse the consumption patterns of the larger society.

I’ll join the porch when I loose faith in myself and my brothers and sisters to do the right thing, against all odds, in a world many porchers rightly criticize.

the practice of restraint is necessary for manifesting that value, and the practice of restraint is antithetical to the notion of the growth economy. So, as long as you’re supporting the idea of a growth economy—that the economy shall grow, now and forever—that is, as long as you’re on board with nearly any version of the Democratic or Republican parties, what you’re supporting is not the same as what many on the FPR are supporting. And so, to my first point, seeking common ground with those who have not “seen the light” on the one value is a largely fruitless and obfuscating endeavor.

I’m on board with your first point, but only partially with your second. Clearly, an economy based on self-interest and acquisitiveness and the expansion of the self–as opposed to the sustaining and flourishing of a community–is, as you say, antithetical to the authority and discipline of places, and hence antithetical to the kind of virtues and traditions made possible by places. I’ll allow that “self-interest” and “community flourishing” are not always or in every way contradictory; arguably, property and individual and family stewardships are an example of such an alignment. But generally, the market is allowed to tend one way, or it is restrained so as to tend another, and that makes most of the difference. As for your second point, the problem with finding common cause is that it is too often unasked just what terms or context upon which that common cause is made. I’m all for forming associations of like-minded people, but if the association formed takes place within the context of basically unchallenged Lockean presumptions about what the proper aims and realm of the political are (that is, a civil society that cannot make many truly substantive connections between the political power of the people and the invisible trends of the market), then the association does more harm than good. Find an alternative party, I say.