Talk:Paleoconservatism/Archive 1

message: This page is marked as "neutrality disputed" but it looks fine to me.  Who disputes the neutrality of what specifically? - NYK 08:02, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then I will remove the proviso. - NYK 02:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case someone wonders,  68.66.75.82 _does_ in fact check out as an Adelphia Cable ip in JEP's physical neighborhood.  It's him.  and _he_ put his name back in the list of PC's...  Rick Boatright 19:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality dispute

message: Eric Margolis does not have the parochial, isolationistic views generally associated with paleocons (for example he fervently supported the Kosovo War, which was opposed by most paleocons) - he identifies himself as a "Eisenhower Republican" and is hostile to the neocons mainly out of pro-Muslim sympathies. GCarty 16:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eric Margolis a paleocon?

message: The current title refers to the ideology and not an individual member of said ideology.  Some examples include the article about assassination, which is not located at assassin (the one who carries out the act), nor is the article about despotism located at despot.  Even similar topics, such as conservatism, are not located at conservative, for example.  --tomf688<TALK> 01:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 21:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move this article to [[Paleoconservatism]]

message: One WP editor says the Weekly Standard is the PaleoCon Mag and another WP editor claims National Review is Paleocon.  I believe neither magazines are.  Bill Kristol and William F. Buckley are not Paleocons, and neither are their pubs. The article claims that the Weekly Standard is relied on heavily by Cheney and the Bush Administration - hardly paleocons.
The true Paleocon mag is The American Conservative  that is inspired and that Pat Buchanan is/was involved with.  You can tell by reading the list of their contributors and their "about us" section of their page.  
Rhallanger 02:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paleocon Magazines - which ones? 

message: It's important to include the immigration topic, so I tried to remove the POV rhetoric and make it factual.  This article is about American paleos, not Europeans, and we can drop the discussion of Muslims in Europe as irrelevant and misleading. Rjensen 00:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning up POV regarding immigration

message: Re: Foreign policy concerns... "In the 1930s the Old Right hated Japan and were less reluctant to go to war with that country..." I have great difficulty understanding the merit of this statement, or why it was inserted. It doesn't even make sense. It should be dropped. RS
::The sentence means that isolationism was focused on Europe and the the isolationists were much more willing to go to war with Japan.  That is what they said in 1941. So how should we rephrase this? Rjensen 07:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Right hated Japan

message: They did not support the Religious Right's efforts to federalize the Terri Schiavo case in 2005.  On the other hand they joined with other conservatives in denouncing Kelo v. New London, even though the Supreme Court came down on the side of local decision-making.
::Not to cast dispersion on the validity of this statement... but it is related civil society, and digging into nuances seems to be a bit extraneous. While states' rights obviously means paleos do not support federalizing the Schiavo case in Florida, all the same I do not recollect paleo speakers coming out in opposition to the Christian Coalition-Family Research Council crowd advocating the federalizing of the case. It seems extraneous IMHO. RS
The Schiavo case divided conservatives and the article just says which side the paleos took.  That seems reasonable enough considering the enormous attention that case received. I do find it strange that most paleos opposed the Supreme Court in the Kelo case. The Supreme Court said states and local governments can make their own decisions, and the Feds will not intervene. That is the Supreme Court came out for states rights and the paleos said, not this time" Rjensen 17:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough-- It should stay... though I italicized the case ;)
The reference in this section to "sociologist Robert Nisbet" gives a link to a totally different Robert Nisbet.  This should be corrected. Theoldanarchist 07:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paleoconservatism and Civil Society

message: *Virginia Abernethy
*Ezola Foster
*Alan Keyes
*Kevin Lamb
*Michael Peroutka
*Pat Robertson
*Peter Viereck
*American Conservative Union	 	
*The Constitution Party	 	
*John Birch Society	 	
*Council of Conservative Citizens
*The American Renaissance
*The Occidental Quarterly
*Council of Conservative Citizens
All of these were removed, with the notation (Many of those listed were either anti-intellectual third party and/or racist activists, and some like Pat Robertson or Alan Keyes shouldn't merit discussion) Is it impossible to be racist or third-party and paleoconservative at the same time? -Willmcw 17:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, Peroutka is paleo-. I may not have voted for him. By your exemption of third party candidate rationale, are you going to take Buchanan off too, because he had a third party run on the Reform Party ticket in 2000? I think you get my point. I don't understand your rationale. Other than that-- I agree with some of your other removals. Rsetliff 09:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless anyone can give specific reasons to keep these people and groups off the lists, I'll restore them. -Willmcw 05:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominent paleos 

message: Goldwater late in life became something of a libertarian, but from the late 1950s to the 1980s he was one of the two or three most prominent paleos in national politics.
::Interesting fact about Goldwater, but all the same, it seems extraneous to amplify the previous sentence anymore. After all, the section is about foreign policy. And even referencing his prominence in national politics at the time may be extraneous. The paleo- movement may have been lending support to Goldwater, but his prominence as a paleo- figure is questionable. He tended to echo classical liberal themes, and was a conservative no doubt in much same way as Reagan. Conservatism is not an ideology as Russell Kirk says, and paleoconservatism was more of a movement-- very insular, defined by certain characteristics, even narrow at the early twentieth-century. I think one of its defining hallmarks is its non-characteristic interventionist foreign policy. That paleos- make alliances (i.e, paleolibertarians, Goldwater camp) is conceded, but I think we are reaching a stage where too many are fishing for new paleos-. I think we should stir clear of more exceptions to non-interventionism place in here, because it is becoming a misplaced emphasis away from non-interventionism, and it deemphasizes a vital pillar of paleos. The remarks about Taft are on the mark. Perhaps now it should be trimmed a little. Rsetliff 12:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is isolationism central to paleo thought? It was important in the 1930s and 2000's, but they did NOT talk much about it during Goldwater's heyday (about 1958-1970s).  They DID pay close attention to Goldwater and he was their leader in Washington.  We'd best not ignore that.  It has been explored in numerous books (Perlstein and McGirr, for example) Rjensen 00:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The paleos were not especially prominent in the 1960s, true. But they were there.  These people did not suddenly appear aged 55 years old with no past history. Pat Buchanan's father was a leader of the isolationist movement around 1940. Rjensen 14:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Barry Goldwater and Foreign Policy

message: There is also an alternative school of thought among paleocons on this issue, especially among its more libertarian element, who, while not exactly celebrating "open borders", are opposed to the notion of an American nationalism which is definitive to the Buchanan view.  Authors such as Clyde Wilson and Thomas DiLorenzo often use the term "nationalism" to describe the outlook and policies of Lincoln and his predecessors in the Federalist and Whig Parties.  In the modern context, they often use the word "nationalism" in a context not at all unlike that of most on the left.
::This statement is extraneous, and its applicability to immigration policy is highly questionable. Moreover, while I understand what the poster is trying to say... the context of nationalism has more to do with nationalism vis-a-vis federalism as it was framed in the constitutional debates of 1787. It was basically the idea of a wholly national polity (i.e., like that advocated by monocrats/nationalists like Hamilton, McClurg, Paterson, Wilson) versus a federal polity and the idea of divided sovereignty. Clyde Wilson might criticize Madison for having his cake in eating it too-- for his having it both ways in Federalist #39- (i.e., it is a federal act, it is a national act)... But all the same, none of this is relevant to immigration. Erik Kuehnelt-Leddihn said, "Patriotism not nationalism is the ideal attachment." Yeah I agree. Why can't paleoconservatism be seen for its uniqueness, instead of constant parallels being made with the American Left? Rsetliff 09:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pleasae sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes ("~"). Thanks, -Willmcw 21:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Immigration Policy

message: Will BeBack: Did you mean to delete the John Birch Society when you were reverting that uncommented text deletion earlier? If so, why? If not, I'll be happy to add it back. Dick Clark 23:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Birch Society 

message: Why have we added this article to :Category:Terri Schiavo? The connection seems tenuous. -Will Beback 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: The Paleo-conservative movement, in contemporary terms, is non-interventionist with regards to its foreign-policy philosophy.  In this respect, Paleo-conservatism is not opposed to multi-laterialism, but opposed to the Neo-conservative philosophy of uni-laterialism.  Neo-conservatives are not in favor of internationalist agreements and treaties and so forth; rather, they advocate the imposition of America's political will upon other nations, through force, if necessary. Paleo-conservatives were opposed to the invasion of Iraq while Neo-conservatives strongly supported the preemptive war, and conceived of a Straussian 'Nobel Lie,' in order to acquire public support for the colonization of Iraq.  
Russell Cole
::I disagree Russell, paleos are by no means supportive of multilateralism. They tend to favor disengagement from the world, though maintenance of diplomatic relations is assumed. At most, some paleos, might support a hemispheric defense concept like the Monroe Doctrine. Rsetliff 09:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quite an accurate Description of Paleoconservatism 

message: I've wrote a considerable part of this overall article, and broke it down into subtopics adding five topics. I'm generally satisified with the direction it has taken, and its veracity particularly in contrast to the main article on conservatism which is lacking considerably.
However, the Religious Right tends to be more associated with the Christian Coalition, mainstream evangelicals like Falwell, and they tend to be more acclimated to neoconservatism. Read Ralph Reed's Active Faith if you doubt me. It's not to say that paleos are not religious Christians-- most are-- but there conservatism is more reflective and imbued with Burkean influences, and they tend to disparage the incessant obsession with values promotions by the religious right. Paleos may see a broader spiritual problem in America, and that won't be remedied merely by butressing the number of GOP politicians that espouse their support for family values and the sanctity of life. Moreover, the so called Religious Right are peculiar reactionaries and do not fathom that the blurred lines between society and state are at the root of a lot of socio-cultural problems. They are against the liberal conception of a separation of church and state, but what they propose is hardly any better, such as G.W. Bush's so called faith-based initiatives. As such this statement should be removed:
::They are not closely tied to the business community but often are to the Religious Right. Neoconservatives, by contrast, are more consensus-oriented, pragmatic and lend their support to a more activist internationalist foreign policy.
The second part I could hardly disagree with-- but it's tied to the first statement. Rsetliff 09:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Right 

message: In terms of media, paleoconservatives typically agree with sentiments expressed in The American Conservative and Chronicles. They disagree with sentiments expressed in the Weekly Standard and, since the early 1990s, National Review.
Bias, unverifiable, and assumes too much about the reader's knowledge of these publications. Removed. Anything else need to be taken out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTrueSora (talk • contribs) 00:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was poorly-worded, but I think the editor was trying to say that The American Conservative and Chronicles are the leading Paleocon journals. If those are not he leading journals, then what are? -Will Beback 03:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move NPOV In Opening 

message: Not sure how to go about this, but it feels like it needs some rewriting so that it comes from a more neutral pov. Consider:
Where immigration allows foreigners into a nation, it then becomes a domestic policy concern. Cultural cohesiveness and some degree of cultural homogeneity are considered indispensable to paleos. Granted, many paleos are apt to celebrate differences and vibrant regional cultures in America, but many are opposed to multiculturalism and runaway Third World immigration. They see our border problem averse to our interests as it threatens to displace the historic European cultural homogenity of the United States in the next half-century.
'our border problem' hardly sounds like an encyclopaedia. Does anyone feel up to fixing this? ManicParroT 09:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed that. However since this appears to be a chiefly-U.S. movement it will inevitably be biased. If there is more non-U.S. material available please let us know. Thanks, -Will Beback 09:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sounds American 

message: When did Issiah Berlin write about paleocons? 03:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed! 

message: :I require sources for content.  I'm neutral on whether that source says that paleos are pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage.  All I care about is that it is a reliable source.  Instead of protesting that I want this article to abide by policy, why don't you find a reliable source which says that paleos are anti-gay marriage? -Psychohistorian 20:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abiding by policy isn't exactly "complex material".  I fail to see why some people have so much trouble with it.  You've got three sources for one piece of content.  Okay, you've got countless more pieces of content to go.-Psychohistorian 22:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to drop to your level of making this personal (e.g. "crying for a mediator").  If you can't abide by policy, that's your personal problem. -Psychohistorian 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You are talking about sources you provided AFTER I pointed out that the original claim was unsourced.  Every claim needs to be sourced or it can be removed by anyone.  THAT'S policy in black and white.  My fault so far is that I haven't just deleted all the unsourced comments, though I've said I would.  I'll do that now. -Psychohistorian 23:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paleos For Gay Rights?

message: You didn't answer the question! 
Where does policy say that every proper noun must be sourced?
Yakuman 23:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should learn to look policy up for yourself, but since you don't seem able to do that yet, here's the relevant policies, "It is essential to the quality and integrity of Wikipedia that all articles be based on information collected from verifiable sources. Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly...The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia. If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner." from WP:NOR
"One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors...The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth...The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic...Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long," WP:Verifiability -Psychohistorian
Quoting policy does not answer the question.  You are demanding cites on EVERY COMMON NOUN and you refuse to discuss the point.  Look at the neoconservatism article.  It has a fraction of the cites present on this article and I see no controversy over the lack of cites.  I see nothing in the above quotes which states that EVERY COMMON NOUN must be cited. Yakuman 02:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hyperbole doesn't do you any favors.  You keep insisting that I'm insisting on a source for every proper noun, but that's not true.  Take the following sentenc, "They see the neoconservatism as a movement of empire-builders and themselves as defenders of a lost republic, pointing to Rome as an example of how an ongoing campaign of militay expansionism can destroy a republic".  EVERY COMMON NOUN would include "neoconservatism", "movement", "empire-builders" "defenders", "republic", "Rome", "example", "campaign", and "military expansionism" in that sentence.  I've not asked for sources for all of those.  I'm trying to figure out how anyone with an education which includes reading comprehension skills could miss that fact.-Psychohistorian 02:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Psycho Historian Gets The Scissors

message: 1.) Okay, I meant EVERY PROPER NOUN.  You want EVERY PROPER NOUN sourced.
2.) I had a run-in with those mediators you picked (on another subject) and got a screenful of defamation and threats.  Is this the best conflict resolution you could find?
3.) Why do I keep thinking there's either a political agenda or an harassment campaign at work here?
Yakuman
*Its still patently obvious that I'm looking for every claim to be sourced, not every proper noun.
*If you had mentioned that you don't find those mediators agreeable earlier, we could have gone through another route.  I'm still fine with going another route.  But I've found the RfC course to be incredibly -slow-.
*I don't know why you keep thinking there's either a political agenda or an harassment campaign at work here.  Paraonoia?  I'd like to point out that I'm not the one who chose to make this personal with comments like "whining to mediators" and referring to my username as "Psycho historian".-Psychohistorian 11:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Every Proper Noun

message: *The George W. Bush article contains no source for the fact that he is the US President.  Does that need a citation?
*The United States article contains no source for the fact that the capital is Washington, DC.  Does that need a citation?
*The Elizabeth II  article contains no source for the fact that she is queen of the UK.  Does that need a citation?Yakuman 23:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Questions for Psychohistorian

message: Can palecons or neocons really be translated properly outside North America?  Isn't a British paleocon like a Spanish Gaulist? JASpencer 21:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably best to deal in citation requests for now.  After this has settled down I'll return to the wording.  I think of the Paleos as being an essentially American phenemona, like the neocons.  JASpencer 20:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well that's not what the introduction says: "Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) refers to a branch of American conservative thought that is often called the Old Right." My emphasis.  JASpencer 22:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Paleocons? 

message: There is a RfC on whether all disputed content in Paleoconservative needs to have a source
:one one side of the debate, 
*"NOWHERE on Wikipedia is the extent of citations you demand enforced"
from Yakuman
:on the other side of the debate, 
*WP:V states quite clearly: "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." 
from JASpencer
:NB.  As I've been quoted here I do think that there is a problem with over aggresive deleting.  Can't the deletion be done gradually?  JASpencer 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the discussion is whether or not sources are even needed.  Yakuman has stated countless times that they are not (see his quote in this RfC).  Once we can establish that they are needed, we can discuss what a proper rate is for putting them in or deleting the unsourced content.  There was no aggressive deletion until after the  tags and source tags were repeatedly removed.-Psychohistorian 00:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Disputed content is not "content that someone argues runs counter to reality".  Disputed content is any content that is disputed.  I am disputing the content on the grounds that it doesn't have a source and, so, is against Wiki policy. -Psychohistorian 11:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue is remarkably simple.  Does WP:Verifiability (one of the three pillars of Wiki policy) state, "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false.".
Note, this says nothing about any semantic game regarding the definition of "disputed".
If the policy does say this (and I encourage you to read the entire policy yourself as you don't seem to have done so yet), does it have the words "..just kidding" behind it? As for my own personal interests, I'm neutral with regards to paleoconservatism.  I'm not neutral on the issue of making this article comply with policy and moving this article towards featured article status.-Psychohistorian 14:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I used the word "disputed", but I have rested my case on policy.  I'm not looking to get dragged into an off topic arguement.  The relevant arguement is about what Wikipedia policy is.  I came to this particular topic through a couple of links which started out in the Center for Immigration Studies article.  I was browsing out from that article (I browse around on Wikipedia and have worked on a variety of articles) and stumbled across this one and realized just how much of a mess it is.  Is this relevant somehow?  "Why are you distracting those who do have an interest" - am I distracting you by working on making the article verifiable and policy compliant?  If thats the case, then I question what your goals are here. -Psychohistorian 14:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd be very happy for an admin to step in here.  I've already made a request for one to step in.  In the meantime, I am following the advice of a member of the mediation cabal as well as the advice given to me by the Village Pump to do an RfC.  The advice given on the issue by neutral third parties from the outside, so far, has been that this content needs to be sourced.-Psychohistorian 16:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment 

message: * I did not say that sources are not needed.  I submit there is an extraordinarily high number now, probably more than necessary, and that what Psychohistorian wants is overkill.
* I submit that if anyone has a legitimate concerns what has been written, that they raise the issues here on a case-by-case basis.
* I submit that Psychohistorian does not have legitimate concerns.  He wants every possible proposition sourced -- short of the reality of the material universe and the existence of other minds.
* A living, breathing professional paleocon has no major problems with the article. While I realize that Wikipedia ordinarily does not give priority to specialists, I submit we should take his word for it, at least in this present dispute. Yakuman 04:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't up to you to decide what a legitimate concern is.  It is up to you to abide by policy.
And, as already mentioned, what an authority on the subject has to say has no bearing unless it can be sourced.
In short, you all are making a deliberate attempt to ignore policy.  I am trying to make sure this article is compliant with policy.  That is the debate - whether this article has to comply with Wikipedia policy or not. -Psychohistorian 11:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, we are debating policy.  One doesn't judge "thoroughly" by the number of citations.  One judges it by whether all claims are sourced. -17:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment 2.0

message: I came here from the Village Pump post, not the RfC.  If a citation does not support the article text, then the citecheck tag is appropriate.  Also, I agree with the demand for thorough citations (although flexibility on the time frame would be more realistic).  Featured articles must be cited thoroughly and every article should aspire to that standard. Durova 13:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Both sides of this debate agree that articles should be thoroughly cited.  We're arguing over the extent of citations on an article that already has over 100 of them.  Hope this helps.  Yakuman 16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Thoroughly" means -thoroughly-.  Its not judged by how many citations there are.  It is judged by making sure that all claims are properly sourced.  The article does not cite all its claims and you have consistently removed tags which point out that fact.  What's more, several of the sources which are in the article right now don't support the claims you are using them for. -Psychohistorian 16:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My comment was, "You've got three sources for one piece of content. Okay, you've got countless more pieces of content to go".  There are countless unsourced claims in this article.  You need to provide a minimum of enough citations so that every claim is properly sourced.  That's policy.  We have an RfC on whether or not this article needs to comply to policy.  The response has been "yes".-Psychohistorian 17:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You need a citation for every disputed claim of fact.  If Psychohistorian disputes countless facts, then you need countless citations.  TheronJ 14:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What does "thoroughly" mean?

message: Two items for discussion:
1. "Anti-authoritarian" may not be an entirely accurate description of paleoconservatism, because paleos, while opposing the centralization of political, economic, and social power, are also concerned with the tendency to undermine legitimate authority.  This was, in fact, the central theme of the January 2005 issue of Chronicles, which we titled "The Twilight of Authority"--a reference to the book of the same title by Robert Nisbet.
2. While paleoconservatism has some (indeed, many) roots in the Old Right, it is not entirely accurate to say that it seeks to "revive" the Old Right.  As many paleocons (most notably Sam Francis and Tom Fleming) have argued, paleoconservatism has its own set of concerns that overlap with, but are not completely identical to, those of the Old Right.  --Scott P. Richert
Thanks!  Hey, I make a small change to reflect some of your verbiage.  As to anti-authoritarianism, I see your concern.  Here's my thinking:  I'm using the current Wikipedia definition, which is  "opposition to... [the] concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people".  I felt calling paleos "right wing" instead of "conservative" is more clear.  So I needed need some adjective modifying "right wing" to distingish paleocons from people like Oswald Mosley, William Joyce, and Willis Carto.  As always, this is a work in progress, so discussion is good.  Yakuman 16:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good.  Using the current Wikipedia definition, "anti-authoritarian" seems an accurate description.  (And we all know I'm all about semantics!)  --Scott P. Richert
I've added James Kalb to the list of paleocons because he 1.) identifies himself as a palecon, 2.) was active on the newsgroups in the 90s, writing several FAQs reflecting paleo ideas, 3.) ran the old "Tuesday Night Traditionalists" club in New York City and 4.) writes paleo articles for Modern age. Yakuman 16:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a Polish encyclopedia article that backs up your claim re: Kalb.  Feel free to use it.  (By the way, the article is also a good second source for many of the things that Psychohistorian has previously challenged.)  --Scott P. Richert
Psycho wants countless citations, which is not humanly possible.  Yakuman 19:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial Description