Tradition v. Truth: How to Restore without Going Backwards

Pedro Gonzalez
introduced me to Samuel Francis, and from there I read his fantastic book Beautiful
Losers.

Francis predicted what I have been witnessing for the last
eight years, and what President Donald Trump busted up: “Conservatism” has been
corrupted into a libertarian lightweight controlled opposition, abandoning the
fundamentals of our nation’s identity, integrity, and idiosyncrasy.

Samuel Francis predicated the rise of “Middle American
Radicals” and the populist, America-First pushback against managerial elites
and globalist implications. Ron Paul fretted as far back as 2007 about the
rising soft fascism in this country, in which conformity would be the rule, and
non-government organizations would impose speech codes and other repressive
measures against those who did not conform to the will and wishes of the elite.
But Francis called out the corporate dominance long before that.

Francis’ most salient observations arise from his essay Beautiful
Losers in the same-named book that he published in 1993. He called out the
frequent failure of the Conservative movement to win the culture war. He
pointed out how Conservatives had incorporated the Gestalt of Liberalism,
in which individual liberty is the only salient feature, while culture and
constitutional concerns were brushed aside. Francis correctly exposed the
“neoconservatives” as the neo-liberals that they really were. Sure, they did
not like the rising crime rates and plummeting test sores in the inner cities.
Yet they still held onto the multicultural, affirmative-action dogma which
created those problems in the first place.

To his incredible credit, Francis called out the tacit
alliance of liberals and conservatives to focus on fighting communism and
promote individual liberty, which in turn turned into a betrayal of true constitutionalism,
Judeo-Christian conservatism, and America-First nationalism.

William F. Buckley articulated conservatism thus:

“A conservative is someone who stands athwart history,
yelling ‘Stop!’, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much
patience with those who so urge it.”

Samuel Francis pointed out who the Left and other liberal
interests had conveniently found ways to get around the Conservative Crank
shouting “Stop!”, all while praising Mr. Stop Sign’s political convictions.
Even though conservatives opposed abortion, homosexual marriage, gun control,
economic restrictionism, socialism, and Marxist groupthink in the colleges, all
the major institutions in our culture, community, and country have given into
these forces.

Yes, conservatives need to yell “Stop!” but they also have
to actually stop the nefarious elements causing harm when they don’t stop. And
Francis called them out on it.

Hence, the mess we find ourselves in today, a mess which President
Trump, with his Francis-Buchanan populist instincts began taking the first
steps to clean up.

Samuel Francis’ thinking is making a comeback and for good
reason.

He also needs to make a comeback to remind us why he
disappeared, and why it made sense at the time that he went away.

Samuel Francis predicted the populist backlash to the
managerial elites ruining our country.

He was absolutely correct to call out America’s growing
investment and involvement in foreign wars. He was critical of the First War in
Iraq, and his criticism would have aptly applied to George W. Bush’s second
invasion of Iraq in 2003, which he lived to see, but not end.

He was also right to question the cult-like adherence that
had cropped up around Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement as a
political hegemony. Civil rights has really turned into “civic privilege”
handed out by government entities, and in too man cases undermines true natural
rights.

But Samuel Francis would later write:

“What we as whites must do is reassert our identity and our
solidarity, and we must do so in explicitly racial terms through the
articulation of a racial consciousness as whites.”

I find this statement patently offensive. More importantly,
though, it’s based on abject falsehood. Dinesh D’Souza exposed these remarks
and other thoughts from white-nationalist aligned individuals when he attended
white nationalist Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance

What is a “white racial consciousness” anyway? Did the guy
not study the Civil War? The United States was 90% white in 1861, and the
country descended into a fractious, fearsome civil war, one which cost more
American lives than all other American military involvements combined! White
nationalists, or white racialists will argue: “That’s what happens when you
have people of a different race in your country! It causes nothing but
trouble!” However, most of these armchair (or should I say “Booster-Seat”) historians
forget that blacks were voting citizens in some of the colonies and the states.
They supported the ratification of the United States Constitution, as well.

Getting rid of all the black, Hispanic, and Asian people is
not going to solve any problems. Human nature and its propensity to faction is
deeply-rooted enough, that no matter how homogenous one makes a community,
there can be still emerge bases for strife and conflict.

Such is the genius reflection of our Founders (read The
Federalist Papers), and of the United States Constitution which James
Madison basically wrote in full.

I see a similar problem with Pat Buchanan, whose populist,
America-First pugilism was widely vindicated during the Trump Administration.

Except on a few points.

1.     Pat Buchanan had a relentless anti-Zionist
strain in his writings and commentary. Who can forget his abortive remarks on The
McLaughlin Group: “If you want to know ethnicity and power in the United
States Senate, 13 members of the Senate are Jewish folks who are from 2 percent
of the population. That is where real power is at….”

 To his credit (?), Buchanan doesn’t bitch
and moan about Israel anymore.

2.     Buchanan literally asserted in one of his books
that the reason for America’s cultural decline is that Catholics no longer
recite the Latin Mass. Seriously? In Vatican city, Latin is the official language,
and yet the current Pope is the most aggressive, ostentatious Marxist not just
in the Holy See, but on the Italian Peninsula.

3.
There is a stunning picture that Gen Z populists
love to share: Pat Buchanan wiping an old-fashioned rifle with a portrait of
Robert E. Lee looking down on him, like some corrupted form of the Godhead.

On this point, I find particular analysis needed. What is it
with these populist nationalist types and their lionizing hagiography of the
ante-Bellum South?

Most people are not aware of this, but many of the poor
Southern whites opposed the Secession movement. Many of them were too
poor to own slaves, nor did they really want to. They were frequently ignored
by politicians, who served at the beck and call of plantation interests while
ignoring the public interest. From the 1860 secession convention of South
Carolina until the final four states felt compelled to secede due to military
campaigns in their own backyards, there was a considerably unionist sentiment  through the region. Even slave owners like Sam
Houston opposed secession, and Confederate rebels deposed him for
standing with the United States.

In one of the most neglected subjects of US History, besides
the existence of black and American Indian slaveowners, there was the wide and
diverse set of white Southern unionists or anti-Secessionists.

The “Southern” way of life was not just anti-black, but it
was anti-white, and most importantly anti-American. Southern slave interests
are a mirror image of the rapacious corporate globalists who put profit ahead
of the well-being of the people. Slaveowners and plantation owners rushed 11
states into civil war to protect their own narrow corporate interests: owning
people for cheap labor and enriching themselves, even though their plantation
program ruined the ground, ruined the economy and hurt poor Southern whites as
well as blacks. The “War Between the States” was not about honor, it was not
about “restrictions on the federal government.” It wasn’t even about states’
rights, although millions of Southerners have been fed a pack of lies for
decades telling them to look up to the plantation ancestors and the soldiers
who did their corporate bidding.

Nationalist populists like Pat Buchanan and Samuel Francis
hate eternal foreign wars and foreign forays, they hate corporate raiders
putting GDP ahead of GOD, and they are definitely your “America First”
archetype commentators, and yet they praise “Southern culture.”

When they talk about Southern Culture, they are talking
about the aristocratic class-oriented, stratified societies which emerged
through the plantation system, I would imagine.

These same southern planters and classy aristocrats whom
they lionize, who defined much of ante-bellum South, were the very political,
managerial class whom Buchanan and Francis railed against in Modern America.

The “Slave Power” was a globalist operation. They often
plotted with politicians and other scurrilous elements to conquer other
countries and turn them into extensions of their plantation program of greed.

Clearly, these Southern plantation elites were NOT America
First, since they had no problem launching a Doomed-To-Fail Secessionist
movement, and with that effort organizing and enforcing some of the harshest
conscription and commandeering regions in the United States. American citizens witness
their wealth and worth wasted away by Confederate generals and soldiers,
ordered by puppeteer-politicians to take everything from them for “the cause.”

That same kind of thinking animated much of the discussion
over the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush Administration, and even
going as far back as World War One, in which another genteel Southern,
President Woodrow Wilson, justified America’s entry into the European conflict
to “make the world safe for Democracy.”

But the real question is: why do compelling thinkers and
commentators like Pat Buchanan and Samuel Francis lionize an element of people
in American History who were the antithesis of their political philosophy? Why
does their political advocacy for putting America first and foremost while
supporting a more isolationist foreign policy also lend itself to a subtle or
over white nationalism?

The regressive left and their corporate media acolytes will
charge that “America First” or “Domestic Focus on the United States” and
“Foreign Policy Isolationism” are inherently racist. In other words, the fall
for the same lazy thinking as Francis and Buchanan themselves.

I cannot offer a systematic explanation, but I will hazard
one educated guess as to why there are these conflicting advocacies among
nationalists and populists: the focus on Tradition as the catch-all answer to
everything, rather than looking for a truthful synthesis to the data before
them in the historical record.

Human thought tends to aggregate a set of propositions under
one label, then wants to answer all the other policy, personnel, and
fundamental questions under the same label. If you see yourself as a
nationalist and a populist, then you have to support welfare for American
citizens only, for example. Yet government subsidy of any kind harms the very
people it claims to help (read Charles Murray’s On Losing Ground for
more information).

Some nationalist-populist types are pushing for minimum wage
increases, government-run healthcare (Medicaid expansions or even single-payer
programs) because they want the government to “serve the people.” However,
making the people dependent on the government only serves … the government, or
the people who are running the government. The lack of thinking on these
matters is really disturbing!

This same kind of sloppy thinking induces nationalists and
populists to look at old traditions, the “Southern Way of Life,” and decide:
“Why can’t we go back to the way things used to be?”

But why would we want to go back to everything the way it
used to be? The technological advances of today did not exist then. There is so
much research and discover that we have now, that did not exist in the past.
Let’s consider a well-known quote from The Preacher in the Book of
Ecclesiastes: “Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better
than these? for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this.” (Ecclesiastes
7:10)

Buchanan and Francis seem to think that going back to a time
when the nation was “majority white” would be better for the country, since
there were fewer problems. They confuse skin color for culture, and they
misplace national identity and borders for the common glue which held the
United States together. This kind of thinking is sloppy, mistaken, and just
plain wrong.

There are many things about the United States of America’s
fundamental, credal heritage. The United States is a country based on the
Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, the Judeo-Christian heritage, and Constitutional
Republicanism. Indeed, we need to restore those values, but they are not “white
values,” and restoration is not an invitation to go backwards, but rather to
move forwards and improve this country.

If we want to stop The Revolution of 1917 or George Orwell’s
1984, we need to restore the Spirit of 1776! Pat Buchanan and Sam
Francis, and other nationalist-populist types, lost touch with that fundamental
verity.