Freudians@TAC
Friday, May 2, 2008 — John SavageWhile I’m bemoaning the sellout to modern vulgarity at paleocon publications: Does this post serve any other purpose than to promote the idea that social conservatives are, as they say, “fixated” on homosexuality? Or that “people who hate homosexuals are probably homosexual themselves”, and the pro-war conservatives at Conservapedia are spending a lot of time “hating” homosexuals, ergo neocons are homosexual?
I understand that Conservapedia is probably viewed by many paleos as a neocon project, which may be the case, but this post uses leftist premises to argue the point.
(By the way, even the liberal Wikipedia admits, “What is believed to be an automated click bot attack struck Conservapedia, driving many of their homosexuality-related articles into the top ten most viewed pages on the site.” TAC’s post is thus no more than gossip, regardless of one’s opinion of Freud’s theories.)
Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 3:23 am
TAC is always trying on leftist attitudes, it’s like a fun new frisson for them. They found common cause with the Left in some big ways (legitimate ones, eg the war), then they increasingly tried out some other ways (eg animal rights) and now they’ll try anything, eg social con baiting. It’s a novel thrill. They also wish for some appreciation from the Left.
Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 9:28 am
Yes, Auster had made that criticism before, and I didn’t take it too seriously because Auster is always looking for excuses to put down the paleocons, especially for “hating Israel”. Some of the other “deviations” from movement conservatism were also things where they were clearly making a “Christian” case — which even if it was badly argued, didn’t betray bad motives. At worst it just showed they were strongly influenced by the ideas coming out of the Vatican. But there’s really no explanation for what they’ve done here, other than, as you say, “appreciation from the Left”.
Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 12:36 pm
The blog at TAC has become, in effect, conservativewatch.blogspot. Almost every post by bloggers like Clark Stooksbury involves a quote from a conservative or Republican followed by a glib remark and a put down. Many of these new paleos have nothing to say. At least the older ones had ideas and interesting observations to balance their criticisms of neocons and mainstream conservatives.
I’ve noticed in the last year a number of occasions when paleos have ridiculed conservatives who don’t buy the Left/MSM view on global warming. Yet these smug paleos can’t be bothered telling us why the conservatives are wrong on this issue. I’ve concluded the paleos in question - including Stooksbury - enjoy feeling morally superior to mainstream conservatives. It is just like when they talk about the need to preserve the culture of the West then turn around and dismiss as cretins anyone who care about the genetic stock of the West. They are in danger of becoming nothing more than moral poseurs.
Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Matra, I suppose they say, “any institution not explicitly right-wing becomes left-wing over time.” TAC was started not so much to support right-wing ideas, as to oppose the Iraq War. On issues other than the war, you can find all kinds of different points of view represented there. Sometimes that’s interesting, but it does leave me wondering whether there’s any sense of mission there on issues other than foreign policy.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 8:50 pm
TAC, takimag, and similar fence walkers make zero sense to me.
They hint at racialism, and then they attack it. It’s… nutty.
You’ve got John Zmirak posting there who does not see race and beside him you have Marcus Epstein (who isn’t a racialist but is brilliant enough to recognise the common interest) and most recently an article on Enoch Powell.
It’s nutty. And TAC… Buchanan is basically a closeted WN, who isn’t so much in the closet anymore.
I guess it’s tough being among the few sane WN, an endangered species if there ever were one, but these border walking groups… again = zero sense to me.
Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I think you are wrong on this one.
The relationship of “right” politicians to homosexuality/pedophilia/pederasty is uncomfortable (for Republicans, not me) to talk about and evidence repressed but certainly not tenuous.
Have you ever heard of Conspiracy of Silence?
Maybe normal folk like you and me aren’t obsessed with faggotry, but these upper crust blue-bloods seem to be.
Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 7:39 pm
DanielJ, not sure I understand what you are getting at here. First, are you saying I’m wrong, or Frank is?
I agree that there may well be a considerable number of homosexuals in the neoconservative movement, who are trying on a hypermasculine pose to hide it. Maybe I am going too far in reading Freudianism into the folks at TAC.
Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Wow!
Sorry for totally misunderstanding what you were getting at. I glanced too quickly at your post and missed the substance of what you were saying.
I don’t think it is necessarily Freudian to assert that the neocons fixation on homosexuality (legislation, stirring up the base with the issue) has something to do with their practice of it. (i.e. young male pages, rape/molestation cases, et cetera)
I agree it is probably unnecessary to include the post in any form in the paper publication (due to the vulgarity you condemn) in its current form, but I don’t see what is wrong with commenting on the fact that there is a lot of sexual misconduct of a homosexual nature amongst the Republican party and committed “right-wingers” who denounce the practice most vehemently.
Are the folks at TAC engaging in discussion simply because of their own fixation? The childishness of the post might lend some credence to that notion since it certainly makes a mockery of an important issue.
Now I feel fixated.
By the way, I’m genuinely impressed with the blog and am quite surprised to see that we have fairly similar histories with regards to our ideological and philosophical trajectories.
Monday, May 12, 2008 at 1:32 pm
DanielJ, I think you have an argument there. Maybe I was just jumping to the first conclusion I thought of. “Fixation” is originally a Freudian concept, but I suppose we all have certain obsessions, which we sometimes call “fixations”.
It’s good to know that as you say, you’ve been through the same sort of philosophical path.