

Right-Wing Radicalization May Begin by Reading J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis
Anti-terrorism preventative unit faces backlash after ludicrous categorization of Christian and conservative classics.
Anti-terrorism preventative unit faces backlash after ludicrous categorization of Christian and conservative classics.
Burke failed the test of his era’s truly conservative, and therefore, truly radical, struggle: saving and updating the commons as locus of virtuous sociability and preservation of identity.
In what turned out to be his last public homily, delivered three days before he died, Cardinal Pell referred to the “heritage of Wojtyla and Ratzinger.” In addition to being courageous teachers of the Catholic faith, they were, Pell said, also “Europeans, examples of men with profound knowledge of the high culture of the Western world.”
Christians, whatever their religious divisions, should work together to undermine and ultimately destroy the liberal and progressivist supremacy that dominates the West, recognising that it marks a settlement incompatible with even a basic Biblical worldview.
The letter’s vision of universality tries to argue for the nation as an important element of a universal moral and ethical vision, but by skipping over the nation entirely when it describes the common good rising from families to the international realm, it reveals its bias against it.
It is very difficult to argue for the Burkean Contract. If one sees oneself as a morally isolated, radical individual for whom history means nothing and for whom nothing is owed to the future, no amount of disputation will let in the light.
In this massive study, Gregory Collins is able to smoothly blend Burke’s economic thought with his thoughts on politics and human nature.
The legacy of 20th century history has left the Right in Central Europe questioning what we are meant to conserve after 40 years of communism. Our task is not so much to preserve traditions, but to reawaken them and to establish new ones. This approach is more reactionary; Central European conservatism is combative, because it has to be.
Hayek’s ingenious arguments against a centrally run economy are equally devastating to the idea of a centrally run bio-security state.
What then is the conservative approach to the question of foreign policy intervention? The answer is reassuringly inconclusive: it depends.