Life in the Old Right by Murray Rothbard

One problem with labeling ideological movements "old" or "new" is that inevitably, with the passage of time, the "new" becomes an "old" and the markers get confusing. In the modern, post-World War II right wing, there have been a number of "news" and "olds" over the past half-century. But what I call the "Old Right" has an excellent claim to that label; for it was the original, oldest right, and it was in many ways radically different from all the rights that have followed after its demise.

Nationalism Old and New by Samuel Francis

In the course of American history, nationalism and republicanism have usually been enemies, not allies. From the days of Alexander Hamilton, nationalism has meant unification of the country under a centralized government, the supremacy of the executive over the legislature, the reduction of states’ rights and local and sectional parochialism, governmental regulation of the economy and engineering of social institutions, and an activist foreign policy—expansionist, imperialist, or globalist—that costs money and requires at least occasional wars. Nationalism and its proponents have historically been Anglophiles, emulating the mercantilist dynastic state that flourished in Great Britain from the eighteenth century, and for all their claims of overcoming sectionalism and private interest, they have been identified with the Northeastern parts of the United States and its institutions—New England, New York City, the Ivy League, Big Banks and Big Business, Wall Street and Washington. The national state the nationalists defended and constructed was born with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, reached adolescence in the victory of the North in the Civil War, and grew to corpulent adulthood in the twentieth-century managerial state of Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson.

One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution (Palo Alto, CA: Fultus, 2006), Amazon.com $21.99.

Is secession legal under the United States Constitution? "One Nation, Indivisible?" takes a fresh look at this old question by evaluating the key arguments of such anti-secession men as Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln, in light of reason, historical fact, the language of the Constitution, and the words of America's Founding Fathers. Modern anti-secession arguments are also examined, as are the questions of why Americans are becoming interested in secession once again, whether secession can be avoided, and how an American state might peacefully secede from the Union.

Republican Rep. Virgil Goode of Virginia's Fifth District, stirred controversy when he warned in a letter to a constiuent about the consequences of "many more Muslims" being elected to Congress unless immigration policies were tightened. Goode a former Democrat turned independent turned Republican is a member of Ron Paul's Liberty Committee, and has a reputation has a pro-life, pro-Christian, fiscal conservative in the House.

Creating Equal? It's Just Not Possible
by Ryan Setliff

I simply don't believe that anybody is equal period. There is no divine "Thou shall be equal" command, despite how innate and sacrosanct such a postulate is to modern man's egalitarian intuition. “Equality as a moral or political imperative, pursued as an end in itself—Equality, with the capital ‘E’—is the antonym of every legitimate conservative principle,” declares Mel Bradford. Contrary to the egalitarian fantasies of liberals, it is the height of folly to even bother distinguishing between equality of opportunity and equality of condition. There are no equal starts in the race of life nor are there equal results. Besides, “only those who are equal can take equal advantage of a given circumstance,” surmises Mel Bradford. No two men — not even twin brothers — are equal whether it be an equality of intellectual faculties, physical prowess, or economic status. Even Marxism’s greatest intellectual champions in a moment of sobriety are remiss to admit that there is always going to be something to be envious or jealous of — even in an egalitarian communist society. Being “not equal” seems to be the real, inherently self-evident proposition, though the reality of inequality is obfuscated by those who see the world through the clouded lens of egalitarian ideology.

Samuel Adams made this clarion call to patriotism:

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

Many people donate to charities and churches, but fewer think about other worthy causes such as the preservation of individual liberty. After the Gospel of Jesus Christ, one of the most important causes today, in my humble opinion is the cause of freedom and liberty. In the United States, it entails upholding the Anglo-American common law tradition, enshrined in the Bill of Rights which limits government encroachment upon our rights. For this reason, you should consider investing in liberty if you have the means.

Now, how exactly does one invest in liberty? Well, first that would entail staying informed, keeping others informed, as well as speaking out against encroachments against our liberties and making your voice heard to political leaders and the rest of the world. But also, a more effective way to invest in liberty is to support pro-liberty groups, whether educational in nature, or those specializing in legal advocacy.

John Adams reminds us, "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people." Sadly, most Americans are horribly illiterate on basic civics, and are incompetent about the Bill of Rights. We're talking eighth-grade civics, which seems to hard for the average American to master or recollect. Obviously, ignorance is our adversary as well. As Jefferson judiciously surmised, "The people of every country are the only safe guardians of their own rights, and are the only instruments which can be used for their destruction. And certainly they would never consent to be so used were they not deceived. To avoid this they should be instructed to a certain degree."