The last remnants of authentic conservatism over at National Review are struggling mightily against the Neocon takeover of that time-honored institution: when the Frumkin published his attack on antiwar conservatives and libertarians, there was dissent in the ranks, or so I hear, but it was silenced. After all, the war had just begun, the Dark Lord and his Nazgul were riding high, and the shadow of Mordor hung over the land. Yet, here and there, a bright spark of Old Right-ish luminescence lit up the darkness: there was good old John Derbyshire, the magazine’s Resident Grump, whose views are so politically incorrect that he defies any and all attempts to categorize him politically or in any other way: an anti-immigrant immigrant, a gay-basher who nevetheless seems like a live-and-let-live kinda guy, an Englishman who is, now that he’s an American, a patriot through and through. He’s been touting Ron Paul for weeks on NR’s blog, “The Corner,” and finally came out with an endorsement, much to The Goldberg’s dismay.

And it isn’t just The Derb—today, David Freddoso, who has defended Rep. Paul in the past from the most unfair attacks, also endorsed him just a few hours ago.

In what has to be the most unqualified case of chutzpah ever to be recorded, The Goldberg attacks Paul for … not being a consistent libertarian! This, from someone who works for a magazine that has endorsed Mitt Romney! Are we to be spared nothing? Why is Paul supposedly inconsistent in his libertarianism? According to Jonah, it’s because he doesn’t call for the immediate abolition of the Social Security system, and his program of going after the military-industrial complex instead of old folks hooked up to life support machines. That’s right, Jonah—why cut off those poor deserving welfare recipients at Boeing and Haliburton, when we can knock off Grandma Kettle instead?!

The Goldberg has written a piece on Paul for National-Review-on-Dead-Tree, available here, and this really gets to the heart of the matter. Goldie is pretty soft on Ron when it comes to domestic issues, and I even detect a sneaking admiration for Dr. No—but when it comes to foreign policy and the military, the Neocons can’t hide their true selves. Because Paul doesn’t advocate conquering the Middle East on behalf of Israel—or the rest of the world on behalf of Halliburton (or just for fun)—he is one of those dreaded “isolationists” who want to “dismantle the military.” No, Jonah, nobody wants to dismantle the military—we’ll need it to defend the Union from Neocon secessionists when Ron takes office—we Paulians (Paulites? Paulistas?) just want to make sure it stays within its constitutional bounds. That is, we want to keep America a republic, and are fighting to make sure it doesn’t become an empire. Oh, but America isn’t an empire, Jonah avers—we just want to keep “international trade” rolling onward. Oh really—by imposing trade sanctions on anyone we don’t like? Not hardly.

America is an empire, and it will be our downfall if we insist on maintaining this global burden—for a burden it truly is. An albatross hung ‘round our necks that will drag us down if we let it. More Americans are coming to realize the fate that awaits us if we don’t listen to the sage advice the Founders left to us, and that is precisely why the Paul campaign is taking off—yes, even within the precincts previously won by the neocons.

Idle speculation corner: With the flight of John Podhoretz from “The Corner”—over to Commentary, where he really belongs—and the rise of the Paulians within the castle walls, could we re-take the citadel itself?