One point often raised against what I will broadly refer to as the “anti-liberal tradition” is that it lacks intellectual, if not moral, seriousness. There is a whiff of truth in that claim, just as there is an element of truth embedded in observations that liberalism—and those who champion that ideology—are intellectually timid, complacent, and devoid of any horizon which stretches beyond their individualistic self-satisfaction. Anti-liberalism, which comes in many different forms and encompasses persons and movements with greater-or-lesser degrees of antipathy toward liberalism, has shifted courses many times over the past three centuries. With the last vestiges of the old regime now swept away, anti-liberal movements are compelled to either start anew, looking to the past while fixing their sights on the future, or—as is too often the case—desirous of taking up the mantle of socio-political movements which were not so much lacking in seriousness as they were overflowing with evil. Some today, understandably disillusioned with contemporary political realities, flee to whatever they can find. If they happen to be Christian—Catholic or Orthodox—they might seek refuge in an integralist position that is either principled or escapist. If they happen to harbor a distrust of religion, specifically the Christian religion, then there is always the so-called “New Right,” along with any number of unsavory racialist and nationalist organizations. Why people make the choices that they do cannot, in my estimation, be reduced to a handful of causal factors, though certainly these types of orientations, which are “fringe” by their very nature, have a tendency to draw in socially marginalized individuals. At the same time, these movements can also attract bright, well-educated young people who, out of boredom more than principle, find the anti-liberal posture congenial even if their daily lives reflect very little of the sacrifice which such a posture should entail if it were serious.