The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
NY Review of Books: "Donald Trump’s Brains"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Review of Books:

Donald Trump’s Brains
Jacob Heilbrunn DECEMBER 21, 2017 ISSUE

,,, A battle for the future of conservatism is in effect being fought between these anti-Trump conservatives and pro-Trump conservatives associated with the Claremont Institute, a right-wing think tank based in California, which for years has been discussing the Federalist Papers, the dangers of progressivism, and, above all, the wisdom of the German exile and political philosopher Leo Strauss, who taught for several decades at the University of Chicago. …

Until recently, the Claremont Institute had been seen as an outlier in the conservative firmament. For decades, the guiding spirit of Claremont was a brilliant and querulous scholar named Harry Jaffa. In 1964, Jaffa, who had been Strauss’s first disciple at the New School for Social Research and had followed him to Chicago as a student, worked on Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign as a speechwriter, and soon after joined Claremont McKenna College in California. There he cultivated what became known as “West Coast Straussians,” in opposition to “East Coast Straussians.”

His main antagonist was Allan Bloom at the University of Chicago, author of the 1987 best seller The Closing of the American Mind. A number of Bloom’s students went on to become prominent academics or government officials, including Paul Wolfowitz and Francis Fukuyama. Other East Coast Straussians include William Kristol, who studied with the conservative political philosopher Harvey C. Mansfield at Harvard, and Yuval Levin, the editor of National Affairs and the champion of the “reformicon” movement, which attempts to appeal to the middle class rather than focusing on tax cuts for the wealthy.

After Strauss’s death in 1973, the battle among his disciples over his true legacy erupted. The main subject of disagreement was the nature of the American founding. The West Coasters maintained that the Founding Fathers had created a uniquely virtuous republic marked for greatness by drawing on biblical and Aristotelian principles.2 The result was an Athens on the Potomac with Abraham Lincoln as its philosophical statesman.3 The East Coasters suggested a different and more equivocal verdict: the founding, based on liberal Lockean precepts, fostered the rise of a bustling commercial society but did no more than that. The effort was worthy but merited only a passing mark—“low but solid,” as the Straussian phrase had it. The East Coasters, who formed much of the backbone of the neocon movement, were former liberal Democrats who looked askance at Barry Goldwater and aspired to curb, not eliminate, the welfare state. They saw, and continue to see, immigration as a national blessing and ended up embracing a missionary view of American foreign policy.

Over the past few decades, the East Coast Straussians have enjoyed an easy dominance over their West Coast brethren. In the Trump era, however, Claremont’s reputation has been growing, as has its influence.

I’m more than a little vague on how the different flavors of Straussianism tie into Trump vs. NeverTrump.

Bloom’s Straussianism is sort of an updating of Plato’s call for philosopher-kings in The Republic, which Bloom translated. In Bloom’s view, the philosophers deserve to rule but need a facade, so they will rule through “the gentlemen” (e.g., George W. Bush). Not surprisingly, this makes for a pretty good cult with the old sage telling his young favorites that they deserve great power, although they have to be sneaky about how they exercise it.

I’m not really up to speed on Jaffa’s Straussianism.

But … my guess would be instead that the long series of bizarre Current Year incidents at Claremont Colleges contributed to the Claremont Institute crowd developing a more sophisticated awareness than the mainstream boys.

Just as the 2006 Duke Lacrosse Hoax was central to the new awareness of Trump speechwriter Stephen Miller, the 2004 hate hoax in which a Claremont McKenna professor named Kerri F. Dunn tried to frame her Straussian male students in a hate crime probably opened a lot of eyes among Claremont conservatives. My 2004 article in The American Conservative, “Claremont Hate Hoax” was one of the earlier uses of that alliterative term.

Since then I’ve tracked a long series of crazy things happening at the Claremont Colleges. For example, there was the Harvey Mudd STEM college’s decision to walk the walk when it comes to diversity and inclusion by letting in a whole bunch of unqualified minority coeds, who promptly melted down emotionally. Or there was the time recently when whites were banned from a geology class at Pomona (Claremont’s flagship).

 
Hide 159 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. In the left’s eyes, “diversity” means fewer white people (males)

    In our eyes, it should be half of all university faculties in the country becoming rightist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jb
    Diversity also means fewer men and more women. It also means fewer straight people and more gays. In fact what it always means is fewer of the "oppressors" and more of the "oppressed." This is because the Left sees the world entirely in terms of oppression, and sees its sacred mission as identifying the evil oppressors and fighting against them on behalf of the innocent oppressees. That is what the world is about, full stop.

    Not that oppression never happens of course! But this perspective does mean that the left is blind to other axes that also explain the world: in particular, the rather important achiever/loser axis.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Steve,

    I became suspicious of Jaffa when he set about anointing Lincoln as a demigod. It somehow or other left a bad taste in my mouth.

    It was only later that I came to realize that Lincoln was an unindicted war criminal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    It was only later that I came to realize that Lincoln was an unindicted war criminal.
     
    Well, if you want to go there, so was Robert E Lee....

    But I've grown rather tired of these post-bellum disputes. More pressing issues concern us, things like the very survival of Anglo-America.
    , @guest
    Did anyone ever take Jaffa seriously?

    Maybe I am out of the mainstream. But I remember a brilliant takedown of him on the Declaration of Independence by M.E. Bradford.
    , @Luke Lea

    I became suspicious of Jaffa when he set about anointing Lincoln as a demigod. It somehow or other left a bad taste in my mouth.
     
    For the record, I regard Lincoln as the greatest modern man. Not without sin, but close.
    , @Jack D
    All wartime leaders are war criminals but only the losers get indicted. To paraphrase Mao, a war is not a dinner party.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. There si also another school in Claremont, CA, Claremont School of Theology that produced a scholar who challenged the neocons and all the spawn of Leo Strauss the most:

    David Ray Griffin (Wilbur, Washington, born August 8, 1939)[1] is a retired American professor of philosophy of religion and theology, and a political writer. Along with John B. Cobb, Jr., he founded the Center for Process Studies in 1973, a research center of Claremont School of Theology which seeks to promote the common good by means of the relational approach found in process thought.[2] Griffin has published a number of books on the subject of the September 11 attacks, suggesting that there was a conspiracy involving some elements of the United States government.[3]

    The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9-11, Olive Branch Press, 2004

    The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Olive Branch Press, 2004

    Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action, Westminster John Knox Press, 2006,

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Griffin is a promoter of 9/11 twoofer silliness. No clue why you find that commendable.
    , @Paul Jolliffe
    Steve,

    You also need to include the Scripps College "Unofficial Survival Guide" for incoming students which includes :

    1. The ever-present gender pronoun threat
    2. Racially segregated "safe spaces"
    3. The dangers of "ableist" language, especially from "trigger warnings"
    4. The need for white students to be educated (indoctrinated/screeched at) about their innate "racism", and their need to ask for forgiveness from students of color
    5. The denial of reverse-racism (it can't exist because institutions were founded by whites)
    6. Support from the Scripps administration, including the Dean of Students and Vice President of Student Affairs (who, incidentally, identified the hashtag "#Trump2016" as "racism" and "intimidation" (!!!)

    I've usually thought of the female SJW's as ugly ducklings, angry that the boys wouldn't pay them any attention, and are therefore taking it out on society through their activism, and that seems to be true here, but at least a few of the "contributors" (pictured pages 4-9) appear to be nice-looking.

    So, what's their motivation?

    https://issuu.com/scrippsvoice/docs/the_unofficial_scripps_college_surv
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. I have enjoyed very much the roman à clef Ravelstein by Saul Bellow which is about Alan Bloom and his evolution and slow transformation form classicist in love with hellenism to Zionist in love with Judaism. Jerusalem always wins with Athens in a Jewish heart. Wolfowitz and Leo Strauss appear in the book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Ravelstein was written long after Bellow went neocon. Bloom was less in the practical political influence business than Strauss, who was at least a political philosopher. Bloom was in the humanities, though with political opinions. If you pay attention to Closing of the American Mind, he was against "engagement," professors being "with it," and subject matter being "relevant."

    Not that he stuck by that philosophy consistently. But he wasn't a fount of political influence. Not the way we're accustomed to thinking about it.

    Bellow has him talking on the phone to people in the know about the progress of the Gulf War. But not as a guru telling them what to do. Like Dr. Strangelove, or whatever. More like a friendly old professor gossiping.

    Leftists can't imagine what these sort of people were up to, but that's because their side has not been a perennial loser. Allan Bloom and Leo Strauss weren't in the game like other gurus were. They were actually interested in that old stuff professors are supposed to study. They certainly weren't trying hard to win the Culture War or gain control of the Cathedral.

    , @Art Deco
    Ravelstein was fiction. Bloom was an atheist, though not aggressive about it in the manner of Christopher Hitchens or Daniel Dennett.

    Much of the discussion of Strauss is bizarre. He wasn't a man whose concerns were worldly and he ended his days at St. John's College, a place you go if you want to sit and think. Allan Bloom was concerned with the evolution of academic life and hardly cared about topical political questions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. For being so woke, (((Miller))) sure is a cuck. His response when asked about his association with Richard Spencer at Duke was beyond cowardly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    For being so woke, (((Miller))) sure is a cuck. His response when asked about his association with Richard Spencer at Duke was beyond cowardly.
     
    Prudent, I would say. The MSM would love to get Miller's scalp. After all, he is the man who dared to mock the Lazarene Creed....
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Well at least he isn’t being totalitarian. (#291)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ_R-G_i4Xk
    , @Jack D
    Cuck is the all purpose alt-right insult. Everyone to the left of Himmler is a cuck.

    The Permanent Government/Media complex would love to deplatform and delegitimize Miller by tarring him with Spencer's Nazi brush. I don't blame Miller for not letting them. Spencer is a clown who purposely makes himself distasteful to the mainstream. This gets him a lot of attention but he will never be allowed to get within 5 decks of the levers of power while Miller is right up there on the bridge talking into the helmsman's ear. Do you really want him to exile himself to the coal bunker by claiming Spencer as his best friend? How would this help anybody?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Well, now I am excited that Angelo Codevilla, who is a fellow at the Claremont Institute, I think, may be moving to get answers to various mysteries.

    http://claremont.org/crb/article/the-chosen-one/

    Strange things have been happening recently behind the scenes that I certainly can’t keep up with.

    But if Mueller and Clapper and Brennan get investigated, all kinds of things could come out.

    It does look like we are closer to that happening than anyone would have imagined.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. It’s interesting that the NY Review of Books is attempting to study the Trump-Nationalist rise in terms not of hysterics and screams about Nazis, but as an actual movement based on intellectual arguments and social/economic grievances.

    It won’t really last; it’s more an attempt to identify hostile networks and shut them down, but it’s nice to dream that some Lefty minds can be broadened. Here’s something heartening:

    It’s true that Republicans such as Senators Bob Corker and Jeff Flake have joined the attack, but neither is seeking reelection. Even the recent GOP defeats in state elections in Virginia and elsewhere aren’t sapping the ardor for Trump among his followers; rather, it’s sharpening the debate between the pro- and anti-Trump forces inside the GOP.

    It’s like when those of us on the anti-Left noticed that the D’s are having a civil war between the Hate White faction and the NeoLiberal/Clinton/OldGuard faction, with the Bernie Bros throwing their lot to the Hate Whiteys in bitterness at the Clintons stealing the nomination from Bernie and (as many of the Bernie Bros believe) out-and-out murdering Seth Rich for leaking the DNC emails exposing this fraud.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neoconned
    I'm a Bernie bro but I didn't join the SJW.

    I figured the whole shit house was rigged and it was better to shut up and watch it burn to the ground instead of pretending these reactionary party hijackers can be salvaged....
    , @guest
    The modicum of intellectual respectability they're lending the thought behind Trumpism* comes from the fact that they're dealing with the Academy and mainstream or slightly right-of-mainstream publications. Both of which are merely stray elements of the Cathedral. They're studiously ignoring the intellectual mojo behind Trumpism, which derives from the long-simmering Middle-American Radicalism and lives on that dastardly internet.

    Which is appropriate, I'd say, because they're talking about Official Trumpism, not the alt-right. Because the alt-right's time has not yet come. There are only hints and whispers of its true nature in the mainstream.**

    *Which is something. I'm sure every neverTrumper who sees the headline will think, "What brain?"

    **A caricature of it inhabits the mainstream, of course. As ceremonially unleashed by Hillary Clinton at her historic Pepe Speech.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. I just don’t get the claim that differences over, say, immigration or invading the world should have anything to do with interpretations of some abstract theory deriving from a “philosopher” like Strauss.

    Is there no room in political philosophy for a bottom up, rather than a top down, approach? Our policy on immigration and wars should depend on what some intellectual bloviator has to say, rather than the obvious merits or defects of particular immigration policies, or particular kinds of war?

    Frankly, the top down approach to these sort of massively empirical questions strikes me as crackpot. I’d rather consult crystals than a philosophical theory on matters like these.

    Read More
    • Agree: Almost Missouri, Abe
    • Replies: @guest
    Yes, the problem with the top-down analysis can be found, for instance, in how anti-war libs erected Leo Strauss as a neocon god. Literally, they had satirical plays where members of the Bush administration worshipped his image. All because, why? Some of his students, or people surrounding him at the University of Chicago, were neocons and ended up being architects of war.

    But you can't find a case for American empire in Strauss' writings, or a case for the invasion of Iraq. And you probably can't find the inspiration for the alt-right, because it's not there. When you look for superficial "relevance," you end up with nonsense like his thoughts on esoteric writing (meaning simply philosophers fearing persecution will stick messages "between the lines") and Plato's Noble Lie inspired lies about WMDs.

    Strauss was a classicist and political philosopher rather detached from current events. His acolytes may have been less so. But they weren't "engaged" in the manner of acolytes of leftist professors, for instance. He didn't send them out with marching orders. They got that, if they got it, from elsewhere.

    Straussians are simply the biggest known "conservative" or right-wing (meaning less leftist) academic group in America. At least I think they are. Which outlets like the NY Review of Books understand. Academic cliques? Heck, that's easy. Fighting for control of the legacy, internecine squabbles, that's old hat for them.

    All of which has little to do with the alt-right. But who wants to think about the Dark Corners of the Internet when they can gossip about academics and institutes?

    , @bigred
    I don't think that there is single Straussian who would disagree with you on this point. To pick two East Coast Straussians who voted for Clinton-- William Galston and Francis Fukuyama-- it is unlikely that they think that immigration policy is something deduced from general moral principles. They would probably just say that they disagree over the consequences of immigration policy... for all I know, they might even support enforcing immigration law...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Dan Hayes
    Steve,

    I became suspicious of Jaffa when he set about anointing Lincoln as a demigod. It somehow or other left a bad taste in my mouth.

    It was only later that I came to realize that Lincoln was an unindicted war criminal.

    It was only later that I came to realize that Lincoln was an unindicted war criminal.

    Well, if you want to go there, so was Robert E Lee….

    But I’ve grown rather tired of these post-bellum disputes. More pressing issues concern us, things like the very survival of Anglo-America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Yeah, no. Robert E. Lee was perhaps the most gentlemanly general that ever served the U.S. military. Lincoln burned Atlanta and suspended habeas. And beyond war crimes what he did to secure his re-election was electoral shenanigans of the highest order.
    , @Twodees Partain
    "The very survival of Anglo-America" depends upon casting off the false history imposed on Americans by the Lincoln hagiographers and others. Since you labor under the delusion that Lee was a war criminal, you won't be able to grasp the concept, anyway.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @AndrewR
    For being so woke, (((Miller))) sure is a cuck. His response when asked about his association with Richard Spencer at Duke was beyond cowardly.

    For being so woke, (((Miller))) sure is a cuck. His response when asked about his association with Richard Spencer at Duke was beyond cowardly.

    Prudent, I would say. The MSM would love to get Miller’s scalp. After all, he is the man who dared to mock the Lazarene Creed….

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    To the coward, cowardice is prudence.

    He could have disavowed Spencer's beliefs without using such dogmatic language or throwing Spencer under the bus.

    A non-cuck would have said: I have not spoken to Richard Spencer in many years, but he was always a bright and affable person with whom I had a good working relationship. When I knew him, he did not espouse the racialist beliefs he does today. I find his beliefs to be as harmful to society as the beliefs of the anti-white left, and I fundamentally disagree with much of what he espouses. I hope one day he realizes the errors in his thinking. I hate to see a good man espouse such toxic ideas.



    Instead, he said this: "“I have absolutely no relationship with Mr. Spencer. I completely repudiate his views, and his claims are 100% false."

    Utter cowardice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I can state with no doubt that the thing that proved most decisive in converting me into an active Trump supporter was the essay “The Flight 93 Election”, by “Publius Decius Mus”.
    I was formerly a leftist. I voted for Obama both times in the general election, but with no enthusiasm. I did not like the guy and did not trust him.
    For 2016, I knew I would not vote for a Democrat (although I might have voted for Jim Webb), and gave some thought (even if very briefly) to the three major alternative candidates. But I figured I would vote for a Republican for the first time. My initial choice was Carson. (Magic negro, whatever, he is a more accomplished guy than the vast majority of white men, and he has some legitimate self-awareness about how he has gotten where he is.) Then I favored Cruz, and I was sure Cruz would win, mainly since I thought he was the guy who could beat Trump. Cruz had some brutal anti-Trump ads. Brutal and funny.

    I had despised Trump since I had been aware of him. He struck me as a degenerate and gross vulgarian. This initial opinion has not entirely disappeared. What changed is that I began to see him as a fundamental alternative to the existing political class. Many things contributed to this, and certainly my growing awareness that the MSM was engaging in outright lying played a major role. But the “United 93″ essay was the thing that “made sense” for me. That was the thing that made me start to seriously think that Trump, this guy I had previously despised, might be a guy who could play a role in saving our nation.

    Of course that was in the Claremont Review of Books. The nybooks.com article somehow fails to mention that the author is now (I think) employed at the White House.

    (The United 93 theatrical film is great, and I also liked the made-for-TV film. Let’s roll.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else.
     
    Well, based on what we are seeing now (Twitter literally turning itself over to the ADL, etc), this sounds quite likely.

    It’s absurd to assume that any of this would stop or slow—would do anything other than massively intensify—in a Hillary administration. It’s even more ridiculous to expect that hitherto useless conservative opposition would suddenly become effective. For two generations at least, the Left has been calling everyone to their right Nazis. This trend has accelerated exponentially in the last few years, helped along by some on the Right who really do seem to merit—and even relish—the label. There is nothing the modern conservative fears more than being called “racist,” so alt-right pocket Nazis are manna from heaven for the Left. But also wholly unnecessary: sauce for the goose. The Left was calling us Nazis long before any pro-Trumpers tweeted Holocaust denial memes. And how does one deal with a Nazi—that is, with an enemy one is convinced intends your destruction? You don’t compromise with him or leave him alone. You crush him.

     

    Again, dead on target.

    Because the deck is stacked overwhelmingly against us. I will mention but three ways. First, the opinion-making elements—the universities and the media above all—are wholly corrupt and wholly opposed to everything we want, and increasingly even to our existence. (What else are the wars on “cis-genderism”—formerly known as “nature”—and on the supposed “white privilege” of broke hillbillies really about?) If it hadn’t been abundantly clear for the last 50 years, the campaign of 2015-2016 must surely have made it evident to even the meanest capacities that the intelligentsia—including all the organs through which it broadcasts its propaganda—is overwhelmingly partisan and biased. Against this onslaught, “conservative” media is a nullity, barely a whisper. It cannot be heard above the blaring of what has been aptly called “The Megaphone.”
     

    Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional niceties. Because they are.

     

    Demography is destiny.

    It’s also why they treat open borders as the “absolute value,” the one “principle” that—when their “principles” collide—they prioritize above all the others. If that fact is insufficiently clear, consider this. Trump is the most liberal Republican nominee since Thomas Dewey. He departs from conservative orthodoxy in so many ways that National Review still hasn’t stopped counting. But let’s stick to just the core issues animating his campaign. On trade, globalization, and war, Trump is to the left (conventionally understood) not only of his own party, but of his Democratic opponent. And yet the Left and the junta are at one with the house-broken conservatives in their determination—desperation—not merely to defeat Trump but to destroy him. What gives?
     
    Against mass immigration: the cardinal sin.

    Oh, right—there’s that other issue. The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual classes.
     
    I like the ironic invocation of Lincoln there. To Lincoln, the "mystic chords of memory" were ethno-nationalist in character:

    The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

     

    None of that proposition nation nonsense for Abe.

    Their reasons vary somewhat. The Left and the Democrats seek ringers to form a permanent electoral majority. They, or many of them, also believe the academic-intellectual lie that America’s inherently racist and evil nature can be expiated only through ever greater “diversity.” The junta of course craves cheaper and more docile labor. It also seeks to legitimize, and deflect unwanted attention from, its wealth and power by pretending that its open borders stance is a form of noblesse oblige. The Republicans and the “conservatives”? Both of course desperately want absolution from the charge of “racism.”

     


    But that doesn’t stop the Republican refrain: more, more, more! No matter how many elections they lose, how many districts tip forever blue, how rarely (if ever) their immigrant vote cracks 40%, the answer is always the same. Just like Angela Merkel after yet another rape, shooting, bombing, or machete attack. More, more, more!

    This is insane. This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity.
     

    People over country, nation over state.

    When America possessed a vast, empty continent and explosively growing industry, high immigration was arguably good policy. (Arguably: Ben Franklin would disagree.)
     

    But we can probably do better than we are doing now. First, stop digging. No more importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures. We have made institutions, by leftist design, not merely abysmal at assimilation but abhorrent of the concept. We should try to fix that, but given the Left’s iron grip on every school and cultural center, that’s like trying to bring democracy to Russia. A worthy goal, perhaps, but temper your hopes—and don’t invest time and resources unrealistically.

     

    http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/
    , @Paul Jolliffe
    My impression (it's been a while since I saw both the movie "United 93" and the made-for-TV version "Flight 93") is that both films leave ambiguous whether the passengers on the flight actually breached the cockpit during the infamous fight.

    As you probably know, the FBI announced that the fight never actually got into the cockpit where the hijackers had control of the plane.

    The relatives of the victims were very upset by this - they believed their loved ones had actually made it to the flight controls in the cockpit.

    Nope, said the FBI - that didn't happen. The fighters never got through the cockpit door, they said.

    Of course, if the FBI was right , then that prompted a very, very obvious question (completely unasked by the mainstream press): why, then, did the plane go down?

    On the other hand, if the relatives were right and the fight DID make it to the flight controls, and that fight then sent the plane crashing down, then another obvious question arises:

    Why not simply say so?
    Why hide the cause of the plane crash in ambiguity?
    Why was the FBI wrong (if they were wrong)?

    The FBI claimed they listened to the CVR tape and it ended abruptly at 10:03:11 am.

    Note that as of October, the National Parks Service official list of FAQ's does NOT have the one central question:

    Why did Flight 93 crash?

    https://www.nps.gov/flni/learn/historyculture/sources-and-detailed-information.htm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. After Strauss’s death in 1973, the battle among his disciples over his true legacy erupted. The main subject of disagreement was the nature of the American founding. The West Coasters maintained that the Founding Fathers had created a uniquely virtuous republic marked for greatness by drawing on biblical and Aristotelian principles.2 The result was an Athens on the Potomac with Abraham Lincoln as its philosophical statesman.3 The East Coasters suggested a different and more equivocal verdict: the founding, based on liberal Lockean precepts, fostered the rise of a bustling commercial society but did no more than that.

    Both notions are pure rubbish.

    Read More
    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I suspect that is probably true, but founding the nation on "biblical and Aristotelian" principles is surely (to me) a better thing than founding it on "liberal Lockean precepts". (To me the crucial thing is the "AND". If you are overtly aiming for "biblical" AND "Aristotelian" principles, then you might be on to something.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @syonredux

    It was only later that I came to realize that Lincoln was an unindicted war criminal.
     
    Well, if you want to go there, so was Robert E Lee....

    But I've grown rather tired of these post-bellum disputes. More pressing issues concern us, things like the very survival of Anglo-America.

    Yeah, no. Robert E. Lee was perhaps the most gentlemanly general that ever served the U.S. military. Lincoln burned Atlanta and suspended habeas. And beyond war crimes what he did to secure his re-election was electoral shenanigans of the highest order.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Yeah, no. Robert E. Lee was perhaps the most gentlemanly general that ever served the U.S. military.
     
    And Lincoln was the kindest leader who ever fought a Civil War.

    Lincoln burned Atlanta and suspended habeas.
     
    Um, I'm sure that you are aware that the Confederacy's civil rights record was far from spotless....As for burning Atlanta.....really, compare that to just about any unpleasant act committed in the last four centuries. It wouldn't even make the footnotes.

    And beyond war crimes what he did to secure his re-election was electoral shenanigans of the highest order.
     
    Dunno. For an election taking place in the middle of a Civil War, it was remarkably clean.
    , @Anonymous

    Robert E. Lee was perhaps the most gentlemanly general that ever served the U.S. military.
     
    Lee was fighting for the side that legalized and unashamedly wallowed in sexual slavery. Look up the fancy girl trade. The one-drop rule was probably invented by guys who liked lighter skinned sex slaves.

    It is pretty ugly stuff. You sure you want to be defending this, much less having statues up to such degenerates?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    After Strauss’s death in 1973, the battle among his disciples over his true legacy erupted. The main subject of disagreement was the nature of the American founding. The West Coasters maintained that the Founding Fathers had created a uniquely virtuous republic marked for greatness by drawing on biblical and Aristotelian principles.2 The result was an Athens on the Potomac with Abraham Lincoln as its philosophical statesman.3 The East Coasters suggested a different and more equivocal verdict: the founding, based on liberal Lockean precepts, fostered the rise of a bustling commercial society but did no more than that.
     
    Both notions are pure rubbish.

    I suspect that is probably true, but founding the nation on “biblical and Aristotelian” principles is surely (to me) a better thing than founding it on “liberal Lockean precepts”. (To me the crucial thing is the “AND”. If you are overtly aiming for “biblical” AND “Aristotelian” principles, then you might be on to something.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Excellent response by Steve on this one. The NYRB nerds have been fascinated, since the Bush II administration, by their own pet theories about the powers of Straussians to shape conservative thought and real politics. As if they might learn to predict conservative behavior by getting a good theory of Straussianism. But I believe Steve is correct, that the reason for Claremont’s support of Trump is a raw, direct experience with the increasing intensity of social justice warrior insanity, such that one is led to see the emergency and necessity of electing Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. @AndrewR
    For being so woke, (((Miller))) sure is a cuck. His response when asked about his association with Richard Spencer at Duke was beyond cowardly.

    Well at least he isn’t being totalitarian. (#291)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. This guy explains it all pretty clearly:

    Read More
    • LOL: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. @Anonymous
    I can state with no doubt that the thing that proved most decisive in converting me into an active Trump supporter was the essay "The Flight 93 Election", by "Publius Decius Mus".
    I was formerly a leftist. I voted for Obama both times in the general election, but with no enthusiasm. I did not like the guy and did not trust him.
    For 2016, I knew I would not vote for a Democrat (although I might have voted for Jim Webb), and gave some thought (even if very briefly) to the three major alternative candidates. But I figured I would vote for a Republican for the first time. My initial choice was Carson. (Magic negro, whatever, he is a more accomplished guy than the vast majority of white men, and he has some legitimate self-awareness about how he has gotten where he is.) Then I favored Cruz, and I was sure Cruz would win, mainly since I thought he was the guy who could beat Trump. Cruz had some brutal anti-Trump ads. Brutal and funny.

    I had despised Trump since I had been aware of him. He struck me as a degenerate and gross vulgarian. This initial opinion has not entirely disappeared. What changed is that I began to see him as a fundamental alternative to the existing political class. Many things contributed to this, and certainly my growing awareness that the MSM was engaging in outright lying played a major role. But the "United 93" essay was the thing that "made sense" for me. That was the thing that made me start to seriously think that Trump, this guy I had previously despised, might be a guy who could play a role in saving our nation.

    Of course that was in the Claremont Review of Books. The nybooks.com article somehow fails to mention that the author is now (I think) employed at the White House.

    (The United 93 theatrical film is great, and I also liked the made-for-TV film. Let's roll.)

    A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else.

    Well, based on what we are seeing now (Twitter literally turning itself over to the ADL, etc), this sounds quite likely.

    It’s absurd to assume that any of this would stop or slow—would do anything other than massively intensify—in a Hillary administration. It’s even more ridiculous to expect that hitherto useless conservative opposition would suddenly become effective. For two generations at least, the Left has been calling everyone to their right Nazis. This trend has accelerated exponentially in the last few years, helped along by some on the Right who really do seem to merit—and even relish—the label. There is nothing the modern conservative fears more than being called “racist,” so alt-right pocket Nazis are manna from heaven for the Left. But also wholly unnecessary: sauce for the goose. The Left was calling us Nazis long before any pro-Trumpers tweeted Holocaust denial memes. And how does one deal with a Nazi—that is, with an enemy one is convinced intends your destruction? You don’t compromise with him or leave him alone. You crush him.

    Again, dead on target.

    Because the deck is stacked overwhelmingly against us. I will mention but three ways. First, the opinion-making elements—the universities and the media above all—are wholly corrupt and wholly opposed to everything we want, and increasingly even to our existence. (What else are the wars on “cis-genderism”—formerly known as “nature”—and on the supposed “white privilege” of broke hillbillies really about?) If it hadn’t been abundantly clear for the last 50 years, the campaign of 2015-2016 must surely have made it evident to even the meanest capacities that the intelligentsia—including all the organs through which it broadcasts its propaganda—is overwhelmingly partisan and biased. Against this onslaught, “conservative” media is a nullity, barely a whisper. It cannot be heard above the blaring of what has been aptly called “The Megaphone.”

    Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional niceties. Because they are.

    Demography is destiny.

    It’s also why they treat open borders as the “absolute value,” the one “principle” that—when their “principles” collide—they prioritize above all the others. If that fact is insufficiently clear, consider this. Trump is the most liberal Republican nominee since Thomas Dewey. He departs from conservative orthodoxy in so many ways that National Review still hasn’t stopped counting. But let’s stick to just the core issues animating his campaign. On trade, globalization, and war, Trump is to the left (conventionally understood) not only of his own party, but of his Democratic opponent. And yet the Left and the junta are at one with the house-broken conservatives in their determination—desperation—not merely to defeat Trump but to destroy him. What gives?

    Against mass immigration: the cardinal sin.

    Oh, right—there’s that other issue. The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual classes.

    I like the ironic invocation of Lincoln there. To Lincoln, the “mystic chords of memory” were ethno-nationalist in character:

    The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

    None of that proposition nation nonsense for Abe.

    Their reasons vary somewhat. The Left and the Democrats seek ringers to form a permanent electoral majority. They, or many of them, also believe the academic-intellectual lie that America’s inherently racist and evil nature can be expiated only through ever greater “diversity.” The junta of course craves cheaper and more docile labor. It also seeks to legitimize, and deflect unwanted attention from, its wealth and power by pretending that its open borders stance is a form of noblesse oblige. The Republicans and the “conservatives”? Both of course desperately want absolution from the charge of “racism.”

    But that doesn’t stop the Republican refrain: more, more, more! No matter how many elections they lose, how many districts tip forever blue, how rarely (if ever) their immigrant vote cracks 40%, the answer is always the same. Just like Angela Merkel after yet another rape, shooting, bombing, or machete attack. More, more, more!

    This is insane. This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity.

    People over country, nation over state.

    When America possessed a vast, empty continent and explosively growing industry, high immigration was arguably good policy. (Arguably: Ben Franklin would disagree.)

    But we can probably do better than we are doing now. First, stop digging. No more importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures. We have made institutions, by leftist design, not merely abysmal at assimilation but abhorrent of the concept. We should try to fix that, but given the Left’s iron grip on every school and cultural center, that’s like trying to bring democracy to Russia. A worthy goal, perhaps, but temper your hopes—and don’t invest time and resources unrealistically.

    http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/

    Read More
    • Replies: @IHTG
    That guy works in the White House now. Michael Anton.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @candid_observer
    I just don't get the claim that differences over, say, immigration or invading the world should have anything to do with interpretations of some abstract theory deriving from a "philosopher" like Strauss.

    Is there no room in political philosophy for a bottom up, rather than a top down, approach? Our policy on immigration and wars should depend on what some intellectual bloviator has to say, rather than the obvious merits or defects of particular immigration policies, or particular kinds of war?

    Frankly, the top down approach to these sort of massively empirical questions strikes me as crackpot. I'd rather consult crystals than a philosophical theory on matters like these.

    Yes, the problem with the top-down analysis can be found, for instance, in how anti-war libs erected Leo Strauss as a neocon god. Literally, they had satirical plays where members of the Bush administration worshipped his image. All because, why? Some of his students, or people surrounding him at the University of Chicago, were neocons and ended up being architects of war.

    But you can’t find a case for American empire in Strauss’ writings, or a case for the invasion of Iraq. And you probably can’t find the inspiration for the alt-right, because it’s not there. When you look for superficial “relevance,” you end up with nonsense like his thoughts on esoteric writing (meaning simply philosophers fearing persecution will stick messages “between the lines”) and Plato’s Noble Lie inspired lies about WMDs.

    Strauss was a classicist and political philosopher rather detached from current events. His acolytes may have been less so. But they weren’t “engaged” in the manner of acolytes of leftist professors, for instance. He didn’t send them out with marching orders. They got that, if they got it, from elsewhere.

    Straussians are simply the biggest known “conservative” or right-wing (meaning less leftist) academic group in America. At least I think they are. Which outlets like the NY Review of Books understand. Academic cliques? Heck, that’s easy. Fighting for control of the legacy, internecine squabbles, that’s old hat for them.

    All of which has little to do with the alt-right. But who wants to think about the Dark Corners of the Internet when they can gossip about academics and institutes?

    Read More
    • Agree: Abe, Twodees Partain
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Dan Hayes
    Steve,

    I became suspicious of Jaffa when he set about anointing Lincoln as a demigod. It somehow or other left a bad taste in my mouth.

    It was only later that I came to realize that Lincoln was an unindicted war criminal.

    Did anyone ever take Jaffa seriously?

    Maybe I am out of the mainstream. But I remember a brilliant takedown of him on the Declaration of Independence by M.E. Bradford.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Did anyone ever take Jaffa seriously?
     
    I never did.
    , @Crawfurdmuir

    Did anyone ever take Jaffa seriously?

    Maybe I am out of the mainstream. But I remember a brilliant takedown of him on the Declaration of Independence by M.E. Bradford.
     
    Here's a link:

    http://www.mmisi.org/ma/20_01/bradford.pdf

    I knew and liked Mel Bradford. He was one of the earliest victims of the "hostile takeover" of American conservatism by the neocon/Straussian cabal. When it appeared that Ronald Reagan was about to nominate Mel to head the National Endowment for the Humanities, these people mounted a massive attack on him. George Will demonstrated his mercenary cravenness at that time, as well as his worthlessness as a human being, by issuing a particularly egregious hatchet job.

    Jaffa is principally responsible for the trope that America is a "propositional nation." The phrase is derived from Lincoln's phrase "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." As Mel correctly observed,

    "... there is no man equal to any other, except perhaps in the special, and politically untranslatable, understanding of the Deity. Not intellectually or physically or economically or even morally. Not equal! Such is, of course, the genuinely self-evident proposition. Its truth finds a verification in our bones and is demonstrated in the unselfconscious acts of our everyday lives: vital proof, regardless of our private political persuasion..."

    And in this day and age, simply noticing that genuinely self-evident proposition - as Steve Sailer has pointed out - has become a thoughtcrime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @whorefinder
    Yeah, no. Robert E. Lee was perhaps the most gentlemanly general that ever served the U.S. military. Lincoln burned Atlanta and suspended habeas. And beyond war crimes what he did to secure his re-election was electoral shenanigans of the highest order.

    Yeah, no. Robert E. Lee was perhaps the most gentlemanly general that ever served the U.S. military.

    And Lincoln was the kindest leader who ever fought a Civil War.

    Lincoln burned Atlanta and suspended habeas.

    Um, I’m sure that you are aware that the Confederacy’s civil rights record was far from spotless….As for burning Atlanta…..really, compare that to just about any unpleasant act committed in the last four centuries. It wouldn’t even make the footnotes.

    And beyond war crimes what he did to secure his re-election was electoral shenanigans of the highest order.

    Dunno. For an election taking place in the middle of a Civil War, it was remarkably clean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Burning Atlanta was a war crime, full stop. What was doubly atrocious is that he did it to his own citizens. And the suspension of basic constitutional rights (habeas) was the act of pure dictatorial power silencing dissent.

    As for his re-election,
    FOr an election taking place in the middle of a civil war, it was dirty:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_in_the_American_Civil_War#Admission_into_statehood
    , @Ron Mexico
    John Bell Hood burned Atlanta. Does that make Jefferson Davis a war criminal?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @syonredux

    For being so woke, (((Miller))) sure is a cuck. His response when asked about his association with Richard Spencer at Duke was beyond cowardly.
     
    Prudent, I would say. The MSM would love to get Miller's scalp. After all, he is the man who dared to mock the Lazarene Creed....

    To the coward, cowardice is prudence.

    He could have disavowed Spencer’s beliefs without using such dogmatic language or throwing Spencer under the bus.

    A non-cuck would have said: I have not spoken to Richard Spencer in many years, but he was always a bright and affable person with whom I had a good working relationship. When I knew him, he did not espouse the racialist beliefs he does today. I find his beliefs to be as harmful to society as the beliefs of the anti-white left, and I fundamentally disagree with much of what he espouses. I hope one day he realizes the errors in his thinking. I hate to see a good man espouse such toxic ideas.

    Instead, he said this: ““I have absolutely no relationship with Mr. Spencer. I completely repudiate his views, and his claims are 100% false.”

    Utter cowardice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Instead, he said this: ““I have absolutely no relationship with Mr. Spencer. I completely repudiate his views, and his claims are 100% false.”

    Utter cowardice.
     
    If that's the most cowardly thing that Miller ever does in his life, I'm OK with it. Spencer's just not that important.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    AndrewR in September 2016 (#42) :

    Trump cucked on Tulsa. He is cucking hard for the black vote but it obviously is not worth it. I for one do not plan on voting in November. Trump just doesn’t fire me up at all. He’s a constant disappointment. I’d rather have Hillary win and galvanize the country enough that in 2020 a real nationalist, pro-white, anti-savagery candidate can run and clean up.

    Richard Spencer 2020!
     

    So Andrew, is it your entire raison d'être here at iSteve to throw around words like “cuck” and “totalitarian” (see upthread) at random?
    , @Jack Hanson
    You're pretty upset that some one who "made it" wants nothing to do with your controlled opposition there, Mr. Unwarranted Self Importance.

    Sorry to break it to you, but your sempai Spencer is a fucking joke and an embarrassment. I don't blame Miller for wanting nothing to do with a LARPing internet aristocrat like Spencer either.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @utu
    I have enjoyed very much the roman à clef Ravelstein by Saul Bellow which is about Alan Bloom and his evolution and slow transformation form classicist in love with hellenism to Zionist in love with Judaism. Jerusalem always wins with Athens in a Jewish heart. Wolfowitz and Leo Strauss appear in the book.

    Ravelstein was written long after Bellow went neocon. Bloom was less in the practical political influence business than Strauss, who was at least a political philosopher. Bloom was in the humanities, though with political opinions. If you pay attention to Closing of the American Mind, he was against “engagement,” professors being “with it,” and subject matter being “relevant.”

    Not that he stuck by that philosophy consistently. But he wasn’t a fount of political influence. Not the way we’re accustomed to thinking about it.

    Bellow has him talking on the phone to people in the know about the progress of the Gulf War. But not as a guru telling them what to do. Like Dr. Strangelove, or whatever. More like a friendly old professor gossiping.

    Leftists can’t imagine what these sort of people were up to, but that’s because their side has not been a perennial loser. Allan Bloom and Leo Strauss weren’t in the game like other gurus were. They were actually interested in that old stuff professors are supposed to study. They certainly weren’t trying hard to win the Culture War or gain control of the Cathedral.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @whorefinder
    It's interesting that the NY Review of Books is attempting to study the Trump-Nationalist rise in terms not of hysterics and screams about Nazis, but as an actual movement based on intellectual arguments and social/economic grievances.

    It won't really last; it's more an attempt to identify hostile networks and shut them down, but it's nice to dream that some Lefty minds can be broadened. Here's something heartening:


    It’s true that Republicans such as Senators Bob Corker and Jeff Flake have joined the attack, but neither is seeking reelection. Even the recent GOP defeats in state elections in Virginia and elsewhere aren’t sapping the ardor for Trump among his followers; rather, it’s sharpening the debate between the pro- and anti-Trump forces inside the GOP.
     
    It's like when those of us on the anti-Left noticed that the D's are having a civil war between the Hate White faction and the NeoLiberal/Clinton/OldGuard faction, with the Bernie Bros throwing their lot to the Hate Whiteys in bitterness at the Clintons stealing the nomination from Bernie and (as many of the Bernie Bros believe) out-and-out murdering Seth Rich for leaking the DNC emails exposing this fraud.

    I’m a Bernie bro but I didn’t join the SJW.

    I figured the whole shit house was rigged and it was better to shut up and watch it burn to the ground instead of pretending these reactionary party hijackers can be salvaged….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @syonredux

    Yeah, no. Robert E. Lee was perhaps the most gentlemanly general that ever served the U.S. military.
     
    And Lincoln was the kindest leader who ever fought a Civil War.

    Lincoln burned Atlanta and suspended habeas.
     
    Um, I'm sure that you are aware that the Confederacy's civil rights record was far from spotless....As for burning Atlanta.....really, compare that to just about any unpleasant act committed in the last four centuries. It wouldn't even make the footnotes.

    And beyond war crimes what he did to secure his re-election was electoral shenanigans of the highest order.
     
    Dunno. For an election taking place in the middle of a Civil War, it was remarkably clean.

    Burning Atlanta was a war crime, full stop. What was doubly atrocious is that he did it to his own citizens. And the suspension of basic constitutional rights (habeas) was the act of pure dictatorial power silencing dissent.

    As for his re-election,
    FOr an election taking place in the middle of a civil war, it was dirty:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_in_the_American_Civil_War#Admission_into_statehood

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Burning Atlanta was a war crime, full stop. What was doubly atrocious is that he did it to his own citizens.
     
    No, it wasn't. Just compare Atlanta to actual atrocities:The Sack of Magdeburg, The Drownings at Nantes, The War in the Vendée, ....






    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Magdeburg#Assault_and_sacking

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drownings_at_Nantes

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e

    And the suspension of basic constitutional rights (habeas) was the act of pure dictatorial power silencing dissent.
     
    And yet Lincoln tolerated savage attacks in the press that no actual dictator (cf Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Mao) would have ever tolerated....

    As for his re-election,
    FOr an election taking place in the middle of a civil war, it was dirty:
     
    Expediting statehood for Nevada is your big evidence for the 1864 election being dirty? Sorry, that's just further evidence for how clean the election of 1864 was.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @AndrewR
    To the coward, cowardice is prudence.

    He could have disavowed Spencer's beliefs without using such dogmatic language or throwing Spencer under the bus.

    A non-cuck would have said: I have not spoken to Richard Spencer in many years, but he was always a bright and affable person with whom I had a good working relationship. When I knew him, he did not espouse the racialist beliefs he does today. I find his beliefs to be as harmful to society as the beliefs of the anti-white left, and I fundamentally disagree with much of what he espouses. I hope one day he realizes the errors in his thinking. I hate to see a good man espouse such toxic ideas.



    Instead, he said this: "“I have absolutely no relationship with Mr. Spencer. I completely repudiate his views, and his claims are 100% false."

    Utter cowardice.

    Instead, he said this: ““I have absolutely no relationship with Mr. Spencer. I completely repudiate his views, and his claims are 100% false.”

    Utter cowardice.

    If that’s the most cowardly thing that Miller ever does in his life, I’m OK with it. Spencer’s just not that important.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    He's not? Tell that to the corporate news organizations who have spent countless thousands of man-hours and written countless millions of words on him in the last year or two. He's certainly the most well-known alt-right figure (assuming you don't count David Duke, who runs in the same general political crowd as Spencer), and the establishment has spent an extraordinary amount of time, money and energy condemning the alt-right.
    , @Not Raul
    >> Spencer’s just not that important. <<

    True; but neither is Miller.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @guest
    Did anyone ever take Jaffa seriously?

    Maybe I am out of the mainstream. But I remember a brilliant takedown of him on the Declaration of Independence by M.E. Bradford.

    Did anyone ever take Jaffa seriously?

    I never did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    Jaffa had a long productive life, and became cranky in his (long) later years. But his early essay on Act 1, scene i of King Lear puts to shame the work of scholars who have devoted their lives to Shakespeare, and his first Lincoln book, Crisis of the House Divided, likewise took up ideas that had been ignored or unnoticed for a century.

    I feel his other output never really reached those peaks—perhaps this is what syon and guest are referring to when they write that he’s not to be taken seriously. But Jaffa’s peaks were more than the vast majority of scholars ever achieve, and do reward attention.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @whorefinder
    It's interesting that the NY Review of Books is attempting to study the Trump-Nationalist rise in terms not of hysterics and screams about Nazis, but as an actual movement based on intellectual arguments and social/economic grievances.

    It won't really last; it's more an attempt to identify hostile networks and shut them down, but it's nice to dream that some Lefty minds can be broadened. Here's something heartening:


    It’s true that Republicans such as Senators Bob Corker and Jeff Flake have joined the attack, but neither is seeking reelection. Even the recent GOP defeats in state elections in Virginia and elsewhere aren’t sapping the ardor for Trump among his followers; rather, it’s sharpening the debate between the pro- and anti-Trump forces inside the GOP.
     
    It's like when those of us on the anti-Left noticed that the D's are having a civil war between the Hate White faction and the NeoLiberal/Clinton/OldGuard faction, with the Bernie Bros throwing their lot to the Hate Whiteys in bitterness at the Clintons stealing the nomination from Bernie and (as many of the Bernie Bros believe) out-and-out murdering Seth Rich for leaking the DNC emails exposing this fraud.

    The modicum of intellectual respectability they’re lending the thought behind Trumpism* comes from the fact that they’re dealing with the Academy and mainstream or slightly right-of-mainstream publications. Both of which are merely stray elements of the Cathedral. They’re studiously ignoring the intellectual mojo behind Trumpism, which derives from the long-simmering Middle-American Radicalism and lives on that dastardly internet.

    Which is appropriate, I’d say, because they’re talking about Official Trumpism, not the alt-right. Because the alt-right’s time has not yet come. There are only hints and whispers of its true nature in the mainstream.**

    *Which is something. I’m sure every neverTrumper who sees the headline will think, “What brain?”

    **A caricature of it inhabits the mainstream, of course. As ceremonially unleashed by Hillary Clinton at her historic Pepe Speech.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @syonredux

    Instead, he said this: ““I have absolutely no relationship with Mr. Spencer. I completely repudiate his views, and his claims are 100% false.”

    Utter cowardice.
     
    If that's the most cowardly thing that Miller ever does in his life, I'm OK with it. Spencer's just not that important.

    He’s not? Tell that to the corporate news organizations who have spent countless thousands of man-hours and written countless millions of words on him in the last year or two. He’s certainly the most well-known alt-right figure (assuming you don’t count David Duke, who runs in the same general political crowd as Spencer), and the establishment has spent an extraordinary amount of time, money and energy condemning the alt-right.

    Read More
    • LOL: Jack Hanson
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Tell that to the corporate news organizations who have spent countless thousands of man-hours and written countless millions of words on him in the last year or two. He’s certainly the most well-known alt-right figure
     
    He's the perfect caricature, the perfect clown, the perfect "useful idiot" to discredit all of us. THAT is why the MSM spend so much time on him. And for no other reason.
    , @syonredux

    He’s certainly the most well-known alt-right figure (assuming you don’t count David Duke, who runs in the same general political crowd as Spencer),
     
    Ya know, you're not exactly helping your case by comparing Spencer to David Duke. David Duke is a complete and utter buffoon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Harry Jaffa … cultivated what became known as “West Coast Straussians,” in opposition to “East Coast Straussians.”

    Maybe there are some instructional parallels with the Crips-and-Bloods-like

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast%E2%80%93West_Coast_hip_hop_rivalry

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    But with less shooting. There's comedy potential there.
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    East coast colors are beige; west coast puce.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @AndrewR
    To the coward, cowardice is prudence.

    He could have disavowed Spencer's beliefs without using such dogmatic language or throwing Spencer under the bus.

    A non-cuck would have said: I have not spoken to Richard Spencer in many years, but he was always a bright and affable person with whom I had a good working relationship. When I knew him, he did not espouse the racialist beliefs he does today. I find his beliefs to be as harmful to society as the beliefs of the anti-white left, and I fundamentally disagree with much of what he espouses. I hope one day he realizes the errors in his thinking. I hate to see a good man espouse such toxic ideas.



    Instead, he said this: "“I have absolutely no relationship with Mr. Spencer. I completely repudiate his views, and his claims are 100% false."

    Utter cowardice.

    AndrewR in September 2016 (#42) :

    Trump cucked on Tulsa. He is cucking hard for the black vote but it obviously is not worth it. I for one do not plan on voting in November. Trump just doesn’t fire me up at all. He’s a constant disappointment. I’d rather have Hillary win and galvanize the country enough that in 2020 a real nationalist, pro-white, anti-savagery candidate can run and clean up.

    Richard Spencer 2020!

    So Andrew, is it your entire raison d’être here at iSteve to throw around words like “cuck” and “totalitarian” (see upthread) at random?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I don't use those words at random.

    Your raison d'être here seems to be stalking me. Very sad. Find a more productive use of your time than quote mining me and putting words in my mouth.

    , @Jack Hanson
    Yes.

    I once thought Andrew's schtick is that of those guys on Twitter with 10 followers who call everyone who doesn't tow their particular line a "cuck" (much like Tiny Duck is a caricature), but our sharia supporting friend is deathly serious.
    , @IHTG
    AndrewR is one of this blog's most subtle and successful trolls.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    AndrewR in September 2016 (#42) :

    Trump cucked on Tulsa. He is cucking hard for the black vote but it obviously is not worth it. I for one do not plan on voting in November. Trump just doesn’t fire me up at all. He’s a constant disappointment. I’d rather have Hillary win and galvanize the country enough that in 2020 a real nationalist, pro-white, anti-savagery candidate can run and clean up.

    Richard Spencer 2020!
     

    So Andrew, is it your entire raison d'être here at iSteve to throw around words like “cuck” and “totalitarian” (see upthread) at random?

    I don’t use those words at random.

    Your raison d’être here seems to be stalking me. Very sad. Find a more productive use of your time than quote mining me and putting words in my mouth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Find a more productive use of your time than quote mining me
     
    Yeah, but …

    You’re so vein
    You probably think this comment’s about you


    Awwright, you’ve had enough, I’ll stop. :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @whorefinder
    Yeah, no. Robert E. Lee was perhaps the most gentlemanly general that ever served the U.S. military. Lincoln burned Atlanta and suspended habeas. And beyond war crimes what he did to secure his re-election was electoral shenanigans of the highest order.

    Robert E. Lee was perhaps the most gentlemanly general that ever served the U.S. military.

    Lee was fighting for the side that legalized and unashamedly wallowed in sexual slavery. Look up the fancy girl trade. The one-drop rule was probably invented by guys who liked lighter skinned sex slaves.

    It is pretty ugly stuff. You sure you want to be defending this, much less having statues up to such degenerates?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @AndrewR
    To the coward, cowardice is prudence.

    He could have disavowed Spencer's beliefs without using such dogmatic language or throwing Spencer under the bus.

    A non-cuck would have said: I have not spoken to Richard Spencer in many years, but he was always a bright and affable person with whom I had a good working relationship. When I knew him, he did not espouse the racialist beliefs he does today. I find his beliefs to be as harmful to society as the beliefs of the anti-white left, and I fundamentally disagree with much of what he espouses. I hope one day he realizes the errors in his thinking. I hate to see a good man espouse such toxic ideas.



    Instead, he said this: "“I have absolutely no relationship with Mr. Spencer. I completely repudiate his views, and his claims are 100% false."

    Utter cowardice.

    You’re pretty upset that some one who “made it” wants nothing to do with your controlled opposition there, Mr. Unwarranted Self Importance.

    Sorry to break it to you, but your sempai Spencer is a fucking joke and an embarrassment. I don’t blame Miller for wanting nothing to do with a LARPing internet aristocrat like Spencer either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rod1963
    No one in their right mind would have anything to do with Spencer. He's either controlled opposition or a dolt who has no understanding of PR, politics, organizing and leading a group.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    AndrewR in September 2016 (#42) :

    Trump cucked on Tulsa. He is cucking hard for the black vote but it obviously is not worth it. I for one do not plan on voting in November. Trump just doesn’t fire me up at all. He’s a constant disappointment. I’d rather have Hillary win and galvanize the country enough that in 2020 a real nationalist, pro-white, anti-savagery candidate can run and clean up.

    Richard Spencer 2020!
     

    So Andrew, is it your entire raison d'être here at iSteve to throw around words like “cuck” and “totalitarian” (see upthread) at random?

    Yes.

    I once thought Andrew’s schtick is that of those guys on Twitter with 10 followers who call everyone who doesn’t tow their particular line a “cuck” (much like Tiny Duck is a caricature), but our sharia supporting friend is deathly serious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Here is a relatively recent interview with Jaffa that is kind of telling:

    “Jaffa: The two greatest heroes in Strauss life, do you know who they were? One was Churchill the other was Bismarck . . . There was a good deal of German patriotism inside Strauss, though he made it clear that they only salvation in this world for the things he valued was USA and Israel.”

    And why wouldn’t Strauss admire Bismarck? To any German like Strauss who was born in the nineteenth century and fought in World War I, Bismarck’s Germany had to look pretty good. But contra Jaffa, there is no reason to believe that Strauss believed that either the US or Israel offered any “salvation,” which is not a word Strauss would have ever used. In fact, it’s impossible to find a single statement in any of Strauss’s writings that are pro-USA. I’ve challenged Straussians to come up with one statement in his published writings favorable to the US or to liberalism and they can’t do it. That’s why books (like Paul Gottfried’s) that turn Strauss into a “Cold war neocon” are so misguided.

    Jaffa is perhaps the most un-Strausslike of the Straussians. Jaffa wrote his dissertation on Thomas Aquinas, which is about as far from Strauss’s Christophobic sympathies as can be imagined. Jaffa then wrote a book affirming Lincoln’s “second founding” of the US as a Christ figure who founded the US in blood versus the Old Testament founding in paper. Again, that could not be more antithetical to Strauss’s own sympathies as an anti-liberal and Jew. Strauss’s Natural Right and History is a murder mystery in the sleuth Strauss subtly uncovers “who killed natural right?” It turns out that Christianity killed natural right, and it was Aquinas who delivered the fatal blow.

    Ironically, it was the “East coast” Straussians like George Will who most eagerly adopted Jaffa’s book on Lincoln and turned it into a Bible of neoconservativism in which the “American regime” is founded on “the principle of equality.” Every time you here a conservative talking about the declaration of independence as somehow holy script, that’s Jaffa’s influence. Of course, Strauss did not believe in human equality. Here is a passage from another interview with a Straussian, the gentile Walter Berns, who spoke at Strauss’s funeral:

    “Berns: Then I remember the rabbi delivering some eulogy. He didn’t know Strauss from his elbow: “This great defender of the equality of man” [Laughter]”

    So Straussians like Jaffa and Will have managed to turn Strauss into the exact opposite of what he was, a great defender of liberalism and equality and an admirer of the US. Couldn’t be further from the truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Here is a relatively recent interview with Jaffa that is kind of telling:

    “Jaffa: The two greatest heroes in Strauss life, do you know who they were? One was Churchill the other was Bismarck . . . There was a good deal of German patriotism inside Strauss, though he made it clear that they only salvation in this world for the things he valued was USA and Israel.”

    And why wouldn’t Strauss admire Bismarck? To any German like Strauss who was born in the nineteenth century and fought in World War I, Bismarck’s Germany had to look pretty good.
     
    Interesting that he wasn't more into Lincoln, the American Bismarck....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @syonredux

    A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else.
     
    Well, based on what we are seeing now (Twitter literally turning itself over to the ADL, etc), this sounds quite likely.

    It’s absurd to assume that any of this would stop or slow—would do anything other than massively intensify—in a Hillary administration. It’s even more ridiculous to expect that hitherto useless conservative opposition would suddenly become effective. For two generations at least, the Left has been calling everyone to their right Nazis. This trend has accelerated exponentially in the last few years, helped along by some on the Right who really do seem to merit—and even relish—the label. There is nothing the modern conservative fears more than being called “racist,” so alt-right pocket Nazis are manna from heaven for the Left. But also wholly unnecessary: sauce for the goose. The Left was calling us Nazis long before any pro-Trumpers tweeted Holocaust denial memes. And how does one deal with a Nazi—that is, with an enemy one is convinced intends your destruction? You don’t compromise with him or leave him alone. You crush him.

     

    Again, dead on target.

    Because the deck is stacked overwhelmingly against us. I will mention but three ways. First, the opinion-making elements—the universities and the media above all—are wholly corrupt and wholly opposed to everything we want, and increasingly even to our existence. (What else are the wars on “cis-genderism”—formerly known as “nature”—and on the supposed “white privilege” of broke hillbillies really about?) If it hadn’t been abundantly clear for the last 50 years, the campaign of 2015-2016 must surely have made it evident to even the meanest capacities that the intelligentsia—including all the organs through which it broadcasts its propaganda—is overwhelmingly partisan and biased. Against this onslaught, “conservative” media is a nullity, barely a whisper. It cannot be heard above the blaring of what has been aptly called “The Megaphone.”
     

    Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional niceties. Because they are.

     

    Demography is destiny.

    It’s also why they treat open borders as the “absolute value,” the one “principle” that—when their “principles” collide—they prioritize above all the others. If that fact is insufficiently clear, consider this. Trump is the most liberal Republican nominee since Thomas Dewey. He departs from conservative orthodoxy in so many ways that National Review still hasn’t stopped counting. But let’s stick to just the core issues animating his campaign. On trade, globalization, and war, Trump is to the left (conventionally understood) not only of his own party, but of his Democratic opponent. And yet the Left and the junta are at one with the house-broken conservatives in their determination—desperation—not merely to defeat Trump but to destroy him. What gives?
     
    Against mass immigration: the cardinal sin.

    Oh, right—there’s that other issue. The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual classes.
     
    I like the ironic invocation of Lincoln there. To Lincoln, the "mystic chords of memory" were ethno-nationalist in character:

    The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

     

    None of that proposition nation nonsense for Abe.

    Their reasons vary somewhat. The Left and the Democrats seek ringers to form a permanent electoral majority. They, or many of them, also believe the academic-intellectual lie that America’s inherently racist and evil nature can be expiated only through ever greater “diversity.” The junta of course craves cheaper and more docile labor. It also seeks to legitimize, and deflect unwanted attention from, its wealth and power by pretending that its open borders stance is a form of noblesse oblige. The Republicans and the “conservatives”? Both of course desperately want absolution from the charge of “racism.”

     


    But that doesn’t stop the Republican refrain: more, more, more! No matter how many elections they lose, how many districts tip forever blue, how rarely (if ever) their immigrant vote cracks 40%, the answer is always the same. Just like Angela Merkel after yet another rape, shooting, bombing, or machete attack. More, more, more!

    This is insane. This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity.
     

    People over country, nation over state.

    When America possessed a vast, empty continent and explosively growing industry, high immigration was arguably good policy. (Arguably: Ben Franklin would disagree.)
     

    But we can probably do better than we are doing now. First, stop digging. No more importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures. We have made institutions, by leftist design, not merely abysmal at assimilation but abhorrent of the concept. We should try to fix that, but given the Left’s iron grip on every school and cultural center, that’s like trying to bring democracy to Russia. A worthy goal, perhaps, but temper your hopes—and don’t invest time and resources unrealistically.

     

    http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/

    That guy works in the White House now. Michael Anton.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    AndrewR in September 2016 (#42) :

    Trump cucked on Tulsa. He is cucking hard for the black vote but it obviously is not worth it. I for one do not plan on voting in November. Trump just doesn’t fire me up at all. He’s a constant disappointment. I’d rather have Hillary win and galvanize the country enough that in 2020 a real nationalist, pro-white, anti-savagery candidate can run and clean up.

    Richard Spencer 2020!
     

    So Andrew, is it your entire raison d'être here at iSteve to throw around words like “cuck” and “totalitarian” (see upthread) at random?

    AndrewR is one of this blog’s most subtle and successful trolls.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Trump’s ideas during the campaign were borrowed from Buchanan.

    His ideas in office are dictated to him by “Never Trump” neoconservatives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @syonredux

    Did anyone ever take Jaffa seriously?
     
    I never did.

    Jaffa had a long productive life, and became cranky in his (long) later years. But his early essay on Act 1, scene i of King Lear puts to shame the work of scholars who have devoted their lives to Shakespeare, and his first Lincoln book, Crisis of the House Divided, likewise took up ideas that had been ignored or unnoticed for a century.

    I feel his other output never really reached those peaks—perhaps this is what syon and guest are referring to when they write that he’s not to be taken seriously. But Jaffa’s peaks were more than the vast majority of scholars ever achieve, and do reward attention.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. >confused about how Trump is secretly George Bush
    Yeah, no, this is cultist mental insulation, this is willful misunderstanding of Trump number three thousand and sixty-two. Trump is so good that if they didn’t lie about him all day they would lose a certain amount of people to him. The next time Andrew Sullivan is positive that he’s figured Trump out, while stopping to presuppose that literal Hitlerites are walking the streets and all complaints about “refugees” are lies, just ignore him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. @Dan Hayes
    Steve,

    I became suspicious of Jaffa when he set about anointing Lincoln as a demigod. It somehow or other left a bad taste in my mouth.

    It was only later that I came to realize that Lincoln was an unindicted war criminal.

    I became suspicious of Jaffa when he set about anointing Lincoln as a demigod. It somehow or other left a bad taste in my mouth.

    For the record, I regard Lincoln as the greatest modern man. Not without sin, but close.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    That is only true if you are a Yankee. For everyone else, Lincoln just won a civil war which given that civil wars have to be prefaced with the country in question does not make him stand out. "Freeing the slaves" is an appeal to the secular religion of our time and would actually resonate except for the fact Lincoln was freeing the Souths slaves and Yankees and Southerners hate each other. A bit like holding up the Independent State of Croatia as an example of Adolf Hitler's strong respect for ethnic self determination.
    , @MB
    (I)f we would grasp the significance of of the Civil War in relation to the history of our time, we should consider Abraham Lincoln in connection with the other leaders who have been engaged in similar tasks. The chief of these leaders have been Bismarck and Lenin. They, with Lincoln have presided over the unifications of the three great new modern powers. . . . Each established a strong central government over hitherto loosely coordinated peoples. Lincoln kept the Union together by subordinating the South to the North; Bismarck imposed on the German states the cohesive hegemony of Prussia; Lenin – though contemptuous of bureacracy, since he could not imagine that, once the old order was abolished, any decent person could want to be a bureaucrat – began the work of binding Russia, with its innumerable ethnic groups scattered through immense spaces, in a tight bureaucratic net.

    Each of these men, through the pressure of the power which he found himself exercising, became an uncompromising dictator, and each was succeeded by agencies which continued to exercise this power and to manipulate the peoples he had been unifying in a stupid, despotic and unscrupulous fashion, so that all the bad potentialities of the policies he had initiated were realized, after his removal, in the most undesirable way. The generous program of Lincoln for readmitting the South to the Union was discarded by the Radical Republicans, who added every form of insult and injury to the bitterness of the Confederate failure. Bismarck was succeeded by a monarch who presided over a German defeat and debacle and then fled by request, to another country, leaving his own in a situation which led inevitably to an even worse government, and an even more outrageous aggression and as even more disastrous defeat. Lenin well before his death had been been superseded by Stalin, who exterminated the old Bolshevik idealists, tormented the Russians with a reign of terror that made the French Revolution look moderate and let them in for a foreign invasion which laid waste the whole western part of their country and cost it seven million lives in addition to the several million that Stalin had already extinguished. We Americans have not yet had to suffer from the worst of the calamities that have followed on the dictatorships in Germany and Russia, but we have been going for a long time now quite steadily in the same direction.

    Edmund Wilson, Patriotic Gore, NY: 1962, pp. xvi - xix.”

    Mark the last. Whether or not one cares to add Mao to the totalitarian mix, our very own Cultural Revolution has ' been going for a long time now quite steadily in the same direction'.
    Oh happy day.
    , @Twodees Partain
    OK, Luke, you're on the record as being a totally mesmerized American. A little study of history is in order for you before you're so brainwashed that you'll write in a vote for Bill Clinton for president in 2020.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. I would say that the core teaching of Straussianism is not that a philosopher elite should ‘rule’, but that it should try to maintain the sort of liberal society in which they are left alone to do that which most pleases them…think. In addition that philosopher should cultivate personal virtue — courage and prudence being most important among them.

    To the extent that ‘rule’ is necessary, the Straussian position is that liberal society is about as good as it is going to get, and that descents into its ‘cave’ should be as few as possible. Strauss definitely saw the society described in the Republic as dysfunctional, and indeed believed that Plato was writing ‘ironically’ in describing it — a society which functioned but in which no one was happy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. @AndrewR
    I don't use those words at random.

    Your raison d'être here seems to be stalking me. Very sad. Find a more productive use of your time than quote mining me and putting words in my mouth.

    Find a more productive use of your time than quote mining me

    Yeah, but …

    You’re so vein
    You probably think this comment’s about you

    Awwright, you’ve had enough, I’ll stop. :)

    Read More
    • LOL: Jack Hanson
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Luke Lea

    I became suspicious of Jaffa when he set about anointing Lincoln as a demigod. It somehow or other left a bad taste in my mouth.
     
    For the record, I regard Lincoln as the greatest modern man. Not without sin, but close.

    That is only true if you are a Yankee. For everyone else, Lincoln just won a civil war which given that civil wars have to be prefaced with the country in question does not make him stand out. “Freeing the slaves” is an appeal to the secular religion of our time and would actually resonate except for the fact Lincoln was freeing the Souths slaves and Yankees and Southerners hate each other. A bit like holding up the Independent State of Croatia as an example of Adolf Hitler’s strong respect for ethnic self determination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Freeing the slaves” is an appeal to the secular religion of our time and would actually resonate except for the fact Lincoln was freeing the Souths slaves
     
    Well, that is where the bulk of the slaves were.....plus, by seceding, the South made ending slavery possible...which is further proof that the fire-eaters were flat-out crazy...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Jack Hanson
    You're pretty upset that some one who "made it" wants nothing to do with your controlled opposition there, Mr. Unwarranted Self Importance.

    Sorry to break it to you, but your sempai Spencer is a fucking joke and an embarrassment. I don't blame Miller for wanting nothing to do with a LARPing internet aristocrat like Spencer either.

    No one in their right mind would have anything to do with Spencer. He’s either controlled opposition or a dolt who has no understanding of PR, politics, organizing and leading a group.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @AndrewR
    He's not? Tell that to the corporate news organizations who have spent countless thousands of man-hours and written countless millions of words on him in the last year or two. He's certainly the most well-known alt-right figure (assuming you don't count David Duke, who runs in the same general political crowd as Spencer), and the establishment has spent an extraordinary amount of time, money and energy condemning the alt-right.

    Tell that to the corporate news organizations who have spent countless thousands of man-hours and written countless millions of words on him in the last year or two. He’s certainly the most well-known alt-right figure

    He’s the perfect caricature, the perfect clown, the perfect “useful idiot” to discredit all of us. THAT is why the MSM spend so much time on him. And for no other reason.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Looking at your 2004 article, it’s amazing how little the mainstream dialog has changed in the last 13 years. We have been going in circles. Charlie Brown still falls for Lucy’s stunt every time. It’s Groundhog Day – if this happened again at Claremont tomorrow the reaction would be exactly the same, as if this had never happened before. Cancel classes, hold “conversations”, then it’s all revealed to be a hoax and the cancellers say that they aren’t sorry that they fell for a hoax, they are actually glad that they had the opportunity.

    Except now it’s not just Claremont it’s even formerly “conservative” places like the Air Force Academy (in 2004 the beef with the AFA was still that it was dominated by Christian fundamentalists.) “Hate hoax” is still not a thing. 0 hits in the NY Times archive. When these things are going on, do the administrators suspect it’s a hoax and they play along so as not to be outflanked on their left? Or are they really that stupid and naive? Does ANYONE still believe these things are real or is EVERYONE (even the student provocateurs) just playing along because you should never let a crisis go to waste? Is it stupidity or cynicism? Either way is not pretty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. @Dan Hayes
    Steve,

    I became suspicious of Jaffa when he set about anointing Lincoln as a demigod. It somehow or other left a bad taste in my mouth.

    It was only later that I came to realize that Lincoln was an unindicted war criminal.

    All wartime leaders are war criminals but only the losers get indicted. To paraphrase Mao, a war is not a dinner party.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @AndrewR
    For being so woke, (((Miller))) sure is a cuck. His response when asked about his association with Richard Spencer at Duke was beyond cowardly.

    Cuck is the all purpose alt-right insult. Everyone to the left of Himmler is a cuck.

    The Permanent Government/Media complex would love to deplatform and delegitimize Miller by tarring him with Spencer’s Nazi brush. I don’t blame Miller for not letting them. Spencer is a clown who purposely makes himself distasteful to the mainstream. This gets him a lot of attention but he will never be allowed to get within 5 decks of the levers of power while Miller is right up there on the bridge talking into the helmsman’s ear. Do you really want him to exile himself to the coal bunker by claiming Spencer as his best friend? How would this help anybody?

    Read More
    • Agree: Abe, Jus' Sayin'...
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Cuck is not an all-purpose insult, that's a deliberate disinfo campaign by David Brock usually characterized by calling Trump one. It means the same thing as it did in Shakespeare's day.
    , @Charles Pewitt

    The Permanent Government/Media complex...

     

    There is nothing "permanent" about the corporate propaganda apparatus nor the "Permanent Government/Media complex" as you put it. As a matter of fact, at this moment, the Trump administration is looking into the shady doings of the evil Comcast corporation. I would suggest that the family from Philadelphia that runs Comcast will be removed from power very soon.

    The only thing permanent is the CAT LADY AGENDA, and the Republican Party might be on the wrong side of that agenda in the 2018 mid-term elections.
    , @AndrewR
    Spencer may be a clown but there's no one else who has done so much for the pro-white cause. Will you be the one to change this?

    I won't dignify your strawman question with a response. You and your comment's agreers have poor reading comprehension at best.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    Harry Jaffa ... cultivated what became known as “West Coast Straussians,” in opposition to “East Coast Straussians.”

    Maybe there are some instructional parallels with the Crips-and-Bloods-like
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast%E2%80%93West_Coast_hip_hop_rivalry

    But with less shooting. There’s comedy potential there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Amazingly, Kerri Dunn is still in teaching business. Some joint called John Jay College of Criminal Justice hired her as an adjunct professor of psychology. Here is her LinkedIn page:

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/kerri-dunn-65b918b/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Anonymous:

    John Jay College of Criminal Justice is part of the City University of New York whose predecessor was the City College which in turn was the partial progenitor of Neoconservativism.

    John Jay's student body originally consisted of hard core conservative cops and firemen and may still be that way. Nevertheless its faculty has always been liberal or super-liberal. Shall we say an interesting anomaly!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. It’s quite a stretch to bring Leo Strauss into the thinking of Trump. Trump is an American original, part Huey Long, Norman Vincent Peale, George Wallace and a really good Twitter troll. But it’s a testament to the narcissism of certain members of the Tribe to think that every political movement in the U.S. has to be organized and controlled by their co-religionists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. @Anonymous
    I can state with no doubt that the thing that proved most decisive in converting me into an active Trump supporter was the essay "The Flight 93 Election", by "Publius Decius Mus".
    I was formerly a leftist. I voted for Obama both times in the general election, but with no enthusiasm. I did not like the guy and did not trust him.
    For 2016, I knew I would not vote for a Democrat (although I might have voted for Jim Webb), and gave some thought (even if very briefly) to the three major alternative candidates. But I figured I would vote for a Republican for the first time. My initial choice was Carson. (Magic negro, whatever, he is a more accomplished guy than the vast majority of white men, and he has some legitimate self-awareness about how he has gotten where he is.) Then I favored Cruz, and I was sure Cruz would win, mainly since I thought he was the guy who could beat Trump. Cruz had some brutal anti-Trump ads. Brutal and funny.

    I had despised Trump since I had been aware of him. He struck me as a degenerate and gross vulgarian. This initial opinion has not entirely disappeared. What changed is that I began to see him as a fundamental alternative to the existing political class. Many things contributed to this, and certainly my growing awareness that the MSM was engaging in outright lying played a major role. But the "United 93" essay was the thing that "made sense" for me. That was the thing that made me start to seriously think that Trump, this guy I had previously despised, might be a guy who could play a role in saving our nation.

    Of course that was in the Claremont Review of Books. The nybooks.com article somehow fails to mention that the author is now (I think) employed at the White House.

    (The United 93 theatrical film is great, and I also liked the made-for-TV film. Let's roll.)

    My impression (it’s been a while since I saw both the movie “United 93″ and the made-for-TV version “Flight 93″) is that both films leave ambiguous whether the passengers on the flight actually breached the cockpit during the infamous fight.

    As you probably know, the FBI announced that the fight never actually got into the cockpit where the hijackers had control of the plane.

    The relatives of the victims were very upset by this – they believed their loved ones had actually made it to the flight controls in the cockpit.

    Nope, said the FBI – that didn’t happen. The fighters never got through the cockpit door, they said.

    Of course, if the FBI was right , then that prompted a very, very obvious question (completely unasked by the mainstream press): why, then, did the plane go down?

    On the other hand, if the relatives were right and the fight DID make it to the flight controls, and that fight then sent the plane crashing down, then another obvious question arises:

    Why not simply say so?
    Why hide the cause of the plane crash in ambiguity?
    Why was the FBI wrong (if they were wrong)?

    The FBI claimed they listened to the CVR tape and it ended abruptly at 10:03:11 am.

    Note that as of October, the National Parks Service official list of FAQ’s does NOT have the one central question:

    Why did Flight 93 crash?

    https://www.nps.gov/flni/learn/historyculture/sources-and-detailed-information.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    My own view is that the whole "Let's Roll" thing was a fabrication. No cell phone that was state of the art in '01 could have made a call while the plane was in flight. If they can get you asking the wrong questions, then the answers won't matter.
    , @Anonymous
    The initial reports were that the plane had been shot down to stop it crashing into the White House. That story was immediately canned and memory-holed, however, and replaced with the heroic cockpit-struggle narrative.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Horrible Prevarications From Heilbrunn:

    They saw, and continue to see, immigration as a national blessing and ended up embracing a missionary view of American foreign policy.

    I am calling horseshit on Heilbrunn’s dishonest assertions that East Coast Jew Neo-Conservatives ever thought that “they saw…immigration as a national blessing” and that they “ended up embracing a missionary view of American foreign policy.”

    Heilbrunn knows damn well that the Neo-Conservative Jews, from the get-go, saw mass immigration as a way to attack the European Christian ancestral core of the United States. Heilbrunn also knows that the Neo-Conservative Jews wanted to use the US military as muscle to fight wars on behalf of Israel.

    Heilbrunn comes from a culture that teaches that it is important to lie to Christians and other non-Jews to advance the interests of globalized Jewry. Heilbrunn’s disgusting lies will not stand. White Core Americans are starting to figure out that the Neo-Conservative Jews who have infested the Republican Party are evil to their core.

    HAPPY NEW YEAR!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. @Jack D
    Cuck is the all purpose alt-right insult. Everyone to the left of Himmler is a cuck.

    The Permanent Government/Media complex would love to deplatform and delegitimize Miller by tarring him with Spencer's Nazi brush. I don't blame Miller for not letting them. Spencer is a clown who purposely makes himself distasteful to the mainstream. This gets him a lot of attention but he will never be allowed to get within 5 decks of the levers of power while Miller is right up there on the bridge talking into the helmsman's ear. Do you really want him to exile himself to the coal bunker by claiming Spencer as his best friend? How would this help anybody?

    Cuck is not an all-purpose insult, that’s a deliberate disinfo campaign by David Brock usually characterized by calling Trump one. It means the same thing as it did in Shakespeare’s day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @utu
    There si also another school in Claremont, CA, Claremont School of Theology that produced a scholar who challenged the neocons and all the spawn of Leo Strauss the most:

    David Ray Griffin (Wilbur, Washington, born August 8, 1939)[1] is a retired American professor of philosophy of religion and theology, and a political writer. Along with John B. Cobb, Jr., he founded the Center for Process Studies in 1973, a research center of Claremont School of Theology which seeks to promote the common good by means of the relational approach found in process thought.[2] Griffin has published a number of books on the subject of the September 11 attacks, suggesting that there was a conspiracy involving some elements of the United States government.[3]
     
    The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9-11, Olive Branch Press, 2004

    The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Olive Branch Press, 2004

    Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action, Westminster John Knox Press, 2006,

    Griffin is a promoter of 9/11 twoofer silliness. No clue why you find that commendable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @utu
    I have enjoyed very much the roman à clef Ravelstein by Saul Bellow which is about Alan Bloom and his evolution and slow transformation form classicist in love with hellenism to Zionist in love with Judaism. Jerusalem always wins with Athens in a Jewish heart. Wolfowitz and Leo Strauss appear in the book.

    Ravelstein was fiction. Bloom was an atheist, though not aggressive about it in the manner of Christopher Hitchens or Daniel Dennett.

    Much of the discussion of Strauss is bizarre. He wasn’t a man whose concerns were worldly and he ended his days at St. John’s College, a place you go if you want to sit and think. Allan Bloom was concerned with the evolution of academic life and hardly cared about topical political questions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. The whole East Coast/West Coast nonsense is just a lot of Jews fighting over which Jews get to co-opt Big C Conservatism. They are essentially all loser Jews would couldn’t make it in Progressive circles, where the real money and fame are. The result was and is a turf war in a phone booth. Nobody cares.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    The whole East Coast/West Coast nonsense is just a lot of Jews fighting over which Jews get to co-opt Big C Conservatism.

     

    The above is succinct and correct.

    I blame Rupert Murdoch and Ronald Reagan for the rise of the Neo-Conservative faction in the Republican Party. I would also claim that the Neo-Conservatives have done more damage to the United States with their push for nation-wrecking mass immigration than with their disastrous plans to use the US military as muscle to fight on behalf of Israel in the Middle East and West Asia.

    Ronald Reagan opened the Republican Party gates to the Neo-Conservatives and Rupert Murdoch has given the Neo-Conservatives a media platform to push endless war on behalf of Israel and nation-wrecking mass immigration.

    Rupert Murdoch and his family are evil antipodeans of the worst sort. I would deport Murdoch, his family and all his minions back to Australia.
    , @Art Deco
    The whole East Coast/West Coast nonsense is just a lot of Jews fighting over which Jews get to co-opt Big C Conservatism.

    Neither Harvey Mansfield nor Harry Jaffa were Jewish nor was Leo Strauss a peculiarly important figure in post-war starboard discourse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Some people way overthink things. Complex theory is not necessary. It becomes distracting chaff. All that’s necessary is to notice what’s in front of your nose.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. Kerri Dunn got a year in prison and a fine of $20,000 for her hate hoax back in 2004.

    https://everipedia.org/wiki/kerri-dunn/

    Does it seem that the sentences for such offenses have decreased a little since then?

    http://www.tribstar.com/news/local_news/former-isu-professor-gets-probation-for-false-reporting/article_4f327dd7-529a-5887-8f87-654caee7a358.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. This Jew Heilbrunn doesn’t understand that the Jew Moment in American history is over. The European Christian ancestral core of the United States is rejecting the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative faction in the Republican Party. The non-white factions within the Democrat Party will soon send the Jew politicians and Jew donors who presume to run the Democrat Party out to pasture or to the glue factory.

    Heilbrunn is whistling past the graveyard with his narrow options of this Jew or that Jew as a guru who is supposed to guide the Republican Party. White Core Americans are rejecting the leadership of the Jews in politics.

    BACK TO BLOOD means that Jews will be ignored and organized global Jewry will be seen for what it is: an ethnic conspiracy to undermine and destroy all other nations but Israel.

    Organized Jewry pushes endless overseas war that only benefits Israel. Organized Jewry pushes sovereignty-sapping trade deal scams that undermine national governments. Organized Jewry pushes open borders mass immigration as a way to destroy European Christian nation-states.

    Hey, I spotted Heibrunn telling the truth in a book he wrote, wow!

    Heilbrunn from his book on the Neo-Conservatives “They Knew They Were Right”:

    “Indeed, as much as they may deny it, neoconservatism is in a decisive respect a Jewish phenomenon, reflecting a subset of Jewish concerns” (p. 11).

    The Jewish Question is a legitimate topic of study. Any honest study of European intellectual history will expressly cover and explore the Jewish Question. Heilbrunn is an obvious liar and scoundrel, but he is a good representation of why the Jewish Question is so important to understand.

    Read More
    • LOL: IHTG
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    (p. 11).The Jewish Question is a legitimate topic of study. Any honest study of European intellectual history will expressly cover and explore the Jewish Question.

    No, the Jewish Question is an obsession of damaged individuals. Intellectual historians are going to take an interest in the milieu which produced Spinoza (to take one example), but not as a point of departure for nutty political animadversions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Ideology is a problem-solving method that evolution has provided for people who can’t solve practical problems on their own. It’s a operational mental framework for the type of lazy non-thinker who becomes easily befuddled.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. @Jack D
    Cuck is the all purpose alt-right insult. Everyone to the left of Himmler is a cuck.

    The Permanent Government/Media complex would love to deplatform and delegitimize Miller by tarring him with Spencer's Nazi brush. I don't blame Miller for not letting them. Spencer is a clown who purposely makes himself distasteful to the mainstream. This gets him a lot of attention but he will never be allowed to get within 5 decks of the levers of power while Miller is right up there on the bridge talking into the helmsman's ear. Do you really want him to exile himself to the coal bunker by claiming Spencer as his best friend? How would this help anybody?

    The Permanent Government/Media complex…

    There is nothing “permanent” about the corporate propaganda apparatus nor the “Permanent Government/Media complex” as you put it. As a matter of fact, at this moment, the Trump administration is looking into the shady doings of the evil Comcast corporation. I would suggest that the family from Philadelphia that runs Comcast will be removed from power very soon.

    The only thing permanent is the CAT LADY AGENDA, and the Republican Party might be on the wrong side of that agenda in the 2018 mid-term elections.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. I don’t think the hate hoax index spiking in the quads of Claremont is what steered the institute toward trump. Those flash points are telling, but the animus toward the conservative (or more accurately the classic liberal economist) spirit predates those things by several decades. The institute has been under siege long enough to instill a visceral sense of what is at stake.

    The libertarian-conservative disposition of the institute is rooted in CMC, a post-war classical liberal arts school that prides itself on a minimalist utilitarian bootstrap mentality.

    It’s where well-heeled young men went to be trained in the practical application of liberal arts in business and government. This, in the post war glow of optimism and opportunity that the bounty of California once offered, fueled a meteoric rise of this little institution.

    “Civilization prospers with commerce” is the motto. The tide has been coming in on this conservative island for quite a while. California is lost. Demographics are crushing. Commerce is now just startup and sell out, rent seeking, or government tit sucking. The old guard have no transition plan and the new guys have sold out to the globalists.

    The hate hoax targeting has been going on for a long time. It wasn’t the race crap we see now but the militant feminism that infected Scripps women’s college turned the finishing school against the former men’s college. Take back the night and all kinds of equality rapey rapey stuff for years.

    Enter Pitzer college, the joke of the consortium. The step sister without the looks of scripps, brains of Mudd, the heritage of Pomona, or the gumption of CMC. Chip on shoulder activist insecurities ensued. These days Pitzer openly advertises the “activist” opportunities (and “self guided” academics) that print SJWs faster than thier wealthy self-loathing parents can write checks. CMC (the keeper of the conservative torch) has been surrounded for a long time.

    The flash points of hate hoax is just inevitable when the diversity gods are fed too much. Mudd sold out hard and fast but CMC, like California as a whole, has let its success cloud its judgement and invited the vampires inside. There is no appeasing an ideology that wants you dead.

    CMC is now a country club for soft moneyed kids and foreign full-tuition opportunists. The longtime president, Jack Stark, warned against this, ardently lobbying to keep the army barrracks campus and pipeline of scrappy middle class industrious kids intact.

    I think the institute feels the encroaching darkness not from these incidents, per se, but from losing the beachhead of CMC to the SJW, Progressive, globalists – all while the great state of California is just a hollowed out gord left to dry in the sun.

    There is an internal battle waging for the soul of CMC. The cuckservative element did what they do best and sold out. The last hope is to pivot back toward the white male (racist) roots and hope that CMC can survive long enough to get gen Z in there and hold the fort. Otherwise the institute has no terra firma and is just one more squeak in the dustbin of western civilization.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. @Maj. Kong
    In the left's eyes, "diversity" means fewer white people (males)

    In our eyes, it should be half of all university faculties in the country becoming rightist.

    Diversity also means fewer men and more women. It also means fewer straight people and more gays. In fact what it always means is fewer of the “oppressors” and more of the “oppressed.” This is because the Left sees the world entirely in terms of oppression, and sees its sacred mission as identifying the evil oppressors and fighting against them on behalf of the innocent oppressees. That is what the world is about, full stop.

    Not that oppression never happens of course! But this perspective does mean that the left is blind to other axes that also explain the world: in particular, the rather important achiever/loser axis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @syonredux

    Instead, he said this: ““I have absolutely no relationship with Mr. Spencer. I completely repudiate his views, and his claims are 100% false.”

    Utter cowardice.
     
    If that's the most cowardly thing that Miller ever does in his life, I'm OK with it. Spencer's just not that important.

    >> Spencer’s just not that important. <<

    True; but neither is Miller.

    Read More
    • LOL: IHTG
    • Replies: @syonredux

    >> Spencer’s just not that important. <<

    True; but neither is Miller.
     
    Miller's far more important than Spencer....unless you know something about Spencer that I don't....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Well, if you want to go there, so was Robert E Lee….

    But I’ve grown rather tired of these post-bellum disputes. More pressing issues concern us, things like the very survival of Anglo-America.

    I’ll see you, and raise you Sherman.

    All wartime leaders are war criminals but only the losers get indicted. To paraphrase Mao, a war is not a dinner party.

    Yeah but Lincoln stands out as an unindicted war criminal among unindicted war criminals. To paraphrase me, don’t start and wage America’s most deadly war, and your legacy might not be so bad.

    out-and-out murdering Seth Rich for leaking the DNC emails exposing this fraud.

    The evidence suggests Rich was murdered by DC’s diversity in a “random” street crime.

    Frankly, the top down approach to these sort of massively empirical questions strikes me as crackpot. I’d rather consult crystals than a philosophical theory on matters like these.

    Where’s the philosophy that starts with the life force and the survival instinct, and works out from there?

    That is only true if you are a Yankee. For everyone else, Lincoln just won a civil war

    Started and waged; Lincoln started and waged the civil war.

    Lincoln was freeing the Souths slaves and Yankees and Southerners hate each other. A bit like holding up the Independent State of Croatia as an example of Adolf Hitler’s strong respect for ethnic self determination.

    Well said. But there’s nothing quite as pro-white as killing white men to free black slaves, so Lincoln’s got that going for him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Well, if you want to go there, so was Robert E Lee….

    But I’ve grown rather tired of these post-bellum disputes. More pressing issues concern us, things like the very survival of Anglo-America.

    I’ll see you, and raise you Sherman.
     
    Sherman as a war criminal? What metric are we using? the real world or OZ?

    All wartime leaders are war criminals but only the losers get indicted. To paraphrase Mao, a war is not a dinner party.

    Yeah but Lincoln stands out as an unindicted war criminal among unindicted war criminals. To paraphrase me, don’t start and wage America’s most deadly war, and your legacy might not be so bad.
     
    Jefferson Davis has much to answer for....

    That is only true if you are a Yankee. For everyone else, Lincoln just won a civil war

    Started and waged; Lincoln started and waged the civil war.
     
    Started when the South seceded.....

    Lincoln was freeing the Souths slaves and Yankees and Southerners hate each other. A bit like holding up the Independent State of Croatia as an example of Adolf Hitler’s strong respect for ethnic self determination.

    Well said. But there’s nothing quite as pro-white as killing white men to free black slaves, so Lincoln’s got that going for him.
     
    Come now, there's nothing quite so pro-White as killing White men to keep Blacks slaves, So Jefferson Davis' got that going for him...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Kevin McDonald has written a bit about Jews’ tendency to form personality cults.

    The effort was worthy but merited only a passing mark—“low but solid,”

    I suppose not foreseeing the need limit immigration to Northwest European racial stock keeps the Founding Fathers out of the coveted “A+” category. Would’ve spared us this cult, for one thing. The proper setting for their conversation is Minsk, or Odessa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Kevin McDonald has written a bit about Jews’ tendency to form personality cults.

    Really? Which Israeli prime minister had a cult of personality?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @peterike
    The whole East Coast/West Coast nonsense is just a lot of Jews fighting over which Jews get to co-opt Big C Conservatism. They are essentially all loser Jews would couldn't make it in Progressive circles, where the real money and fame are. The result was and is a turf war in a phone booth. Nobody cares.

    The whole East Coast/West Coast nonsense is just a lot of Jews fighting over which Jews get to co-opt Big C Conservatism.

    The above is succinct and correct.

    I blame Rupert Murdoch and Ronald Reagan for the rise of the Neo-Conservative faction in the Republican Party. I would also claim that the Neo-Conservatives have done more damage to the United States with their push for nation-wrecking mass immigration than with their disastrous plans to use the US military as muscle to fight on behalf of Israel in the Middle East and West Asia.

    Ronald Reagan opened the Republican Party gates to the Neo-Conservatives and Rupert Murdoch has given the Neo-Conservatives a media platform to push endless war on behalf of Israel and nation-wrecking mass immigration.

    Rupert Murdoch and his family are evil antipodeans of the worst sort. I would deport Murdoch, his family and all his minions back to Australia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I blame Rupert Murdoch and Ronald Reagan for the rise of the Neo-Conservative faction in the Republican Party.

    There is no 'neoconservative faction'. As for the original intellectual circle, it was composed of people who were based in New York and had been prominent in certain circles for decades before Reagan ever ran for office outside of California. As for Murdoch, he's a businessman. He once owned the parent company of The Village Voice. Other than the Post editorial page, he didn't take to subsidizing starboard opinion journalism until around 1995.
    , @Hibernian
    Doesn't Murdoch live in Britain? Wouldn't Servant of the Queen, Teresa May, be the one to deport him? (Not likely.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Diversity also means fewer men and more women. It also means fewer straight people and more gays. In fact what it always means is fewer of the “oppressors” and more of the “oppressed.” This is because the Left sees the world entirely in terms of oppression, and sees its sacred mission as identifying the evil oppressors and fighting against them on behalf of the innocent oppressees. That is what the world is about, full stop.

    I suppose my biggest problem with this is the fact that for the last century or more, the world’s greatest oppressor has been the left. They murdered over a hundred million people of their own people in peacetime alone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    Harry Jaffa ... cultivated what became known as “West Coast Straussians,” in opposition to “East Coast Straussians.”

    Maybe there are some instructional parallels with the Crips-and-Bloods-like
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast%E2%80%93West_Coast_hip_hop_rivalry

    East coast colors are beige; west coast puce.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @peterike
    The whole East Coast/West Coast nonsense is just a lot of Jews fighting over which Jews get to co-opt Big C Conservatism. They are essentially all loser Jews would couldn't make it in Progressive circles, where the real money and fame are. The result was and is a turf war in a phone booth. Nobody cares.

    The whole East Coast/West Coast nonsense is just a lot of Jews fighting over which Jews get to co-opt Big C Conservatism.

    Neither Harvey Mansfield nor Harry Jaffa were Jewish nor was Leo Strauss a peculiarly important figure in post-war starboard discourse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Art Deco:

    You at least half wrong:

    Harry Jaffa was definitely Jewish.

    Harvey Mansfield probably not since his father was a Columbia professor at a time when few Jews were tenured.

    , @Old Palo Altan
    As Mr Hayes correctly points out, Harry Jaffa was Jewish. I am sure that you knew this, and that you were oh-so-cleverly "flushing out anti-Semites" are some such foolishness.

    Harvey Mansfield is a WASP to his fingertips, but his wife, a fine person and a fine writer, was as Jewish as Jaffa. Amusingly, given my earlier posting on another thread, the surname assumed by her Russian-born but not Russian-blooded ancestor was "Winthrop." No doubt he too looked down on the merely Mayflower descended.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Svigor
    Kevin McDonald has written a bit about Jews' tendency to form personality cults.

    The effort was worthy but merited only a passing mark—“low but solid,”
     
    I suppose not foreseeing the need limit immigration to Northwest European racial stock keeps the Founding Fathers out of the coveted "A+" category. Would've spared us this cult, for one thing. The proper setting for their conversation is Minsk, or Odessa.

    Kevin McDonald has written a bit about Jews’ tendency to form personality cults.

    Really? Which Israeli prime minister had a cult of personality?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Doesn't Murdoch live in Britain? Wouldn't Servant of the Queen, Teresa May, be the one to deport him? (Not likely.)
    , @Hibernian
    Try Moshe Dayan, David Ben-Gurion, and Golda Meir.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Charles Pewitt
    This Jew Heilbrunn doesn't understand that the Jew Moment in American history is over. The European Christian ancestral core of the United States is rejecting the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative faction in the Republican Party. The non-white factions within the Democrat Party will soon send the Jew politicians and Jew donors who presume to run the Democrat Party out to pasture or to the glue factory.

    Heilbrunn is whistling past the graveyard with his narrow options of this Jew or that Jew as a guru who is supposed to guide the Republican Party. White Core Americans are rejecting the leadership of the Jews in politics.

    BACK TO BLOOD means that Jews will be ignored and organized global Jewry will be seen for what it is: an ethnic conspiracy to undermine and destroy all other nations but Israel.

    Organized Jewry pushes endless overseas war that only benefits Israel. Organized Jewry pushes sovereignty-sapping trade deal scams that undermine national governments. Organized Jewry pushes open borders mass immigration as a way to destroy European Christian nation-states.

    Hey, I spotted Heibrunn telling the truth in a book he wrote, wow!

    Heilbrunn from his book on the Neo-Conservatives "They Knew They Were Right":


    “Indeed, as much as they may deny it, neoconservatism is in a decisive respect a Jewish phenomenon, reflecting a subset of Jewish concerns” (p. 11).

     

    The Jewish Question is a legitimate topic of study. Any honest study of European intellectual history will expressly cover and explore the Jewish Question. Heilbrunn is an obvious liar and scoundrel, but he is a good representation of why the Jewish Question is so important to understand.

    (p. 11).The Jewish Question is a legitimate topic of study. Any honest study of European intellectual history will expressly cover and explore the Jewish Question.

    No, the Jewish Question is an obsession of damaged individuals. Intellectual historians are going to take an interest in the milieu which produced Spinoza (to take one example), but not as a point of departure for nutty political animadversions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Anonymous
    Amazingly, Kerri Dunn is still in teaching business. Some joint called John Jay College of Criminal Justice hired her as an adjunct professor of psychology. Here is her LinkedIn page:
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/kerri-dunn-65b918b/

    Anonymous:

    John Jay College of Criminal Justice is part of the City University of New York whose predecessor was the City College which in turn was the partial progenitor of Neoconservativism.

    John Jay’s student body originally consisted of hard core conservative cops and firemen and may still be that way. Nevertheless its faculty has always been liberal or super-liberal. Shall we say an interesting anomaly!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Jack D
    Cuck is the all purpose alt-right insult. Everyone to the left of Himmler is a cuck.

    The Permanent Government/Media complex would love to deplatform and delegitimize Miller by tarring him with Spencer's Nazi brush. I don't blame Miller for not letting them. Spencer is a clown who purposely makes himself distasteful to the mainstream. This gets him a lot of attention but he will never be allowed to get within 5 decks of the levers of power while Miller is right up there on the bridge talking into the helmsman's ear. Do you really want him to exile himself to the coal bunker by claiming Spencer as his best friend? How would this help anybody?

    Spencer may be a clown but there’s no one else who has done so much for the pro-white cause. Will you be the one to change this?

    I won’t dignify your strawman question with a response. You and your comment’s agreers have poor reading comprehension at best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jb
    Richard Spencer has done greater harm to the pro-white cause than any other American I can think of, with the possible exception of Andrew Anglin. They are both exactly what the Left wants white nationalists to be, and that's why the mainstream media has been promoting the two of them so energetically. E.g.:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/his-kampf/524505/

    http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-poland-spencer-ban-20171122-story.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/richard-spencer-hosted-an-event-at-a-maryland-farm-halfway-through-everyone-was-kicked-out/2017/11/21/1cd92dfe-9f33-40c4-b6f5-a271a8874c5d_story.html

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/richard-spencer-cotton-farms-louisiana-subsidies/#

    https://www.thenation.com/article/the-racist-right-looks-left/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/technology/theyre-trying-to-sue-a-white-supremacist-first-he-must-be-found.html

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/12/the-making-of-an-american-nazi/544119/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/12/03/neo-nazi-argues-that-troll-storm-against-jewish-woman-is-free-speech/

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/court-filing-neo-nazi-andrew-anglin_us_5a3d7b56e4b06d1621b44e2b

    For some reason sensible writers like Steve don't merit this kind of rapt coverage. Hmm, why would that be? Could it be because the Left sees Spencer and Anglin as assets whose writings and ideas it wants known as widely as possible? Why yes, I think that explains it very well!

    , @Johann Ricke

    Spencer may be a clown but there’s no one else who has done so much for the pro-white cause.
     
    He has gotten the pro-white cause associated with Nazi mass killings. With friends like this ...
    , @Karl
    77 AndrewR > but there’s no one else who has done so much for the pro-white cause. Will you be the one to change this?


    says the guy who is reading an article about what the _The New York Review of Books_ wrote

    I don't exactly know how we convinced the British that holding onto their colonial outpost in Judea was a losing cause, but I know that it wasn't by reading leftist magazines from New York
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @candid_observer
    I just don't get the claim that differences over, say, immigration or invading the world should have anything to do with interpretations of some abstract theory deriving from a "philosopher" like Strauss.

    Is there no room in political philosophy for a bottom up, rather than a top down, approach? Our policy on immigration and wars should depend on what some intellectual bloviator has to say, rather than the obvious merits or defects of particular immigration policies, or particular kinds of war?

    Frankly, the top down approach to these sort of massively empirical questions strikes me as crackpot. I'd rather consult crystals than a philosophical theory on matters like these.

    I don’t think that there is single Straussian who would disagree with you on this point. To pick two East Coast Straussians who voted for Clinton– William Galston and Francis Fukuyama– it is unlikely that they think that immigration policy is something deduced from general moral principles. They would probably just say that they disagree over the consequences of immigration policy… for all I know, they might even support enforcing immigration law…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Art Deco
    The whole East Coast/West Coast nonsense is just a lot of Jews fighting over which Jews get to co-opt Big C Conservatism.

    Neither Harvey Mansfield nor Harry Jaffa were Jewish nor was Leo Strauss a peculiarly important figure in post-war starboard discourse.

    Art Deco:

    You at least half wrong:

    Harry Jaffa was definitely Jewish.

    Harvey Mansfield probably not since his father was a Columbia professor at a time when few Jews were tenured.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. John Jay College of Criminal Justice is part of the City University of New York whose predecessor was the City College which in turn was the partial progenitor of Neoconservativism.

    WTF? Some of the people publishing in The Public Interest and Commentary ca. 1985 had attended CCNY around the same time (ca. 1939) and belonged to a luncheon club wherein they ate cream-cheese sandwiches, played table tennis, and discussed Plekhanov. What did that have to do with operation and mission of CCNY or John Jay? While we’re at it, CUNY is an umbrella corporation for a portfolio of state schools (it’s old name was the “Board of Higher Education”). CCNY was just the first school in the system founded, not a ‘progenitor’. John Jay, like Baruch, was a semi-specialized institution founded much later. It was a new plant, not a division of CCNY.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    I think Brooklyn College had a history independent of CCNY; at least some of the others not so much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. I’m more than a little vague on how the different flavors of Straussianism tie into Trump vs. NeverTrump.

    I’m not sure that they do.

    Strauss taught that we need to revisit the perennial questions of political philosophy which are in constant tension — for instance, the tension between Plato’s idealism as the basis of the state, vs. Aristotle’s emphasis on fixed and immutable differences among men.

    He believed that revisiting these questions was particularly necessary in the 20th century, because totalitarian Nazi and Communist regimes believed that they had the answers to the questions of human nature and history and that it was no longer even necessary to ask these questions, and anyone who did would be executed or imprisoned.

    Strauss recognized that political philosophy is an art, not a science that can provide formulaic answers.

    He ultimately believed that liberal democracy, although highly flawed, was the preferred alternative to competing 20th century totalitarian ideologies because at least it allowed the philosopher to seek truth without being jailed or shot. A similar argument is made in Book 8 of Plato’s Republic, where democracy is presented as fourth worst out of five types of regimes (and potentially leads to dictatorship) but at least allows the philosopher the freedom to follow the Socratic maxim to question everything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. @Charles Pewitt

    The whole East Coast/West Coast nonsense is just a lot of Jews fighting over which Jews get to co-opt Big C Conservatism.

     

    The above is succinct and correct.

    I blame Rupert Murdoch and Ronald Reagan for the rise of the Neo-Conservative faction in the Republican Party. I would also claim that the Neo-Conservatives have done more damage to the United States with their push for nation-wrecking mass immigration than with their disastrous plans to use the US military as muscle to fight on behalf of Israel in the Middle East and West Asia.

    Ronald Reagan opened the Republican Party gates to the Neo-Conservatives and Rupert Murdoch has given the Neo-Conservatives a media platform to push endless war on behalf of Israel and nation-wrecking mass immigration.

    Rupert Murdoch and his family are evil antipodeans of the worst sort. I would deport Murdoch, his family and all his minions back to Australia.

    I blame Rupert Murdoch and Ronald Reagan for the rise of the Neo-Conservative faction in the Republican Party.

    There is no ‘neoconservative faction’. As for the original intellectual circle, it was composed of people who were based in New York and had been prominent in certain circles for decades before Reagan ever ran for office outside of California. As for Murdoch, he’s a businessman. He once owned the parent company of The Village Voice. Other than the Post editorial page, he didn’t take to subsidizing starboard opinion journalism until around 1995.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @AndrewR
    Spencer may be a clown but there's no one else who has done so much for the pro-white cause. Will you be the one to change this?

    I won't dignify your strawman question with a response. You and your comment's agreers have poor reading comprehension at best.

    Richard Spencer has done greater harm to the pro-white cause than any other American I can think of, with the possible exception of Andrew Anglin. They are both exactly what the Left wants white nationalists to be, and that’s why the mainstream media has been promoting the two of them so energetically. E.g.:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/his-kampf/524505/

    http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-poland-spencer-ban-20171122-story.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/richard-spencer-hosted-an-event-at-a-maryland-farm-halfway-through-everyone-was-kicked-out/2017/11/21/1cd92dfe-9f33-40c4-b6f5-a271a8874c5d_story.html

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/richard-spencer-cotton-farms-louisiana-subsidies/#

    https://www.thenation.com/article/the-racist-right-looks-left/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/technology/theyre-trying-to-sue-a-white-supremacist-first-he-must-be-found.html

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/12/the-making-of-an-american-nazi/544119/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/12/03/neo-nazi-argues-that-troll-storm-against-jewish-woman-is-free-speech/

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/court-filing-neo-nazi-andrew-anglin_us_5a3d7b56e4b06d1621b44e2b

    For some reason sensible writers like Steve don’t merit this kind of rapt coverage. Hmm, why would that be? Could it be because the Left sees Spencer and Anglin as assets whose writings and ideas it wants known as widely as possible? Why yes, I think that explains it very well!

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Sailer doesn't do videos, organize events or give speeches, ignorant troll.
    , @Dr. X

    Richard Spencer has done greater harm to the pro-white cause than any other American I can think of, with the possible exception of Andrew Anglin. They are both exactly what the Left wants white nationalists to be...
     
    To the contrary, I think Spencer and Anglin both recognize that under Leftist hegemony, there is no future for the white male at all, and that all white males will be slandered as "Nazis" and "white supremacists" no matter how much they prostrate themselves before the goddesses of political correctness. So Spencer and Anglin just DGAF and embrace it -- which is what the Left fears the most. The slander is no longer effective, because these guys have been so marginalized that they have nothing left to lose.

    Spencer, for instance, was a doctoral student at Duke -- hardly the image of the inbred Klansman with his moonshine still and his noose -- but of course Duke is the same institution where 88 professors signed a statement against white men during the completely fabricated "Duke rape" hoax. Spencer, who holds two Master's degrees, quit the doctoral program, which was the correct move... no white man will be ever be given academic freedom and tenure in the modern university, which offers courses like "The Problem of Whiteness." Professors today are not intellectuals, but butch dyke feminists, communist Jewesses, and black street hustlers teaching courses in radical identity politics and white-hatred.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Svigor

    Well, if you want to go there, so was Robert E Lee….

    But I’ve grown rather tired of these post-bellum disputes. More pressing issues concern us, things like the very survival of Anglo-America.
     
    I'll see you, and raise you Sherman.

    All wartime leaders are war criminals but only the losers get indicted. To paraphrase Mao, a war is not a dinner party.
     
    Yeah but Lincoln stands out as an unindicted war criminal among unindicted war criminals. To paraphrase me, don't start and wage America's most deadly war, and your legacy might not be so bad.

    out-and-out murdering Seth Rich for leaking the DNC emails exposing this fraud.
     
    The evidence suggests Rich was murdered by DC's diversity in a "random" street crime.

    Frankly, the top down approach to these sort of massively empirical questions strikes me as crackpot. I’d rather consult crystals than a philosophical theory on matters like these.
     
    Where's the philosophy that starts with the life force and the survival instinct, and works out from there?

    That is only true if you are a Yankee. For everyone else, Lincoln just won a civil war
     
    Started and waged; Lincoln started and waged the civil war.

    Lincoln was freeing the Souths slaves and Yankees and Southerners hate each other. A bit like holding up the Independent State of Croatia as an example of Adolf Hitler’s strong respect for ethnic self determination.
     
    Well said. But there's nothing quite as pro-white as killing white men to free black slaves, so Lincoln's got that going for him.

    Well, if you want to go there, so was Robert E Lee….

    But I’ve grown rather tired of these post-bellum disputes. More pressing issues concern us, things like the very survival of Anglo-America.

    I’ll see you, and raise you Sherman.

    Sherman as a war criminal? What metric are we using? the real world or OZ?

    All wartime leaders are war criminals but only the losers get indicted. To paraphrase Mao, a war is not a dinner party.

    Yeah but Lincoln stands out as an unindicted war criminal among unindicted war criminals. To paraphrase me, don’t start and wage America’s most deadly war, and your legacy might not be so bad.

    Jefferson Davis has much to answer for….

    That is only true if you are a Yankee. For everyone else, Lincoln just won a civil war

    Started and waged; Lincoln started and waged the civil war.

    Started when the South seceded…..

    Lincoln was freeing the Souths slaves and Yankees and Southerners hate each other. A bit like holding up the Independent State of Croatia as an example of Adolf Hitler’s strong respect for ethnic self determination.

    Well said. But there’s nothing quite as pro-white as killing white men to free black slaves, so Lincoln’s got that going for him.

    Come now, there’s nothing quite so pro-White as killing White men to keep Blacks slaves, So Jefferson Davis’ got that going for him…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Not Raul
    >> Spencer’s just not that important. <<

    True; but neither is Miller.

    >> Spencer’s just not that important. <<

    True; but neither is Miller.

    Miller’s far more important than Spencer….unless you know something about Spencer that I don’t….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Samuel Skinner
    That is only true if you are a Yankee. For everyone else, Lincoln just won a civil war which given that civil wars have to be prefaced with the country in question does not make him stand out. "Freeing the slaves" is an appeal to the secular religion of our time and would actually resonate except for the fact Lincoln was freeing the Souths slaves and Yankees and Southerners hate each other. A bit like holding up the Independent State of Croatia as an example of Adolf Hitler's strong respect for ethnic self determination.

    Freeing the slaves” is an appeal to the secular religion of our time and would actually resonate except for the fact Lincoln was freeing the Souths slaves

    Well, that is where the bulk of the slaves were…..plus, by seceding, the South made ending slavery possible…which is further proof that the fire-eaters were flat-out crazy…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @bjdubbs
    Here is a relatively recent interview with Jaffa that is kind of telling:

    "Jaffa: The two greatest heroes in Strauss life, do you know who they were? One was Churchill the other was Bismarck . . . There was a good deal of German patriotism inside Strauss, though he made it clear that they only salvation in this world for the things he valued was USA and Israel."

    And why wouldn't Strauss admire Bismarck? To any German like Strauss who was born in the nineteenth century and fought in World War I, Bismarck's Germany had to look pretty good. But contra Jaffa, there is no reason to believe that Strauss believed that either the US or Israel offered any "salvation," which is not a word Strauss would have ever used. In fact, it's impossible to find a single statement in any of Strauss's writings that are pro-USA. I've challenged Straussians to come up with one statement in his published writings favorable to the US or to liberalism and they can't do it. That's why books (like Paul Gottfried's) that turn Strauss into a "Cold war neocon" are so misguided.

    Jaffa is perhaps the most un-Strausslike of the Straussians. Jaffa wrote his dissertation on Thomas Aquinas, which is about as far from Strauss's Christophobic sympathies as can be imagined. Jaffa then wrote a book affirming Lincoln's "second founding" of the US as a Christ figure who founded the US in blood versus the Old Testament founding in paper. Again, that could not be more antithetical to Strauss's own sympathies as an anti-liberal and Jew. Strauss's Natural Right and History is a murder mystery in the sleuth Strauss subtly uncovers "who killed natural right?" It turns out that Christianity killed natural right, and it was Aquinas who delivered the fatal blow.

    Ironically, it was the "East coast" Straussians like George Will who most eagerly adopted Jaffa's book on Lincoln and turned it into a Bible of neoconservativism in which the "American regime" is founded on "the principle of equality." Every time you here a conservative talking about the declaration of independence as somehow holy script, that's Jaffa's influence. Of course, Strauss did not believe in human equality. Here is a passage from another interview with a Straussian, the gentile Walter Berns, who spoke at Strauss's funeral:

    "Berns: Then I remember the rabbi delivering some eulogy. He didn't know Strauss from his elbow: "This great defender of the equality of man" [Laughter]"

    So Straussians like Jaffa and Will have managed to turn Strauss into the exact opposite of what he was, a great defender of liberalism and equality and an admirer of the US. Couldn't be further from the truth.

    Here is a relatively recent interview with Jaffa that is kind of telling:

    “Jaffa: The two greatest heroes in Strauss life, do you know who they were? One was Churchill the other was Bismarck . . . There was a good deal of German patriotism inside Strauss, though he made it clear that they only salvation in this world for the things he valued was USA and Israel.”

    And why wouldn’t Strauss admire Bismarck? To any German like Strauss who was born in the nineteenth century and fought in World War I, Bismarck’s Germany had to look pretty good.

    Interesting that he wasn’t more into Lincoln, the American Bismarck….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @AndrewR
    He's not? Tell that to the corporate news organizations who have spent countless thousands of man-hours and written countless millions of words on him in the last year or two. He's certainly the most well-known alt-right figure (assuming you don't count David Duke, who runs in the same general political crowd as Spencer), and the establishment has spent an extraordinary amount of time, money and energy condemning the alt-right.

    He’s certainly the most well-known alt-right figure (assuming you don’t count David Duke, who runs in the same general political crowd as Spencer),

    Ya know, you’re not exactly helping your case by comparing Spencer to David Duke. David Duke is a complete and utter buffoon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @whorefinder
    Burning Atlanta was a war crime, full stop. What was doubly atrocious is that he did it to his own citizens. And the suspension of basic constitutional rights (habeas) was the act of pure dictatorial power silencing dissent.

    As for his re-election,
    FOr an election taking place in the middle of a civil war, it was dirty:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_in_the_American_Civil_War#Admission_into_statehood

    Burning Atlanta was a war crime, full stop. What was doubly atrocious is that he did it to his own citizens.

    No, it wasn’t. Just compare Atlanta to actual atrocities:The Sack of Magdeburg, The Drownings at Nantes, The War in the Vendée, ….

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Magdeburg#Assault_and_sacking

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drownings_at_Nantes

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e

    And the suspension of basic constitutional rights (habeas) was the act of pure dictatorial power silencing dissent.

    And yet Lincoln tolerated savage attacks in the press that no actual dictator (cf Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Mao) would have ever tolerated….

    As for his re-election,
    FOr an election taking place in the middle of a civil war, it was dirty:

    Expediting statehood for Nevada is your big evidence for the 1864 election being dirty? Sorry, that’s just further evidence for how clean the election of 1864 was.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @AndrewR
    Spencer may be a clown but there's no one else who has done so much for the pro-white cause. Will you be the one to change this?

    I won't dignify your strawman question with a response. You and your comment's agreers have poor reading comprehension at best.

    Spencer may be a clown but there’s no one else who has done so much for the pro-white cause.

    He has gotten the pro-white cause associated with Nazi mass killings. With friends like this …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @AndrewR
    Spencer may be a clown but there's no one else who has done so much for the pro-white cause. Will you be the one to change this?

    I won't dignify your strawman question with a response. You and your comment's agreers have poor reading comprehension at best.

    77 AndrewR > but there’s no one else who has done so much for the pro-white cause. Will you be the one to change this?

    says the guy who is reading an article about what the _The New York Review of Books_ wrote

    I don’t exactly know how we convinced the British that holding onto their colonial outpost in Judea was a losing cause, but I know that it wasn’t by reading leftist magazines from New York

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @jb
    Richard Spencer has done greater harm to the pro-white cause than any other American I can think of, with the possible exception of Andrew Anglin. They are both exactly what the Left wants white nationalists to be, and that's why the mainstream media has been promoting the two of them so energetically. E.g.:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/his-kampf/524505/

    http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-poland-spencer-ban-20171122-story.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/richard-spencer-hosted-an-event-at-a-maryland-farm-halfway-through-everyone-was-kicked-out/2017/11/21/1cd92dfe-9f33-40c4-b6f5-a271a8874c5d_story.html

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/richard-spencer-cotton-farms-louisiana-subsidies/#

    https://www.thenation.com/article/the-racist-right-looks-left/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/technology/theyre-trying-to-sue-a-white-supremacist-first-he-must-be-found.html

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/12/the-making-of-an-american-nazi/544119/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/12/03/neo-nazi-argues-that-troll-storm-against-jewish-woman-is-free-speech/

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/court-filing-neo-nazi-andrew-anglin_us_5a3d7b56e4b06d1621b44e2b

    For some reason sensible writers like Steve don't merit this kind of rapt coverage. Hmm, why would that be? Could it be because the Left sees Spencer and Anglin as assets whose writings and ideas it wants known as widely as possible? Why yes, I think that explains it very well!

    Sailer doesn’t do videos, organize events or give speeches, ignorant troll.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jb
    You simply ignored my point. The mainstream media is clearly doing its best to make Spencer and Anglin into well known celebrities. Why is that? They aren't giving any other alt-Right figures that kind of publicity.

    I say they are being promoted so extensively because they fit so perfectly into the anti-white Leftist narrative. Because their words and ideas are so damaging to the cause of white identity. If you don't agree, then what's your explanation? If the mainstream media thought the ideas of Spenser and Anglin were actually dangerous, why would it want the whole world to be familiar with them?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @guest
    Did anyone ever take Jaffa seriously?

    Maybe I am out of the mainstream. But I remember a brilliant takedown of him on the Declaration of Independence by M.E. Bradford.

    Did anyone ever take Jaffa seriously?

    Maybe I am out of the mainstream. But I remember a brilliant takedown of him on the Declaration of Independence by M.E. Bradford.

    Here’s a link:

    http://www.mmisi.org/ma/20_01/bradford.pdf

    I knew and liked Mel Bradford. He was one of the earliest victims of the “hostile takeover” of American conservatism by the neocon/Straussian cabal. When it appeared that Ronald Reagan was about to nominate Mel to head the National Endowment for the Humanities, these people mounted a massive attack on him. George Will demonstrated his mercenary cravenness at that time, as well as his worthlessness as a human being, by issuing a particularly egregious hatchet job.

    Jaffa is principally responsible for the trope that America is a “propositional nation.” The phrase is derived from Lincoln’s phrase “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” As Mel correctly observed,

    “… there is no man equal to any other, except perhaps in the special, and politically untranslatable, understanding of the Deity. Not intellectually or physically or economically or even morally. Not equal! Such is, of course, the genuinely self-evident proposition. Its truth finds a verification in our bones and is demonstrated in the unselfconscious acts of our everyday lives: vital proof, regardless of our private political persuasion…”

    And in this day and age, simply noticing that genuinely self-evident proposition – as Steve Sailer has pointed out – has become a thoughtcrime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I knew and liked Mel Bradford. He was one of the earliest victims of the “hostile takeover” of American conservatism by the neocon/Straussian cabal.

    There was no 'hostile takeover', bar that in your imagination. Bradford was a votary of George Wallace, a man who never had any constituency in the Republican Party. (Buckley referred to him as 'a flagitious demagogue'). The signature elements promoted by the crew associated with the Rockford Institute had a minimal constituency in the Republican Party after 1958 to the degree it had any constituency at all. (Ron Paul's 'Liberty Caucus' had all of 7 members, 4 of whom refused to endorse his presidential candidacy; Republican members of Congress who'd been publicly associated with segregationist causes were few - Jesse Helms and a scatter of others). There was a small circle of academics and publicists who've been in a snit for 30 odd years over some patronage jobs they didn't get in Mr. Reagan's first term. Reagan's personnel director had other priorities than going to bat for a slavery sentimentalist like Bradford. Another disgruntled individual at that time was Howard Phillips. See Alan Crawford's critique of Phillips. The man was always a very erratic figure, trusted by other erratic figures like Joseph Sobran.

    Turning from working politicians to publications and policy shops, you'll note that the von Mises Institute was founded in 1982 and it wasn't until after Leopold Tyrmand's death in 1986 that Rockford was inherited by the crank crew who've run it into the ground. The Independent Institute was founded in 1986. The Howard Center was founded later than that. The closest thing to a paleo dispensation in starboard thought prior to 1986 would have been Russell Kirk and the issue of ISI Press. ISI Press has never been a sectarian outfit and Kirk mostly busied himself writing ghost stories. As for the other policy shops (AEI, Hoover, Heritage, Hudson, and EPPC), you're not going to locate notable discontinuities in the quality of their output which would be indicative of any 'takeover'. (Nor is it plausible that the people who worked there could be Jedi mind-tricked by Joo journalists and literary critics).


    You're part of a sect, and not one of much importance or accomplishment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Really? Which Israeli prime minister had a cult of personality?

    I was thinking more of Freud, Marx, a few neocons (can’t really be bothered to care who is who), several Frankfurt School characters (ditto). MacDonald traces a line from Messianic Jews (same deal, charismatic cults springing up around a leader) to the former types.

    I’m surprised you haven’t read McDonald.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Hell, even Einstein.
    , @Art Deco
    I was thinking more of Freud, Marx, a few neocons (can’t really be bothered to care who is who), several Frankfurt School characters (ditto). MacDonald traces a line from Messianic Jews (same deal, charismatic cults springing up around a leader) to the former types.

    You fancy Joseph Epstein and Norman Podhoretz had a 'cult of personality'?

    That aside, Freud, Marx and Carl Jung have had their votaries. Not exactly light reading for the man in the street. As for Communist movements, they've been quite vigorous in places wherein the Jewish population is of modest significance or no significance (Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, Greece, Chile...). OTOH, Israel's communist parties have never been that important.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Svigor

    Really? Which Israeli prime minister had a cult of personality?
     
    I was thinking more of Freud, Marx, a few neocons (can't really be bothered to care who is who), several Frankfurt School characters (ditto). MacDonald traces a line from Messianic Jews (same deal, charismatic cults springing up around a leader) to the former types.

    I'm surprised you haven't read McDonald.

    Hell, even Einstein.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jb
    Hell, Einstein deserves a cult! :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Luke Lea

    I became suspicious of Jaffa when he set about anointing Lincoln as a demigod. It somehow or other left a bad taste in my mouth.
     
    For the record, I regard Lincoln as the greatest modern man. Not without sin, but close.

    (I)f we would grasp the significance of of the Civil War in relation to the history of our time, we should consider Abraham Lincoln in connection with the other leaders who have been engaged in similar tasks. The chief of these leaders have been Bismarck and Lenin. They, with Lincoln have presided over the unifications of the three great new modern powers. . . . Each established a strong central government over hitherto loosely coordinated peoples. Lincoln kept the Union together by subordinating the South to the North; Bismarck imposed on the German states the cohesive hegemony of Prussia; Lenin – though contemptuous of bureacracy, since he could not imagine that, once the old order was abolished, any decent person could want to be a bureaucrat – began the work of binding Russia, with its innumerable ethnic groups scattered through immense spaces, in a tight bureaucratic net.

    Each of these men, through the pressure of the power which he found himself exercising, became an uncompromising dictator, and each was succeeded by agencies which continued to exercise this power and to manipulate the peoples he had been unifying in a stupid, despotic and unscrupulous fashion, so that all the bad potentialities of the policies he had initiated were realized, after his removal, in the most undesirable way. The generous program of Lincoln for readmitting the South to the Union was discarded by the Radical Republicans, who added every form of insult and injury to the bitterness of the Confederate failure. Bismarck was succeeded by a monarch who presided over a German defeat and debacle and then fled by request, to another country, leaving his own in a situation which led inevitably to an even worse government, and an even more outrageous aggression and as even more disastrous defeat. Lenin well before his death had been been superseded by Stalin, who exterminated the old Bolshevik idealists, tormented the Russians with a reign of terror that made the French Revolution look moderate and let them in for a foreign invasion which laid waste the whole western part of their country and cost it seven million lives in addition to the several million that Stalin had already extinguished. We Americans have not yet had to suffer from the worst of the calamities that have followed on the dictatorships in Germany and Russia, but we have been going for a long time now quite steadily in the same direction.

    Edmund Wilson, Patriotic Gore, NY: 1962, pp. xvi – xix.”

    Mark the last. Whether or not one cares to add Mao to the totalitarian mix, our very own Cultural Revolution has ‘ been going for a long time now quite steadily in the same direction’.
    Oh happy day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Wilson wrote that after he got into trouble with the IRS.....
    , @Luke Lea
    "We Americans have not yet had to suffer from the worst of the calamities that have followed on the dictatorships in Germany and Russia, but we have been going for a long time now quite steadily in the same direction."

    I gather that is from Edmund Wilson's preface to Patriotic Gore, which happens to be one of my favorite books. While not a prophet, his chapter on Lincoln is especially good, the best brief biographical sketch I know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Started when the South seceded…..

    Well, it all started with the Big Bang. History leads from there up to the Union’s decision to invade. That’s how wars start; the aggressors – in this case, Lincoln and the Yankees – start them. They usually have their reasons, things that angered them, but it’s Hitler’s invasion of Poland and Lincoln’s invasion of the South that are the actual beginnings of the wars in question (though we might quibble over which of Hitler or Lincoln’s aggressions was the first). In this case, the illegitimate reason of preventing secession by waging war. An un-American act from an un-American president; secession is in our national DNA.

    Talking about how the South shouldn’t have worn that dress, or Poland shouldn’t have talked so much shit, or the British shouldn’t have blockaded Germany, or muh Sudetenland won’t change that. Did the South wage war first? Nope. That’s what we call the the defensive party; they wage war after the aggressors (in this case, Lincoln and the Yankees) start it.

    Come now, there’s nothing quite so pro-White as killing White men to keep Blacks slaves, So Jefferson Davis’ got that going for him…

    Look at that lead ballon fall. The South didn’t wage war until after Lincoln and the Yankees started the war. In fact, if I recall correctly, the only Yankee killed at Sumter was…killed by some idiot Yankee firing his own cannon. You’re still embarrassing yourself with your Talmudic “logic” on this issue.

    Killing whites so you can turn blacks loose on them; super-duper pro-white…not so much. Killing invading Yankees (white, black, blue, green, whatever) so they don’t get their wish of turning blacks loose* in the South sounds pretty pro-white to me. Refraining from attacking white people can be reasonably called “pro-white.” Refraining from defending yourself against white aggressors isn’t pro-white, it’s stupid.

    *: It’s cute how you Yankee “conservatives” drop the criticism of blacks once the Civil War discussion starts. Suddenly, blacks are no longer the American Nakba, but moral props in your rationalization theater.

    Well, that is where the bulk of the slaves were…..plus, by seceding, the South made ending slavery possible…which is further proof that the fire-eaters were flat-out crazy…

    Lol, do you quaff laudanum before you start writing this stuff? There were only a few slaves in the North, meaning they couldn’t make nearly as much trouble as they could in the South, and hypocrite Lincoln and Yankees STILL couldn’t be bothered to free them. It was very good of him to make it extremely plain to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that the North didn’t invade to end slavery, so I guess he wasn’t all bad.

    You’ve got this going for you: Stephen King agrees with you wholeheartedly. Two conservative Yankee peas in a pod.

    No, it wasn’t. Just compare Atlanta to actual atrocities:The Sack of Magdeburg, The Drownings at Nantes, The War in the Vendée, ….

    America is blessed with a relatively benign history. Lincoln isn’t much of a villain in world history, but he’s the big one in American history. “Mao was worse” ain’t much of a recommendation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    In regard to Fort Sumter, friendly fire casualties usually have something to do with the fog of war, for which the aggressor (in this case South Carolina) surely bears some responsibility.
    , @syonredux

    That’s how wars start; the aggressors
     
    Yes, and the South was the aggressor. Unilateral secession is a violent act....you know, dismembering a nation....

    In this case, the illegitimate reason of preventing secession by waging war. An un-American act from an un-American president; secession is in our national DNA.
     
    On the other hand, Madison was of the opinion that unilateral secession could only be achieved via the extra-constitutional right of revolution, which could only be invoked in times of tyranny....And you would have a pretty hard time claiming that the South was groaning under the tyrant's heel in 1860....

    Oh, and the Confederacy was perfectly willing to prevent secession in places like the Unionist counties in Tennessee....


    Did the South wage war first? Nope.
     
    Of course they did, dear fellow. Unilateral secession is an act of war.

    Come now, there’s nothing quite so pro-White as killing White men to keep Blacks slaves, So Jefferson Davis’ got that going for him…

    Look at that lead ballon fall. The South didn’t wage war until after Lincoln and the Yankees started the war. In fact, if I recall correctly, the only Yankee killed at Sumter was…killed by some idiot Yankee firing his own cannon. You’re still embarrassing yourself with your Talmudic “logic” on this issue.
     

    They declared war by seceding, dear fellow. They were just lucky that gutless homo Buchanan was in office....

    Killing whites so you can turn blacks loose on them; super-duper pro-white…not so much. Killing invading Yankees (white, black, blue, green, whatever) so they don’t get their wish of turning blacks loose* in the South sounds pretty pro-white to me. Refraining from attacking white people can be reasonably called “pro-white.” Refraining from defending yourself against white aggressors isn’t pro-white, it’s stupid.
     
    Seeking to spread slavery ; super-duper pro white..not so much.


    Killing White men so they don’t get their wish of preserving the Union and ending slavery in the South sounds pretty pro-white to me.


    Attempting to spread slavery can be reasonably called “pro-white.” Refraining from defending slavery isn't pro-white, it's stupid.


    *: It’s cute how you Yankee “conservatives” drop the criticism of blacks once the Civil War discussion starts. Suddenly, blacks are no longer the American Nakba, but moral props in your rationalization theater.
     
    Hey, slavery was bad for both whites and Blacks. Really, Lincoln's colonization plan was the right idea....

    Well, that is where the bulk of the slaves were…..plus, by seceding, the South made ending slavery possible…which is further proof that the fire-eaters were flat-out crazy…

    Lol, do you quaff laudanum before you start writing this stuff? There were only a few slaves in the North, meaning they couldn’t make nearly as much trouble as they could in the South, and hypocrite Lincoln and Yankees STILL couldn’t be bothered to free them.

     

    Dear fellow, look up Lincoln's legal rationale for the Emancipation Proclamation. It was based on the President's "war powers." Using it to end slavery in areas that were not in rebellion would have been a tricky business. Hence, Lincoln had to wait for the passage of the 13th Amendment, and amending the Constitution is a time-consuming process....

    It was very good of him to make it extremely plain to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that the North didn’t invade to end slavery, so I guess he wasn’t all bad.
     
    Indeed. The South could have re-joined the Union before Lincoln pulled the trigger...and then done something constructive about the Black problem. But, no, the fire-eaters were too fixated on South Carolina being the ideal state.....

    You’ve got this going for you: Stephen King agrees with you wholeheartedly. Two conservative Yankee peas in a pod.
     
    Stephen King thinks that the slaves should have been deported somewhere outside the USA?

    No, it wasn’t. Just compare Atlanta to actual atrocities:The Sack of Magdeburg, The Drownings at Nantes, The War in the Vendée, ….

    America is blessed with a relatively benign history. Lincoln isn’t much of a villain in world history, but he’s the big one in American history.
     

    No, my vote goes to John C Calhoun .....Although I still don't think that Yale should have renamed Calhoun College....And if they did have to re-name it, they should have named it after Yale's greatest alumnus, Josiah Willard Gibbs

    “Mao was worse” ain’t much of a recommendation.
     
    Too low a bar. That's why I didn't use Mao (or Hitler, or Stalin, or Genghis Khan, or...)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @syonredux

    It was only later that I came to realize that Lincoln was an unindicted war criminal.
     
    Well, if you want to go there, so was Robert E Lee....

    But I've grown rather tired of these post-bellum disputes. More pressing issues concern us, things like the very survival of Anglo-America.

    “The very survival of Anglo-America” depends upon casting off the false history imposed on Americans by the Lincoln hagiographers and others. Since you labor under the delusion that Lee was a war criminal, you won’t be able to grasp the concept, anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “The very survival of Anglo-America” depends upon casting off the false history imposed on Americans by the Lincoln hagiographers and others.
     
    Fortunately, I don't go in for the hagiography. I respect Lincoln for saving the Union....which is something that he did for White people.

    Since you labor under the delusion that Lee was a war criminal, you won’t be able to grasp the concept, anyway.
     
    Lee is a war criminal to the precise degree that Lincoln is a war criminal....And, since Lincoln isn't a war criminal, that means that Lee isn't one....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Luke Lea

    I became suspicious of Jaffa when he set about anointing Lincoln as a demigod. It somehow or other left a bad taste in my mouth.
     
    For the record, I regard Lincoln as the greatest modern man. Not without sin, but close.

    OK, Luke, you’re on the record as being a totally mesmerized American. A little study of history is in order for you before you’re so brainwashed that you’ll write in a vote for Bill Clinton for president in 2020.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Paul Jolliffe
    My impression (it's been a while since I saw both the movie "United 93" and the made-for-TV version "Flight 93") is that both films leave ambiguous whether the passengers on the flight actually breached the cockpit during the infamous fight.

    As you probably know, the FBI announced that the fight never actually got into the cockpit where the hijackers had control of the plane.

    The relatives of the victims were very upset by this - they believed their loved ones had actually made it to the flight controls in the cockpit.

    Nope, said the FBI - that didn't happen. The fighters never got through the cockpit door, they said.

    Of course, if the FBI was right , then that prompted a very, very obvious question (completely unasked by the mainstream press): why, then, did the plane go down?

    On the other hand, if the relatives were right and the fight DID make it to the flight controls, and that fight then sent the plane crashing down, then another obvious question arises:

    Why not simply say so?
    Why hide the cause of the plane crash in ambiguity?
    Why was the FBI wrong (if they were wrong)?

    The FBI claimed they listened to the CVR tape and it ended abruptly at 10:03:11 am.

    Note that as of October, the National Parks Service official list of FAQ's does NOT have the one central question:

    Why did Flight 93 crash?

    https://www.nps.gov/flni/learn/historyculture/sources-and-detailed-information.htm

    My own view is that the whole “Let’s Roll” thing was a fabrication. No cell phone that was state of the art in ’01 could have made a call while the plane was in flight. If they can get you asking the wrong questions, then the answers won’t matter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @utu
    There si also another school in Claremont, CA, Claremont School of Theology that produced a scholar who challenged the neocons and all the spawn of Leo Strauss the most:

    David Ray Griffin (Wilbur, Washington, born August 8, 1939)[1] is a retired American professor of philosophy of religion and theology, and a political writer. Along with John B. Cobb, Jr., he founded the Center for Process Studies in 1973, a research center of Claremont School of Theology which seeks to promote the common good by means of the relational approach found in process thought.[2] Griffin has published a number of books on the subject of the September 11 attacks, suggesting that there was a conspiracy involving some elements of the United States government.[3]
     
    The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9-11, Olive Branch Press, 2004

    The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Olive Branch Press, 2004

    Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action, Westminster John Knox Press, 2006,

    Steve,

    You also need to include the Scripps College “Unofficial Survival Guide” for incoming students which includes :

    1. The ever-present gender pronoun threat
    2. Racially segregated “safe spaces”
    3. The dangers of “ableist” language, especially from “trigger warnings”
    4. The need for white students to be educated (indoctrinated/screeched at) about their innate “racism”, and their need to ask for forgiveness from students of color
    5. The denial of reverse-racism (it can’t exist because institutions were founded by whites)
    6. Support from the Scripps administration, including the Dean of Students and Vice President of Student Affairs (who, incidentally, identified the hashtag “#Trump2016″ as “racism” and “intimidation” (!!!)

    I’ve usually thought of the female SJW’s as ugly ducklings, angry that the boys wouldn’t pay them any attention, and are therefore taking it out on society through their activism, and that seems to be true here, but at least a few of the “contributors” (pictured pages 4-9) appear to be nice-looking.

    So, what’s their motivation?

    https://issuu.com/scrippsvoice/docs/the_unofficial_scripps_college_surv

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Charles Pewitt

    The whole East Coast/West Coast nonsense is just a lot of Jews fighting over which Jews get to co-opt Big C Conservatism.

     

    The above is succinct and correct.

    I blame Rupert Murdoch and Ronald Reagan for the rise of the Neo-Conservative faction in the Republican Party. I would also claim that the Neo-Conservatives have done more damage to the United States with their push for nation-wrecking mass immigration than with their disastrous plans to use the US military as muscle to fight on behalf of Israel in the Middle East and West Asia.

    Ronald Reagan opened the Republican Party gates to the Neo-Conservatives and Rupert Murdoch has given the Neo-Conservatives a media platform to push endless war on behalf of Israel and nation-wrecking mass immigration.

    Rupert Murdoch and his family are evil antipodeans of the worst sort. I would deport Murdoch, his family and all his minions back to Australia.

    Doesn’t Murdoch live in Britain? Wouldn’t Servant of the Queen, Teresa May, be the one to deport him? (Not likely.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Art Deco
    Kevin McDonald has written a bit about Jews’ tendency to form personality cults.

    Really? Which Israeli prime minister had a cult of personality?

    Doesn’t Murdoch live in Britain? Wouldn’t Servant of the Queen, Teresa May, be the one to deport him? (Not likely.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @syonredux

    Yeah, no. Robert E. Lee was perhaps the most gentlemanly general that ever served the U.S. military.
     
    And Lincoln was the kindest leader who ever fought a Civil War.

    Lincoln burned Atlanta and suspended habeas.
     
    Um, I'm sure that you are aware that the Confederacy's civil rights record was far from spotless....As for burning Atlanta.....really, compare that to just about any unpleasant act committed in the last four centuries. It wouldn't even make the footnotes.

    And beyond war crimes what he did to secure his re-election was electoral shenanigans of the highest order.
     
    Dunno. For an election taking place in the middle of a Civil War, it was remarkably clean.

    John Bell Hood burned Atlanta. Does that make Jefferson Davis a war criminal?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    John Bell Hood burned Atlanta. Does that make Jefferson Davis a war criminal?
     
    Burning Atlanta was not a war crime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Svigor

    Started when the South seceded…..
     
    Well, it all started with the Big Bang. History leads from there up to the Union's decision to invade. That's how wars start; the aggressors - in this case, Lincoln and the Yankees - start them. They usually have their reasons, things that angered them, but it's Hitler's invasion of Poland and Lincoln's invasion of the South that are the actual beginnings of the wars in question (though we might quibble over which of Hitler or Lincoln's aggressions was the first). In this case, the illegitimate reason of preventing secession by waging war. An un-American act from an un-American president; secession is in our national DNA.

    Talking about how the South shouldn't have worn that dress, or Poland shouldn't have talked so much shit, or the British shouldn't have blockaded Germany, or muh Sudetenland won't change that. Did the South wage war first? Nope. That's what we call the the defensive party; they wage war after the aggressors (in this case, Lincoln and the Yankees) start it.

    Come now, there’s nothing quite so pro-White as killing White men to keep Blacks slaves, So Jefferson Davis’ got that going for him…
     
    Look at that lead ballon fall. The South didn't wage war until after Lincoln and the Yankees started the war. In fact, if I recall correctly, the only Yankee killed at Sumter was...killed by some idiot Yankee firing his own cannon. You're still embarrassing yourself with your Talmudic "logic" on this issue.

    Killing whites so you can turn blacks loose on them; super-duper pro-white...not so much. Killing invading Yankees (white, black, blue, green, whatever) so they don't get their wish of turning blacks loose* in the South sounds pretty pro-white to me. Refraining from attacking white people can be reasonably called "pro-white." Refraining from defending yourself against white aggressors isn't pro-white, it's stupid.

    *: It's cute how you Yankee "conservatives" drop the criticism of blacks once the Civil War discussion starts. Suddenly, blacks are no longer the American Nakba, but moral props in your rationalization theater.

    Well, that is where the bulk of the slaves were…..plus, by seceding, the South made ending slavery possible…which is further proof that the fire-eaters were flat-out crazy…
     
    Lol, do you quaff laudanum before you start writing this stuff? There were only a few slaves in the North, meaning they couldn't make nearly as much trouble as they could in the South, and hypocrite Lincoln and Yankees STILL couldn't be bothered to free them. It was very good of him to make it extremely plain to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that the North didn't invade to end slavery, so I guess he wasn't all bad.

    You've got this going for you: Stephen King agrees with you wholeheartedly. Two conservative Yankee peas in a pod.

    No, it wasn’t. Just compare Atlanta to actual atrocities:The Sack of Magdeburg, The Drownings at Nantes, The War in the Vendée, ….
     
    America is blessed with a relatively benign history. Lincoln isn't much of a villain in world history, but he's the big one in American history. "Mao was worse" ain't much of a recommendation.

    In regard to Fort Sumter, friendly fire casualties usually have something to do with the fog of war, for which the aggressor (in this case South Carolina) surely bears some responsibility.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Art Deco
    Kevin McDonald has written a bit about Jews’ tendency to form personality cults.

    Really? Which Israeli prime minister had a cult of personality?

    Try Moshe Dayan, David Ben-Gurion, and Golda Meir.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Dayan was never the prime minister. Meir was in office for five years.


    All three have been dead for decades. One was embarrassed by political failures before her death and one was a principal in bitter internecine feuds in the decade before his death. Both Dayan and Ben-Gurion founded political parties in their last years. Ben-Gurion's competed in two elections, winning 8% and 3% respectively. Dayan's competed in one, winning < 2%. No, I don't think you're going to find photos of mass rallies which partisans carrying poster art of any of these three a la Mao Tse-tung.

    , @International Jew
    Here's the Ben Gurion statue in Tel Aviv. Doesn't quite suggest "personality cult", eh?
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-israel-tel-aviv-david-ben-gurion-statue-on-the-beach-92202329.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Art Deco
    John Jay College of Criminal Justice is part of the City University of New York whose predecessor was the City College which in turn was the partial progenitor of Neoconservativism.

    WTF? Some of the people publishing in The Public Interest and Commentary ca. 1985 had attended CCNY around the same time (ca. 1939) and belonged to a luncheon club wherein they ate cream-cheese sandwiches, played table tennis, and discussed Plekhanov. What did that have to do with operation and mission of CCNY or John Jay? While we're at it, CUNY is an umbrella corporation for a portfolio of state schools (it's old name was the "Board of Higher Education"). CCNY was just the first school in the system founded, not a 'progenitor'. John Jay, like Baruch, was a semi-specialized institution founded much later. It was a new plant, not a division of CCNY.

    I think Brooklyn College had a history independent of CCNY; at least some of the others not so much.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @jb
    Richard Spencer has done greater harm to the pro-white cause than any other American I can think of, with the possible exception of Andrew Anglin. They are both exactly what the Left wants white nationalists to be, and that's why the mainstream media has been promoting the two of them so energetically. E.g.:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/his-kampf/524505/

    http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-poland-spencer-ban-20171122-story.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/richard-spencer-hosted-an-event-at-a-maryland-farm-halfway-through-everyone-was-kicked-out/2017/11/21/1cd92dfe-9f33-40c4-b6f5-a271a8874c5d_story.html

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/richard-spencer-cotton-farms-louisiana-subsidies/#

    https://www.thenation.com/article/the-racist-right-looks-left/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/technology/theyre-trying-to-sue-a-white-supremacist-first-he-must-be-found.html

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/12/the-making-of-an-american-nazi/544119/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/12/03/neo-nazi-argues-that-troll-storm-against-jewish-woman-is-free-speech/

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/court-filing-neo-nazi-andrew-anglin_us_5a3d7b56e4b06d1621b44e2b

    For some reason sensible writers like Steve don't merit this kind of rapt coverage. Hmm, why would that be? Could it be because the Left sees Spencer and Anglin as assets whose writings and ideas it wants known as widely as possible? Why yes, I think that explains it very well!

    Richard Spencer has done greater harm to the pro-white cause than any other American I can think of, with the possible exception of Andrew Anglin. They are both exactly what the Left wants white nationalists to be…

    To the contrary, I think Spencer and Anglin both recognize that under Leftist hegemony, there is no future for the white male at all, and that all white males will be slandered as “Nazis” and “white supremacists” no matter how much they prostrate themselves before the goddesses of political correctness. So Spencer and Anglin just DGAF and embrace it — which is what the Left fears the most. The slander is no longer effective, because these guys have been so marginalized that they have nothing left to lose.

    Spencer, for instance, was a doctoral student at Duke — hardly the image of the inbred Klansman with his moonshine still and his noose — but of course Duke is the same institution where 88 professors signed a statement against white men during the completely fabricated “Duke rape” hoax. Spencer, who holds two Master’s degrees, quit the doctoral program, which was the correct move… no white man will be ever be given academic freedom and tenure in the modern university, which offers courses like “The Problem of Whiteness.” Professors today are not intellectuals, but butch dyke feminists, communist Jewesses, and black street hustlers teaching courses in radical identity politics and white-hatred.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I think Spencer and Anglin both recognize that under Leftist hegemony, there is no future for the white male at all, and that all white males will be slandered as “Nazis” and “white supremacists” no matter how much they prostrate themselves before the goddesses of political correctness. So Spencer and Anglin just DGAF and embrace it — which is what the Left fears the most. The slander is no longer effective, because these guys have been so marginalized that they have nothing left to lose.
     
    Your claim that "the slander is no longer effective" is a bit dubious. Alt-righters might not care about being labelled as Nazis but I think you'll find the Nazi slander is still pretty effective when it comes to scaring the normies. If you want to build a mass movement scaring the normies is probably a bad idea.

    Thinking that by laughing off the Nazi tag you can remove its sting is naïve.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Crawfurdmuir

    Did anyone ever take Jaffa seriously?

    Maybe I am out of the mainstream. But I remember a brilliant takedown of him on the Declaration of Independence by M.E. Bradford.
     
    Here's a link:

    http://www.mmisi.org/ma/20_01/bradford.pdf

    I knew and liked Mel Bradford. He was one of the earliest victims of the "hostile takeover" of American conservatism by the neocon/Straussian cabal. When it appeared that Ronald Reagan was about to nominate Mel to head the National Endowment for the Humanities, these people mounted a massive attack on him. George Will demonstrated his mercenary cravenness at that time, as well as his worthlessness as a human being, by issuing a particularly egregious hatchet job.

    Jaffa is principally responsible for the trope that America is a "propositional nation." The phrase is derived from Lincoln's phrase "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." As Mel correctly observed,

    "... there is no man equal to any other, except perhaps in the special, and politically untranslatable, understanding of the Deity. Not intellectually or physically or economically or even morally. Not equal! Such is, of course, the genuinely self-evident proposition. Its truth finds a verification in our bones and is demonstrated in the unselfconscious acts of our everyday lives: vital proof, regardless of our private political persuasion..."

    And in this day and age, simply noticing that genuinely self-evident proposition - as Steve Sailer has pointed out - has become a thoughtcrime.

    I knew and liked Mel Bradford. He was one of the earliest victims of the “hostile takeover” of American conservatism by the neocon/Straussian cabal.

    There was no ‘hostile takeover’, bar that in your imagination. Bradford was a votary of George Wallace, a man who never had any constituency in the Republican Party. (Buckley referred to him as ‘a flagitious demagogue’). The signature elements promoted by the crew associated with the Rockford Institute had a minimal constituency in the Republican Party after 1958 to the degree it had any constituency at all. (Ron Paul’s ‘Liberty Caucus’ had all of 7 members, 4 of whom refused to endorse his presidential candidacy; Republican members of Congress who’d been publicly associated with segregationist causes were few – Jesse Helms and a scatter of others). There was a small circle of academics and publicists who’ve been in a snit for 30 odd years over some patronage jobs they didn’t get in Mr. Reagan’s first term. Reagan’s personnel director had other priorities than going to bat for a slavery sentimentalist like Bradford. Another disgruntled individual at that time was Howard Phillips. See Alan Crawford’s critique of Phillips. The man was always a very erratic figure, trusted by other erratic figures like Joseph Sobran.

    Turning from working politicians to publications and policy shops, you’ll note that the von Mises Institute was founded in 1982 and it wasn’t until after Leopold Tyrmand’s death in 1986 that Rockford was inherited by the crank crew who’ve run it into the ground. The Independent Institute was founded in 1986. The Howard Center was founded later than that. The closest thing to a paleo dispensation in starboard thought prior to 1986 would have been Russell Kirk and the issue of ISI Press. ISI Press has never been a sectarian outfit and Kirk mostly busied himself writing ghost stories. As for the other policy shops (AEI, Hoover, Heritage, Hudson, and EPPC), you’re not going to locate notable discontinuities in the quality of their output which would be indicative of any ‘takeover’. (Nor is it plausible that the people who worked there could be Jedi mind-tricked by Joo journalists and literary critics).

    You’re part of a sect, and not one of much importance or accomplishment.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir

    Bradford was a votary of George Wallace, a man who never had any constituency in the Republican Party.
     
    Mel Bradford was a man of the old American right. He supported Wallace in 1968 (not in 1972) not because he was a "votary" of the man - rather, he did not find either Humphrey or Nixon appealing. Humphrey was a conventional big-government liberal, and Nixon a man of (shall we say) flexible principles.

    As for "constituency in the Republican party" - do not make the mistake of assuming that Republicanism equals conservatism, or that conservatism finds its only natural home in the Republican Party. At best, conservatives have been treated as poor relations by the Republican establishment.

    It is a libel to characterize Bradford as a "slavery sentimentalist." His remark on the subject was that slavery was indeed an evil, but not the only evil, nor the worst one. Lincoln, he thought, had saved the Union, but destroyed the Old Republic, and laid the ground for the subsequent metastatic growth of Federal power.

    I was never in any position to be appointed to a government position, so I'm not one of those "academics and publicists who’ve been in a snit for 30 odd years over some patronage jobs they didn’t get in Mr. Reagan’s first term." Rather I regretted Mel's being thrown under the bus, because I liked and respected him, and thought he deserved the appointment. He was a man of great learning and also great wisdom. The NEH would have benefited by his leadership, assuming it could have benefited by anything.

    If you can think of nothing of a "paleo dispensation in starboard thought prior to 1986" apart from Russell Kirk and ISI Press, then you just weren't paying attention. I well remember Stephen Tonsor's remark on the neocons' hostile takeover effort when it was going on -

    ""It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church... Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, then matters have been carried too far."

    That was at the 1986 meeting of the Philadelphia Society, which I attended.

    If you didn't hear the word "paleoconservative" before then, the reason was that it was (as Peter Stanlis said at the time) "invented by the so-called neocons as a smear term." The "paleocons" before then had been just plain conservatives.

    The neocons were all old Trotskyites, which prompted one wag to observe that, had Trotsky survived the man with the ice pick, he'd have ended up with an office at Hoover, writing the occasional article for Commentary or The Public Interest. I do have to acknowledge that the first generation of neocons, such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were men of genuine intellectual accomplishment. Their offspring, however, seem to be good illustrations of reversion to the mean.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Hibernian
    Try Moshe Dayan, David Ben-Gurion, and Golda Meir.

    Dayan was never the prime minister. Meir was in office for five years.

    All three have been dead for decades. One was embarrassed by political failures before her death and one was a principal in bitter internecine feuds in the decade before his death. Both Dayan and Ben-Gurion founded political parties in their last years. Ben-Gurion’s competed in two elections, winning 8% and 3% respectively. Dayan’s competed in one, winning < 2%. No, I don't think you're going to find photos of mass rallies which partisans carrying poster art of any of these three a la Mao Tse-tung.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Svigor

    Really? Which Israeli prime minister had a cult of personality?
     
    I was thinking more of Freud, Marx, a few neocons (can't really be bothered to care who is who), several Frankfurt School characters (ditto). MacDonald traces a line from Messianic Jews (same deal, charismatic cults springing up around a leader) to the former types.

    I'm surprised you haven't read McDonald.

    I was thinking more of Freud, Marx, a few neocons (can’t really be bothered to care who is who), several Frankfurt School characters (ditto). MacDonald traces a line from Messianic Jews (same deal, charismatic cults springing up around a leader) to the former types.

    You fancy Joseph Epstein and Norman Podhoretz had a ‘cult of personality’?

    That aside, Freud, Marx and Carl Jung have had their votaries. Not exactly light reading for the man in the street. As for Communist movements, they’ve been quite vigorous in places wherein the Jewish population is of modest significance or no significance (Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, Greece, Chile…). OTOH, Israel’s communist parties have never been that important.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterike

    As for Communist movements, they’ve been quite vigorous in places wherein the Jewish population is of modest significance or no significance (Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, Greece, Chile…)

     

    Chile? Well Allende was Jewish, so there's that.

    In any case, numbers only matter in terms of street agitators, and they're always easy to gin up if you've got what really matters, which is money and organization, and preferably some kind of media backing (newspapers in those days). It doesn't take a whole lot of Communists to run the movement. Hell, there were even Jews behind Mao, in China. And there weren't all that many Jews in South Africa, yet they effectively destroyed the country and ended Apartheid. The point being, Jewish population numbers don't necessarily indicate anything about who was driving a given Communist movement in a given nation.

    There were also tons of Jews in the Spanish Civil War, though probably most of them weren't actually Spanish. You know, rootless and all that.

    This is an interesting list to scroll through.

    https://communismblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/list-of-communist-jews/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @AndrewR
    Sailer doesn't do videos, organize events or give speeches, ignorant troll.

    You simply ignored my point. The mainstream media is clearly doing its best to make Spencer and Anglin into well known celebrities. Why is that? They aren’t giving any other alt-Right figures that kind of publicity.

    I say they are being promoted so extensively because they fit so perfectly into the anti-white Leftist narrative. Because their words and ideas are so damaging to the cause of white identity. If you don’t agree, then what’s your explanation? If the mainstream media thought the ideas of Spenser and Anglin were actually dangerous, why would it want the whole world to be familiar with them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Anglin and especially Spencer are both activists who make themselves visible. Sailer just makes smartass blog posts and occasionally posts photos of himself when begging for money. It doesn't matter what you think of these three men or their opinions. It's indisputable that they all have different MOs. Sailer has done a lot of valuable writing, and not everyone needs to be an activist, but Sailer is not an activist, and we do need activists. People criticizing Spencer and Anglin should put their money where their mouths are. Talk is cheap.
    , @candid_observer
    I think there's probably little point in complaining about the likes of Spencer and Anglin.

    If they didn't exist, the media would have to invent them. In fact, of course, it has essentially invented them. In the hundreds of millions of Americans they found two men who seemed to epitomize what they wanted to believe the "alt-right" represented. It doesn't matter if they had no following worth considering, and were crackpots and jokes: that's where the invention comes in.

    If it weren't Spencer and Anglin, it would be Schmencer and Schmanglin. There's always somebody -- it's a big country. The $PLC depends on it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Jack Hanson
    Hell, even Einstein.

    Hell, Einstein deserves a cult! :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. In regard to Fort Sumter, friendly fire casualties usually have something to do with the fog of war, for which the aggressor (in this case South Carolina) surely bears some responsibility.

    If you’re saying that the Union soldier, who was killed by…Union fire…and the lone casualty at Sumter, justifies the North in starting and waging the deadliest war in American history against her fellow Americans…I guess I don’t think that needs any further response. I suppose I’ll just let that speak for itself.

    In my book if you let one little incident (much less one in which the object of animus killed no one) “push” you into starting and waging an invasion that kills hundreds of thousands of people, you were just looking for an excuse. And that’s the way history should read – with you as the aggressor in an elective. voluntary war.

    That aside, Freud, Marx and Carl Jung have had their votaries. Not exactly light reading for the man in the street. As for Communist movements, they’ve been quite vigorous in places wherein the Jewish population is of modest significance or no significance (Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, Greece, Chile…). OTOH, Israel’s communist parties have never been that important.

    I suppose Jews got the point about communism after 70 years of the USSR and the second world war. It would be nice if they would take a break from making their thousandth movie about the shoah to make a few about the gulags, the holodomor, etc., to enlighten less informed populations, though. And stop whitewashing leftism.

    Not that any of this has much to do with Messianic Jews or their secular analogs…

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    In my book if you let one little incident (much less one in which the object of animus killed no one) “push” you into starting and waging an invasion that kills hundreds of thousands of people, you were just looking for an excuse. And that’s the way history should read – with you as the aggressor in an elective. voluntary war.
     
    Well, the South did elect to secede.....It's just too bad that James Buchanan was a gutless homosexual....Now, if a magically reanimated Andrew Jackson had been manning the helm in 1860, things might have gone differently.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Paul Jolliffe
    My impression (it's been a while since I saw both the movie "United 93" and the made-for-TV version "Flight 93") is that both films leave ambiguous whether the passengers on the flight actually breached the cockpit during the infamous fight.

    As you probably know, the FBI announced that the fight never actually got into the cockpit where the hijackers had control of the plane.

    The relatives of the victims were very upset by this - they believed their loved ones had actually made it to the flight controls in the cockpit.

    Nope, said the FBI - that didn't happen. The fighters never got through the cockpit door, they said.

    Of course, if the FBI was right , then that prompted a very, very obvious question (completely unasked by the mainstream press): why, then, did the plane go down?

    On the other hand, if the relatives were right and the fight DID make it to the flight controls, and that fight then sent the plane crashing down, then another obvious question arises:

    Why not simply say so?
    Why hide the cause of the plane crash in ambiguity?
    Why was the FBI wrong (if they were wrong)?

    The FBI claimed they listened to the CVR tape and it ended abruptly at 10:03:11 am.

    Note that as of October, the National Parks Service official list of FAQ's does NOT have the one central question:

    Why did Flight 93 crash?

    https://www.nps.gov/flni/learn/historyculture/sources-and-detailed-information.htm

    The initial reports were that the plane had been shot down to stop it crashing into the White House. That story was immediately canned and memory-holed, however, and replaced with the heroic cockpit-struggle narrative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The initial reports were that the plane had been shot down to stop it crashing into the White House. That story was immediately canned and memory-holed, however, and replaced with the heroic cockpit-struggle narrative.

    Journalists get bad information and issue erroneous reports. There's extensive earwitness testimony as well as cockpit recordings as to how the end of Flight 93 played out.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Anyway you read it, I’m impressed that the NYRB would admit that the philosophical roots of Trumpism are anything other than Naziism and the KKK, let alone something as respectable as another “Review of Books”.

    I’m a satisfied subscriber, BTW, of the Claremont Review of Books.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  117. @jb
    You simply ignored my point. The mainstream media is clearly doing its best to make Spencer and Anglin into well known celebrities. Why is that? They aren't giving any other alt-Right figures that kind of publicity.

    I say they are being promoted so extensively because they fit so perfectly into the anti-white Leftist narrative. Because their words and ideas are so damaging to the cause of white identity. If you don't agree, then what's your explanation? If the mainstream media thought the ideas of Spenser and Anglin were actually dangerous, why would it want the whole world to be familiar with them?

    Anglin and especially Spencer are both activists who make themselves visible. Sailer just makes smartass blog posts and occasionally posts photos of himself when begging for money. It doesn’t matter what you think of these three men or their opinions. It’s indisputable that they all have different MOs. Sailer has done a lot of valuable writing, and not everyone needs to be an activist, but Sailer is not an activist, and we do need activists. People criticizing Spencer and Anglin should put their money where their mouths are. Talk is cheap.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Hibernian
    Try Moshe Dayan, David Ben-Gurion, and Golda Meir.

    Here’s the Ben Gurion statue in Tel Aviv. Doesn’t quite suggest “personality cult”, eh?

    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-israel-tel-aviv-david-ben-gurion-statue-on-the-beach-92202329.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @jb
    You simply ignored my point. The mainstream media is clearly doing its best to make Spencer and Anglin into well known celebrities. Why is that? They aren't giving any other alt-Right figures that kind of publicity.

    I say they are being promoted so extensively because they fit so perfectly into the anti-white Leftist narrative. Because their words and ideas are so damaging to the cause of white identity. If you don't agree, then what's your explanation? If the mainstream media thought the ideas of Spenser and Anglin were actually dangerous, why would it want the whole world to be familiar with them?

    I think there’s probably little point in complaining about the likes of Spencer and Anglin.

    If they didn’t exist, the media would have to invent them. In fact, of course, it has essentially invented them. In the hundreds of millions of Americans they found two men who seemed to epitomize what they wanted to believe the “alt-right” represented. It doesn’t matter if they had no following worth considering, and were crackpots and jokes: that’s where the invention comes in.

    If it weren’t Spencer and Anglin, it would be Schmencer and Schmanglin. There’s always somebody — it’s a big country. The $PLC depends on it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Art Deco
    I was thinking more of Freud, Marx, a few neocons (can’t really be bothered to care who is who), several Frankfurt School characters (ditto). MacDonald traces a line from Messianic Jews (same deal, charismatic cults springing up around a leader) to the former types.

    You fancy Joseph Epstein and Norman Podhoretz had a 'cult of personality'?

    That aside, Freud, Marx and Carl Jung have had their votaries. Not exactly light reading for the man in the street. As for Communist movements, they've been quite vigorous in places wherein the Jewish population is of modest significance or no significance (Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, Greece, Chile...). OTOH, Israel's communist parties have never been that important.

    As for Communist movements, they’ve been quite vigorous in places wherein the Jewish population is of modest significance or no significance (Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, Greece, Chile…)

    Chile? Well Allende was Jewish, so there’s that.

    In any case, numbers only matter in terms of street agitators, and they’re always easy to gin up if you’ve got what really matters, which is money and organization, and preferably some kind of media backing (newspapers in those days). It doesn’t take a whole lot of Communists to run the movement. Hell, there were even Jews behind Mao, in China. And there weren’t all that many Jews in South Africa, yet they effectively destroyed the country and ended Apartheid. The point being, Jewish population numbers don’t necessarily indicate anything about who was driving a given Communist movement in a given nation.

    There were also tons of Jews in the Spanish Civil War, though probably most of them weren’t actually Spanish. You know, rootless and all that.

    This is an interesting list to scroll through.

    https://communismblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/list-of-communist-jews/

    Read More
    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    What is the evidence that Allende was Jewish? I have read a good deal about Allende but never saw any references to Jewish ancestry. Leftist and Jewish oriented publications have never been shy about acknowledging even fractional Jewish ancestry among Communists but I find no such references.

    You provide a link to a site with little credibility. The entry under for Allende asserts his Jewishness but offers no source. And the photo with that entry doesn't even look like Allende. I found other sites such as the dumbed down Wikipedia ( "Simple English") claiming he was Jewish but that also offered no sources.

    The closest I could come was an article in the leftist Der Spiegel that quotes one of Allende's communist cronies saying he had a Jewish mother but that was in an effort to argue that he, Allende, was NOT an anti-Semite!

    His mother's name was Gossens but that, along with variants such as Goossens, is among the most common surnames in Belgium, Holland, and South Africa. I have lived in Belgium and South Africa, traveled all over Holland, and have met many people named Gossens or Goossens but none were Jewish. I could not turn up a single reference to Jewish Gossens or Goossens even after a good deal of googling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. “If you’re saying that the Union soldier, who was killed by…Union fire…and the lone casualty at Sumter, justifies the North in starting and waging the deadliest war in American history against her fellow Americans…I guess I don’t think that needs any further response. I suppose I’ll just let that speak for itself.”

    The aggression by S.C. against Sumter, Federal property under the “arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings” clause of the Constitution, justified a military response. My point about the friendly fire casualty was that there’e not legitimately as much ethical difference as you seem to be implying between friendly fire casualties and other casualties.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  122. @Art Deco
    I knew and liked Mel Bradford. He was one of the earliest victims of the “hostile takeover” of American conservatism by the neocon/Straussian cabal.

    There was no 'hostile takeover', bar that in your imagination. Bradford was a votary of George Wallace, a man who never had any constituency in the Republican Party. (Buckley referred to him as 'a flagitious demagogue'). The signature elements promoted by the crew associated with the Rockford Institute had a minimal constituency in the Republican Party after 1958 to the degree it had any constituency at all. (Ron Paul's 'Liberty Caucus' had all of 7 members, 4 of whom refused to endorse his presidential candidacy; Republican members of Congress who'd been publicly associated with segregationist causes were few - Jesse Helms and a scatter of others). There was a small circle of academics and publicists who've been in a snit for 30 odd years over some patronage jobs they didn't get in Mr. Reagan's first term. Reagan's personnel director had other priorities than going to bat for a slavery sentimentalist like Bradford. Another disgruntled individual at that time was Howard Phillips. See Alan Crawford's critique of Phillips. The man was always a very erratic figure, trusted by other erratic figures like Joseph Sobran.

    Turning from working politicians to publications and policy shops, you'll note that the von Mises Institute was founded in 1982 and it wasn't until after Leopold Tyrmand's death in 1986 that Rockford was inherited by the crank crew who've run it into the ground. The Independent Institute was founded in 1986. The Howard Center was founded later than that. The closest thing to a paleo dispensation in starboard thought prior to 1986 would have been Russell Kirk and the issue of ISI Press. ISI Press has never been a sectarian outfit and Kirk mostly busied himself writing ghost stories. As for the other policy shops (AEI, Hoover, Heritage, Hudson, and EPPC), you're not going to locate notable discontinuities in the quality of their output which would be indicative of any 'takeover'. (Nor is it plausible that the people who worked there could be Jedi mind-tricked by Joo journalists and literary critics).


    You're part of a sect, and not one of much importance or accomplishment.

    Bradford was a votary of George Wallace, a man who never had any constituency in the Republican Party.

    Mel Bradford was a man of the old American right. He supported Wallace in 1968 (not in 1972) not because he was a “votary” of the man – rather, he did not find either Humphrey or Nixon appealing. Humphrey was a conventional big-government liberal, and Nixon a man of (shall we say) flexible principles.

    As for “constituency in the Republican party” – do not make the mistake of assuming that Republicanism equals conservatism, or that conservatism finds its only natural home in the Republican Party. At best, conservatives have been treated as poor relations by the Republican establishment.

    It is a libel to characterize Bradford as a “slavery sentimentalist.” His remark on the subject was that slavery was indeed an evil, but not the only evil, nor the worst one. Lincoln, he thought, had saved the Union, but destroyed the Old Republic, and laid the ground for the subsequent metastatic growth of Federal power.

    I was never in any position to be appointed to a government position, so I’m not one of those “academics and publicists who’ve been in a snit for 30 odd years over some patronage jobs they didn’t get in Mr. Reagan’s first term.” Rather I regretted Mel’s being thrown under the bus, because I liked and respected him, and thought he deserved the appointment. He was a man of great learning and also great wisdom. The NEH would have benefited by his leadership, assuming it could have benefited by anything.

    If you can think of nothing of a “paleo dispensation in starboard thought prior to 1986″ apart from Russell Kirk and ISI Press, then you just weren’t paying attention. I well remember Stephen Tonsor’s remark on the neocons’ hostile takeover effort when it was going on -

    “”It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church… Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, then matters have been carried too far.”

    That was at the 1986 meeting of the Philadelphia Society, which I attended.

    If you didn’t hear the word “paleoconservative” before then, the reason was that it was (as Peter Stanlis said at the time) “invented by the so-called neocons as a smear term.” The “paleocons” before then had been just plain conservatives.

    The neocons were all old Trotskyites, which prompted one wag to observe that, had Trotsky survived the man with the ice pick, he’d have ended up with an office at Hoover, writing the occasional article for Commentary or The Public Interest. I do have to acknowledge that the first generation of neocons, such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were men of genuine intellectual accomplishment. Their offspring, however, seem to be good illustrations of reversion to the mean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The neocons were all old Trotskyites,

    This is just too stupid. Irving Kristol was associated with Trotskyist circles for about 3 years. Seymour Martin Lipset, a frequent contributor to Commentary had a longer association with unconventional currents of thought, but not after 1960. Joseph Epstein was never a Trotskyist, nor was Hilton Kramer, nor was Norman Podhoretz, nor was Nathan Glazer, nor was Daniel Bell, nor was Daniel Patrick Moynihan, nor was Peter Berger, nor was Ben Wattenberg, nor was Midge Decter, nor was Jeane Kirkpatrick. What is your fancy, the Max Schachtman was the wirepuller behind all these front men? That it was all run from his electronics store?
    , @Art Deco
    Stephen Tonsor’s remark on the neocons’ hostile takeover effort when it was going on - “”It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church… Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, then matters have been carried too far.”

    Tonsor was a critic of the think tank / opinion magazine subculture, which he thought diverted people from authentic scholarship. He didn't much care for the Rockford Institute or it's works after 1987. His concise description of them: "flaky cranks". Leopold Tyrmand's widow offered that her husband would have gagged over what Thomas Fleming did to his magazine.

    And, again, there was no 'hostile takeover', for reasons already delineated.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Art Deco
    The whole East Coast/West Coast nonsense is just a lot of Jews fighting over which Jews get to co-opt Big C Conservatism.

    Neither Harvey Mansfield nor Harry Jaffa were Jewish nor was Leo Strauss a peculiarly important figure in post-war starboard discourse.

    As Mr Hayes correctly points out, Harry Jaffa was Jewish. I am sure that you knew this, and that you were oh-so-cleverly “flushing out anti-Semites” are some such foolishness.

    Harvey Mansfield is a WASP to his fingertips, but his wife, a fine person and a fine writer, was as Jewish as Jaffa. Amusingly, given my earlier posting on another thread, the surname assumed by her Russian-born but not Russian-blooded ancestor was “Winthrop.” No doubt he too looked down on the merely Mayflower descended.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    "or some such foolishness".

    Apologies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Dr. X

    Richard Spencer has done greater harm to the pro-white cause than any other American I can think of, with the possible exception of Andrew Anglin. They are both exactly what the Left wants white nationalists to be...
     
    To the contrary, I think Spencer and Anglin both recognize that under Leftist hegemony, there is no future for the white male at all, and that all white males will be slandered as "Nazis" and "white supremacists" no matter how much they prostrate themselves before the goddesses of political correctness. So Spencer and Anglin just DGAF and embrace it -- which is what the Left fears the most. The slander is no longer effective, because these guys have been so marginalized that they have nothing left to lose.

    Spencer, for instance, was a doctoral student at Duke -- hardly the image of the inbred Klansman with his moonshine still and his noose -- but of course Duke is the same institution where 88 professors signed a statement against white men during the completely fabricated "Duke rape" hoax. Spencer, who holds two Master's degrees, quit the doctoral program, which was the correct move... no white man will be ever be given academic freedom and tenure in the modern university, which offers courses like "The Problem of Whiteness." Professors today are not intellectuals, but butch dyke feminists, communist Jewesses, and black street hustlers teaching courses in radical identity politics and white-hatred.

    I think Spencer and Anglin both recognize that under Leftist hegemony, there is no future for the white male at all, and that all white males will be slandered as “Nazis” and “white supremacists” no matter how much they prostrate themselves before the goddesses of political correctness. So Spencer and Anglin just DGAF and embrace it — which is what the Left fears the most. The slander is no longer effective, because these guys have been so marginalized that they have nothing left to lose.

    Your claim that “the slander is no longer effective” is a bit dubious. Alt-righters might not care about being labelled as Nazis but I think you’ll find the Nazi slander is still pretty effective when it comes to scaring the normies. If you want to build a mass movement scaring the normies is probably a bad idea.

    Thinking that by laughing off the Nazi tag you can remove its sting is naïve.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Svigor

    In regard to Fort Sumter, friendly fire casualties usually have something to do with the fog of war, for which the aggressor (in this case South Carolina) surely bears some responsibility.
     
    If you're saying that the Union soldier, who was killed by...Union fire...and the lone casualty at Sumter, justifies the North in starting and waging the deadliest war in American history against her fellow Americans...I guess I don't think that needs any further response. I suppose I'll just let that speak for itself.

    In my book if you let one little incident (much less one in which the object of animus killed no one) "push" you into starting and waging an invasion that kills hundreds of thousands of people, you were just looking for an excuse. And that's the way history should read - with you as the aggressor in an elective. voluntary war.

    That aside, Freud, Marx and Carl Jung have had their votaries. Not exactly light reading for the man in the street. As for Communist movements, they’ve been quite vigorous in places wherein the Jewish population is of modest significance or no significance (Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, Greece, Chile…). OTOH, Israel’s communist parties have never been that important.
     
    I suppose Jews got the point about communism after 70 years of the USSR and the second world war. It would be nice if they would take a break from making their thousandth movie about the shoah to make a few about the gulags, the holodomor, etc., to enlighten less informed populations, though. And stop whitewashing leftism.

    Not that any of this has much to do with Messianic Jews or their secular analogs...

    In my book if you let one little incident (much less one in which the object of animus killed no one) “push” you into starting and waging an invasion that kills hundreds of thousands of people, you were just looking for an excuse. And that’s the way history should read – with you as the aggressor in an elective. voluntary war.

    Well, the South did elect to secede…..It’s just too bad that James Buchanan was a gutless homosexual….Now, if a magically reanimated Andrew Jackson had been manning the helm in 1860, things might have gone differently…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Ron Mexico
    John Bell Hood burned Atlanta. Does that make Jefferson Davis a war criminal?

    John Bell Hood burned Atlanta. Does that make Jefferson Davis a war criminal?

    Burning Atlanta was not a war crime.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Twodees Partain
    "The very survival of Anglo-America" depends upon casting off the false history imposed on Americans by the Lincoln hagiographers and others. Since you labor under the delusion that Lee was a war criminal, you won't be able to grasp the concept, anyway.

    “The very survival of Anglo-America” depends upon casting off the false history imposed on Americans by the Lincoln hagiographers and others.

    Fortunately, I don’t go in for the hagiography. I respect Lincoln for saving the Union….which is something that he did for White people.

    Since you labor under the delusion that Lee was a war criminal, you won’t be able to grasp the concept, anyway.

    Lee is a war criminal to the precise degree that Lincoln is a war criminal….And, since Lincoln isn’t a war criminal, that means that Lee isn’t one….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Svigor

    Started when the South seceded…..
     
    Well, it all started with the Big Bang. History leads from there up to the Union's decision to invade. That's how wars start; the aggressors - in this case, Lincoln and the Yankees - start them. They usually have their reasons, things that angered them, but it's Hitler's invasion of Poland and Lincoln's invasion of the South that are the actual beginnings of the wars in question (though we might quibble over which of Hitler or Lincoln's aggressions was the first). In this case, the illegitimate reason of preventing secession by waging war. An un-American act from an un-American president; secession is in our national DNA.

    Talking about how the South shouldn't have worn that dress, or Poland shouldn't have talked so much shit, or the British shouldn't have blockaded Germany, or muh Sudetenland won't change that. Did the South wage war first? Nope. That's what we call the the defensive party; they wage war after the aggressors (in this case, Lincoln and the Yankees) start it.

    Come now, there’s nothing quite so pro-White as killing White men to keep Blacks slaves, So Jefferson Davis’ got that going for him…
     
    Look at that lead ballon fall. The South didn't wage war until after Lincoln and the Yankees started the war. In fact, if I recall correctly, the only Yankee killed at Sumter was...killed by some idiot Yankee firing his own cannon. You're still embarrassing yourself with your Talmudic "logic" on this issue.

    Killing whites so you can turn blacks loose on them; super-duper pro-white...not so much. Killing invading Yankees (white, black, blue, green, whatever) so they don't get their wish of turning blacks loose* in the South sounds pretty pro-white to me. Refraining from attacking white people can be reasonably called "pro-white." Refraining from defending yourself against white aggressors isn't pro-white, it's stupid.

    *: It's cute how you Yankee "conservatives" drop the criticism of blacks once the Civil War discussion starts. Suddenly, blacks are no longer the American Nakba, but moral props in your rationalization theater.

    Well, that is where the bulk of the slaves were…..plus, by seceding, the South made ending slavery possible…which is further proof that the fire-eaters were flat-out crazy…
     
    Lol, do you quaff laudanum before you start writing this stuff? There were only a few slaves in the North, meaning they couldn't make nearly as much trouble as they could in the South, and hypocrite Lincoln and Yankees STILL couldn't be bothered to free them. It was very good of him to make it extremely plain to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that the North didn't invade to end slavery, so I guess he wasn't all bad.

    You've got this going for you: Stephen King agrees with you wholeheartedly. Two conservative Yankee peas in a pod.

    No, it wasn’t. Just compare Atlanta to actual atrocities:The Sack of Magdeburg, The Drownings at Nantes, The War in the Vendée, ….
     
    America is blessed with a relatively benign history. Lincoln isn't much of a villain in world history, but he's the big one in American history. "Mao was worse" ain't much of a recommendation.

    That’s how wars start; the aggressors

    Yes, and the South was the aggressor. Unilateral secession is a violent act….you know, dismembering a nation….

    In this case, the illegitimate reason of preventing secession by waging war. An un-American act from an un-American president; secession is in our national DNA.

    On the other hand, Madison was of the opinion that unilateral secession could only be achieved via the extra-constitutional right of revolution, which could only be invoked in times of tyranny….And you would have a pretty hard time claiming that the South was groaning under the tyrant’s heel in 1860….

    Oh, and the Confederacy was perfectly willing to prevent secession in places like the Unionist counties in Tennessee….

    Did the South wage war first? Nope.

    Of course they did, dear fellow. Unilateral secession is an act of war.

    Come now, there’s nothing quite so pro-White as killing White men to keep Blacks slaves, So Jefferson Davis’ got that going for him…

    Look at that lead ballon fall. The South didn’t wage war until after Lincoln and the Yankees started the war. In fact, if I recall correctly, the only Yankee killed at Sumter was…killed by some idiot Yankee firing his own cannon. You’re still embarrassing yourself with your Talmudic “logic” on this issue.

    They declared war by seceding, dear fellow. They were just lucky that gutless homo Buchanan was in office….

    Killing whites so you can turn blacks loose on them; super-duper pro-white…not so much. Killing invading Yankees (white, black, blue, green, whatever) so they don’t get their wish of turning blacks loose* in the South sounds pretty pro-white to me. Refraining from attacking white people can be reasonably called “pro-white.” Refraining from defending yourself against white aggressors isn’t pro-white, it’s stupid.

    Seeking to spread slavery ; super-duper pro white..not so much.

    Killing White men so they don’t get their wish of preserving the Union and ending slavery in the South sounds pretty pro-white to me.

    Attempting to spread slavery can be reasonably called “pro-white.” Refraining from defending slavery isn’t pro-white, it’s stupid.

    *: It’s cute how you Yankee “conservatives” drop the criticism of blacks once the Civil War discussion starts. Suddenly, blacks are no longer the American Nakba, but moral props in your rationalization theater.

    Hey, slavery was bad for both whites and Blacks. Really, Lincoln’s colonization plan was the right idea….

    Well, that is where the bulk of the slaves were…..plus, by seceding, the South made ending slavery possible…which is further proof that the fire-eaters were flat-out crazy…

    Lol, do you quaff laudanum before you start writing this stuff? There were only a few slaves in the North, meaning they couldn’t make nearly as much trouble as they could in the South, and hypocrite Lincoln and Yankees STILL couldn’t be bothered to free them.

    Dear fellow, look up Lincoln’s legal rationale for the Emancipation Proclamation. It was based on the President’s “war powers.” Using it to end slavery in areas that were not in rebellion would have been a tricky business. Hence, Lincoln had to wait for the passage of the 13th Amendment, and amending the Constitution is a time-consuming process….

    It was very good of him to make it extremely plain to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that the North didn’t invade to end slavery, so I guess he wasn’t all bad.

    Indeed. The South could have re-joined the Union before Lincoln pulled the trigger…and then done something constructive about the Black problem. But, no, the fire-eaters were too fixated on South Carolina being the ideal state…..

    You’ve got this going for you: Stephen King agrees with you wholeheartedly. Two conservative Yankee peas in a pod.

    Stephen King thinks that the slaves should have been deported somewhere outside the USA?

    No, it wasn’t. Just compare Atlanta to actual atrocities:The Sack of Magdeburg, The Drownings at Nantes, The War in the Vendée, ….

    America is blessed with a relatively benign history. Lincoln isn’t much of a villain in world history, but he’s the big one in American history.

    No, my vote goes to John C Calhoun …..Although I still don’t think that Yale should have renamed Calhoun College….And if they did have to re-name it, they should have named it after Yale’s greatest alumnus, Josiah Willard Gibbs

    “Mao was worse” ain’t much of a recommendation.

    Too low a bar. That’s why I didn’t use Mao (or Hitler, or Stalin, or Genghis Khan, or…)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @MB
    (I)f we would grasp the significance of of the Civil War in relation to the history of our time, we should consider Abraham Lincoln in connection with the other leaders who have been engaged in similar tasks. The chief of these leaders have been Bismarck and Lenin. They, with Lincoln have presided over the unifications of the three great new modern powers. . . . Each established a strong central government over hitherto loosely coordinated peoples. Lincoln kept the Union together by subordinating the South to the North; Bismarck imposed on the German states the cohesive hegemony of Prussia; Lenin – though contemptuous of bureacracy, since he could not imagine that, once the old order was abolished, any decent person could want to be a bureaucrat – began the work of binding Russia, with its innumerable ethnic groups scattered through immense spaces, in a tight bureaucratic net.

    Each of these men, through the pressure of the power which he found himself exercising, became an uncompromising dictator, and each was succeeded by agencies which continued to exercise this power and to manipulate the peoples he had been unifying in a stupid, despotic and unscrupulous fashion, so that all the bad potentialities of the policies he had initiated were realized, after his removal, in the most undesirable way. The generous program of Lincoln for readmitting the South to the Union was discarded by the Radical Republicans, who added every form of insult and injury to the bitterness of the Confederate failure. Bismarck was succeeded by a monarch who presided over a German defeat and debacle and then fled by request, to another country, leaving his own in a situation which led inevitably to an even worse government, and an even more outrageous aggression and as even more disastrous defeat. Lenin well before his death had been been superseded by Stalin, who exterminated the old Bolshevik idealists, tormented the Russians with a reign of terror that made the French Revolution look moderate and let them in for a foreign invasion which laid waste the whole western part of their country and cost it seven million lives in addition to the several million that Stalin had already extinguished. We Americans have not yet had to suffer from the worst of the calamities that have followed on the dictatorships in Germany and Russia, but we have been going for a long time now quite steadily in the same direction.

    Edmund Wilson, Patriotic Gore, NY: 1962, pp. xvi - xix.”

    Mark the last. Whether or not one cares to add Mao to the totalitarian mix, our very own Cultural Revolution has ' been going for a long time now quite steadily in the same direction'.
    Oh happy day.

    Wilson wrote that after he got into trouble with the IRS…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @MB
    Well, after what he said about Lincoln and whom he compared him to, I think he probably also got in trouble with the bunch that think Honest Abe, along with John Brown, was a saint.

    If they ever heard of him.
    Or maybe they just ignored him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @MB
    (I)f we would grasp the significance of of the Civil War in relation to the history of our time, we should consider Abraham Lincoln in connection with the other leaders who have been engaged in similar tasks. The chief of these leaders have been Bismarck and Lenin. They, with Lincoln have presided over the unifications of the three great new modern powers. . . . Each established a strong central government over hitherto loosely coordinated peoples. Lincoln kept the Union together by subordinating the South to the North; Bismarck imposed on the German states the cohesive hegemony of Prussia; Lenin – though contemptuous of bureacracy, since he could not imagine that, once the old order was abolished, any decent person could want to be a bureaucrat – began the work of binding Russia, with its innumerable ethnic groups scattered through immense spaces, in a tight bureaucratic net.

    Each of these men, through the pressure of the power which he found himself exercising, became an uncompromising dictator, and each was succeeded by agencies which continued to exercise this power and to manipulate the peoples he had been unifying in a stupid, despotic and unscrupulous fashion, so that all the bad potentialities of the policies he had initiated were realized, after his removal, in the most undesirable way. The generous program of Lincoln for readmitting the South to the Union was discarded by the Radical Republicans, who added every form of insult and injury to the bitterness of the Confederate failure. Bismarck was succeeded by a monarch who presided over a German defeat and debacle and then fled by request, to another country, leaving his own in a situation which led inevitably to an even worse government, and an even more outrageous aggression and as even more disastrous defeat. Lenin well before his death had been been superseded by Stalin, who exterminated the old Bolshevik idealists, tormented the Russians with a reign of terror that made the French Revolution look moderate and let them in for a foreign invasion which laid waste the whole western part of their country and cost it seven million lives in addition to the several million that Stalin had already extinguished. We Americans have not yet had to suffer from the worst of the calamities that have followed on the dictatorships in Germany and Russia, but we have been going for a long time now quite steadily in the same direction.

    Edmund Wilson, Patriotic Gore, NY: 1962, pp. xvi - xix.”

    Mark the last. Whether or not one cares to add Mao to the totalitarian mix, our very own Cultural Revolution has ' been going for a long time now quite steadily in the same direction'.
    Oh happy day.

    “We Americans have not yet had to suffer from the worst of the calamities that have followed on the dictatorships in Germany and Russia, but we have been going for a long time now quite steadily in the same direction.”

    I gather that is from Edmund Wilson’s preface to Patriotic Gore, which happens to be one of my favorite books. While not a prophet, his chapter on Lincoln is especially good, the best brief biographical sketch I know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Not surprisingly, this makes for a pretty good cult with the old sage telling his young favorites that they deserve great power, although they have to be sneaky about how they exercise it.

    In Bush’s case, his wife ended up slowly eclipsing the sage(s) as his guiding light. Perhaps due to the trouble the neocon wars ended up causing him. His original strength and passion was domestic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  132. @syonredux
    Wilson wrote that after he got into trouble with the IRS.....

    Well, after what he said about Lincoln and whom he compared him to, I think he probably also got in trouble with the bunch that think Honest Abe, along with John Brown, was a saint.

    If they ever heard of him.
    Or maybe they just ignored him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Well, after what he said about Lincoln and whom he compared him to, I think he probably also got in trouble with the bunch that think Honest Abe, along with John Brown, was a saint.
     
    I think that Wilson was simply trying to be kind to Lenin, you know, comparing him to great men like Bismarck and Lincoln.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Old Palo Altan
    As Mr Hayes correctly points out, Harry Jaffa was Jewish. I am sure that you knew this, and that you were oh-so-cleverly "flushing out anti-Semites" are some such foolishness.

    Harvey Mansfield is a WASP to his fingertips, but his wife, a fine person and a fine writer, was as Jewish as Jaffa. Amusingly, given my earlier posting on another thread, the surname assumed by her Russian-born but not Russian-blooded ancestor was "Winthrop." No doubt he too looked down on the merely Mayflower descended.

    or some such foolishness”.

    Apologies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Anonymous
    The initial reports were that the plane had been shot down to stop it crashing into the White House. That story was immediately canned and memory-holed, however, and replaced with the heroic cockpit-struggle narrative.

    The initial reports were that the plane had been shot down to stop it crashing into the White House. That story was immediately canned and memory-holed, however, and replaced with the heroic cockpit-struggle narrative.

    Journalists get bad information and issue erroneous reports. There’s extensive earwitness testimony as well as cockpit recordings as to how the end of Flight 93 played out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Crawfurdmuir

    Bradford was a votary of George Wallace, a man who never had any constituency in the Republican Party.
     
    Mel Bradford was a man of the old American right. He supported Wallace in 1968 (not in 1972) not because he was a "votary" of the man - rather, he did not find either Humphrey or Nixon appealing. Humphrey was a conventional big-government liberal, and Nixon a man of (shall we say) flexible principles.

    As for "constituency in the Republican party" - do not make the mistake of assuming that Republicanism equals conservatism, or that conservatism finds its only natural home in the Republican Party. At best, conservatives have been treated as poor relations by the Republican establishment.

    It is a libel to characterize Bradford as a "slavery sentimentalist." His remark on the subject was that slavery was indeed an evil, but not the only evil, nor the worst one. Lincoln, he thought, had saved the Union, but destroyed the Old Republic, and laid the ground for the subsequent metastatic growth of Federal power.

    I was never in any position to be appointed to a government position, so I'm not one of those "academics and publicists who’ve been in a snit for 30 odd years over some patronage jobs they didn’t get in Mr. Reagan’s first term." Rather I regretted Mel's being thrown under the bus, because I liked and respected him, and thought he deserved the appointment. He was a man of great learning and also great wisdom. The NEH would have benefited by his leadership, assuming it could have benefited by anything.

    If you can think of nothing of a "paleo dispensation in starboard thought prior to 1986" apart from Russell Kirk and ISI Press, then you just weren't paying attention. I well remember Stephen Tonsor's remark on the neocons' hostile takeover effort when it was going on -

    ""It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church... Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, then matters have been carried too far."

    That was at the 1986 meeting of the Philadelphia Society, which I attended.

    If you didn't hear the word "paleoconservative" before then, the reason was that it was (as Peter Stanlis said at the time) "invented by the so-called neocons as a smear term." The "paleocons" before then had been just plain conservatives.

    The neocons were all old Trotskyites, which prompted one wag to observe that, had Trotsky survived the man with the ice pick, he'd have ended up with an office at Hoover, writing the occasional article for Commentary or The Public Interest. I do have to acknowledge that the first generation of neocons, such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were men of genuine intellectual accomplishment. Their offspring, however, seem to be good illustrations of reversion to the mean.

    The neocons were all old Trotskyites,

    This is just too stupid. Irving Kristol was associated with Trotskyist circles for about 3 years. Seymour Martin Lipset, a frequent contributor to Commentary had a longer association with unconventional currents of thought, but not after 1960. Joseph Epstein was never a Trotskyist, nor was Hilton Kramer, nor was Norman Podhoretz, nor was Nathan Glazer, nor was Daniel Bell, nor was Daniel Patrick Moynihan, nor was Peter Berger, nor was Ben Wattenberg, nor was Midge Decter, nor was Jeane Kirkpatrick. What is your fancy, the Max Schachtman was the wirepuller behind all these front men? That it was all run from his electronics store?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Crawfurdmuir

    Bradford was a votary of George Wallace, a man who never had any constituency in the Republican Party.
     
    Mel Bradford was a man of the old American right. He supported Wallace in 1968 (not in 1972) not because he was a "votary" of the man - rather, he did not find either Humphrey or Nixon appealing. Humphrey was a conventional big-government liberal, and Nixon a man of (shall we say) flexible principles.

    As for "constituency in the Republican party" - do not make the mistake of assuming that Republicanism equals conservatism, or that conservatism finds its only natural home in the Republican Party. At best, conservatives have been treated as poor relations by the Republican establishment.

    It is a libel to characterize Bradford as a "slavery sentimentalist." His remark on the subject was that slavery was indeed an evil, but not the only evil, nor the worst one. Lincoln, he thought, had saved the Union, but destroyed the Old Republic, and laid the ground for the subsequent metastatic growth of Federal power.

    I was never in any position to be appointed to a government position, so I'm not one of those "academics and publicists who’ve been in a snit for 30 odd years over some patronage jobs they didn’t get in Mr. Reagan’s first term." Rather I regretted Mel's being thrown under the bus, because I liked and respected him, and thought he deserved the appointment. He was a man of great learning and also great wisdom. The NEH would have benefited by his leadership, assuming it could have benefited by anything.

    If you can think of nothing of a "paleo dispensation in starboard thought prior to 1986" apart from Russell Kirk and ISI Press, then you just weren't paying attention. I well remember Stephen Tonsor's remark on the neocons' hostile takeover effort when it was going on -

    ""It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church... Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, then matters have been carried too far."

    That was at the 1986 meeting of the Philadelphia Society, which I attended.

    If you didn't hear the word "paleoconservative" before then, the reason was that it was (as Peter Stanlis said at the time) "invented by the so-called neocons as a smear term." The "paleocons" before then had been just plain conservatives.

    The neocons were all old Trotskyites, which prompted one wag to observe that, had Trotsky survived the man with the ice pick, he'd have ended up with an office at Hoover, writing the occasional article for Commentary or The Public Interest. I do have to acknowledge that the first generation of neocons, such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were men of genuine intellectual accomplishment. Their offspring, however, seem to be good illustrations of reversion to the mean.

    Stephen Tonsor’s remark on the neocons’ hostile takeover effort when it was going on – “”It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church… Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, then matters have been carried too far.”

    Tonsor was a critic of the think tank / opinion magazine subculture, which he thought diverted people from authentic scholarship. He didn’t much care for the Rockford Institute or it’s works after 1987. His concise description of them: “flaky cranks”. Leopold Tyrmand’s widow offered that her husband would have gagged over what Thomas Fleming did to his magazine.

    And, again, there was no ‘hostile takeover’, for reasons already delineated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir

    And, again, there was no ‘hostile takeover’, for reasons already delineated.
     
    In response, I'd note that the neocon David Frum wrote a piece in NR in 2003 "excommunicating" conservative opponents of the Iraq war such as Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan as "unpatriotic conservatives." I also quote what Joe Sobran wrote about the hostile takeover in 2005:

    "In 1985 Kirk made a speech to the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, in which he quipped that the neoconservatives — who were then attaching themselves to the conservative movement — seemed to think that the center of Western civilization was in Tel Aviv. This caused Midge Decter, the den mother of the neocons, to accuse Kirk of anti-Semitism.

    "It was a crude smear. But to my amazement, National Review didn’t defend Kirk, its oldest and most venerable contributor, against the vicious attack. In fact it didn’t even report what Decter had said. This was to become a pattern as the neocons made similar charges against Patrick Buchanan, me, and others who were mildly critical of the state of Israel. This was my introduction to what you might call ostrich journalism: 'If we ignore unpleasant news, our readers will be ne’er the wiser.' Mustn’t risk offending the neocons!

    "Kirk must have been deeply hurt. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that I’d urged Buckley to say something — anything — in his behalf, but he could hardly have failed to notice the loud silence when he needed friends. Ever since, the neocons have been able to count on National Review to play along with them. Today it hardly has an identity of its own; it seems just another neocon organ, forever urging war in the Middle East.

    "The older conservatives who, with Kirk, had helped create National Review 50 years ago — James Burnham, Frank Meyer, Willmoore Kendall, Willi Schlamm, Whittaker Chambers — wouldn’t recognize it today. Even the Buckleys must wince when they read it now. It was founded in order to oppose Eisenhower Republicanism; it currently supports a Republican president far to the left of Eisenhower [i.e., George W. Bush]

    "In Kirk’s day, National Review was an exciting magazine, the only one seriously challenging the liberal consensus. Not content with debating liberals, it conducted lively debates among conservatives themselves over basic questions of political philosophy. It was magnetic. Its fearlessness in those days — it defended Joe McCarthy and Southern segregation — make a strange contrast to its timidity today."

    http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050908.shtml
    , @Crawfurdmuir

    Tonsor was a critic of the think tank / opinion magazine subculture, which he thought diverted people from authentic scholarship.
     
    That is as may be, but the particular passage I quoted was uttered at a meeting of the Philadelphia Society at which I was present, and its context was a debate between Prof. Tonsor and David Frum over the "entryism" of the neocons. Frum impressed me then as an oleaginous twit, and he does not seem to have improved with age.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Yes, and the South was the aggressor. Unilateral secession is a violent act….you know, dismembering a nation….

    Yep, it’s the laudanum talking.

    On the other hand, Madison was of the opinion that unilateral secession could only be achieved via the extra-constitutional right of revolution, which could only be invoked in times of tyranny….And you would have a pretty hard time claiming that the South was groaning under the tyrant’s heel in 1860….

    It’s impressive, the extent of your rationalization; by that metric, the American Revolution was illegitimate. It’s not like George was putting heads on pikes.

    Oh, and the Confederacy was perfectly willing to prevent secession in places like the Unionist counties in Tennessee….

    This is relevant how?

    Of course they did, dear fellow. Unilateral secession is an act of war.

    Semantics.

    They declared war by seceding, dear fellow. They were just lucky that gutless homo Buchanan was in office….

    Semantics.

    Seeking to spread slavery ; super-duper pro white..not so much.

    Killing White men so they don’t get their wish of preserving the Union and ending slavery in the South sounds pretty pro-white to me.

    Attempting to spread slavery can be reasonably called “pro-white.” Refraining from defending slavery isn’t pro-white, it’s stupid.

    I’ll take the dodge as tacit agreement. I’ll just ignore the semantics.

    Dear fellow, look up Lincoln’s legal rationale for the Emancipation Proclamation. It was based on the President’s “war powers.” Using it to end slavery in areas that were not in rebellion would have been a tricky business. Hence, Lincoln had to wait for the passage of the 13th Amendment, and amending the Constitution is a time-consuming process….

    Meaning, Lincoln was in a bloody big hurry to start his aggressive war that had nothing to do with any desire to end slavery.

    Thanks for your response; it’s so bad, all I have to do is quote it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  138. It’s funny that you can’t even acknowledge that Lincoln and the Yankees created the American Nakba.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    It’s funny that you can’t even acknowledge that Lincoln and the Yankees created the American Nakba.
     
    Is that anything like chocolate babka?Because that's kinda tasty...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Reality check: A Jewish intellectual movement like “Straussianism” can never be a vehicle for European Americans to defend our interests. These clowns are going to get swept away by the nationalist tidal wave.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Reality check: it's a series of arguments between academics and almost entirely inconsequential outside of their professional circles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. You seem to be arguing that secession is a worse outcome, a greater moral outrage, than 600k dead Americans and the American Nakba. It’s a fairly stupid argument (not least because America was founded on secession); almost as stupid as the “Lincoln was forced to rape the South because she was wearing that dress” argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    than 600k dead Americans and the American Nakba.

    Confederate soldiers were armed and did in fact use their weapons.
    , @syonredux

    You seem to be arguing that secession is a worse outcome, a greater moral outrage, than 600k dead Americans
     
    To an Anglo conservative, yeah. Seriously, a decadent slavocracy on the Southern border.....

    and the American Nakba
     
    What is this "American Nakba?' Is it anything like chocolate babka?

    It’s a fairly stupid argument (not least because America was founded on secession
     
    Revolution, dear fellow. Help me on this point, was the South represented in Congress in 1860....You know, because the 13 Colonies were not represented in Parliament...

    ; almost as stupid as the “Lincoln was forced to rape the South because she was wearing that dress” argument.
     
    MMM, was the South forced to secede because Slavery was so damn sexy....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. “Dismemberment of a nation,” haha; now that is what a rationalization hamster sounds like.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “Dismemberment of a nation,” haha; now that is what a rationalization hamster sounds like.
     
    Come now, dear fellow, the Confederacy wouldn't even allow pro-Union counties in Tennessee to secede....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. “Declaration of war,” bla bla bla. Declarations of war are not war, dear boy. They can’t get 600k White Americans killed. It took Lincoln for that. This is the flimsy sort of excuse Yankees always cling to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    "“Declaration of war,” bla bla bla. Declarations of war are not war, dear boy. They can’t get 600k White Americans killed."

    No, you have to have people willing to kill in the name of slavery for that...


    " It took Lincoln for that. This is the flimsy sort of excuse Yankees always cling to."


    Sadly, it took Jefferson Davis and his Confederate clown-show for that...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @ATBOTL
    Reality check: A Jewish intellectual movement like "Straussianism" can never be a vehicle for European Americans to defend our interests. These clowns are going to get swept away by the nationalist tidal wave.

    Reality check: it’s a series of arguments between academics and almost entirely inconsequential outside of their professional circles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Svigor
    You seem to be arguing that secession is a worse outcome, a greater moral outrage, than 600k dead Americans and the American Nakba. It's a fairly stupid argument (not least because America was founded on secession); almost as stupid as the "Lincoln was forced to rape the South because she was wearing that dress" argument.

    than 600k dead Americans and the American Nakba.

    Confederate soldiers were armed and did in fact use their weapons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Svigor
    "Declaration of war," bla bla bla. Declarations of war are not war, dear boy. They can't get 600k White Americans killed. It took Lincoln for that. This is the flimsy sort of excuse Yankees always cling to.

    ““Declaration of war,” bla bla bla. Declarations of war are not war, dear boy. They can’t get 600k White Americans killed.”

    No, you have to have people willing to kill in the name of slavery for that…

    ” It took Lincoln for that. This is the flimsy sort of excuse Yankees always cling to.”

    Sadly, it took Jefferson Davis and his Confederate clown-show for that…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Svigor
    "Dismemberment of a nation," haha; now that is what a rationalization hamster sounds like.

    “Dismemberment of a nation,” haha; now that is what a rationalization hamster sounds like.

    Come now, dear fellow, the Confederacy wouldn’t even allow pro-Union counties in Tennessee to secede….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Svigor
    You seem to be arguing that secession is a worse outcome, a greater moral outrage, than 600k dead Americans and the American Nakba. It's a fairly stupid argument (not least because America was founded on secession); almost as stupid as the "Lincoln was forced to rape the South because she was wearing that dress" argument.

    You seem to be arguing that secession is a worse outcome, a greater moral outrage, than 600k dead Americans

    To an Anglo conservative, yeah. Seriously, a decadent slavocracy on the Southern border…..

    and the American Nakba

    What is this “American Nakba?’ Is it anything like chocolate babka?

    It’s a fairly stupid argument (not least because America was founded on secession

    Revolution, dear fellow. Help me on this point, was the South represented in Congress in 1860….You know, because the 13 Colonies were not represented in Parliament…

    ; almost as stupid as the “Lincoln was forced to rape the South because she was wearing that dress” argument.

    MMM, was the South forced to secede because Slavery was so damn sexy….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Svigor
    It's funny that you can't even acknowledge that Lincoln and the Yankees created the American Nakba.

    It’s funny that you can’t even acknowledge that Lincoln and the Yankees created the American Nakba.

    Is that anything like chocolate babka?Because that’s kinda tasty…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @MB
    Well, after what he said about Lincoln and whom he compared him to, I think he probably also got in trouble with the bunch that think Honest Abe, along with John Brown, was a saint.

    If they ever heard of him.
    Or maybe they just ignored him.

    Well, after what he said about Lincoln and whom he compared him to, I think he probably also got in trouble with the bunch that think Honest Abe, along with John Brown, was a saint.

    I think that Wilson was simply trying to be kind to Lenin, you know, comparing him to great men like Bismarck and Lincoln…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Art Deco
    Stephen Tonsor’s remark on the neocons’ hostile takeover effort when it was going on - “”It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church… Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, then matters have been carried too far.”

    Tonsor was a critic of the think tank / opinion magazine subculture, which he thought diverted people from authentic scholarship. He didn't much care for the Rockford Institute or it's works after 1987. His concise description of them: "flaky cranks". Leopold Tyrmand's widow offered that her husband would have gagged over what Thomas Fleming did to his magazine.

    And, again, there was no 'hostile takeover', for reasons already delineated.

    And, again, there was no ‘hostile takeover’, for reasons already delineated.

    In response, I’d note that the neocon David Frum wrote a piece in NR in 2003 “excommunicating” conservative opponents of the Iraq war such as Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan as “unpatriotic conservatives.” I also quote what Joe Sobran wrote about the hostile takeover in 2005:

    “In 1985 Kirk made a speech to the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, in which he quipped that the neoconservatives — who were then attaching themselves to the conservative movement — seemed to think that the center of Western civilization was in Tel Aviv. This caused Midge Decter, the den mother of the neocons, to accuse Kirk of anti-Semitism.

    “It was a crude smear. But to my amazement, National Review didn’t defend Kirk, its oldest and most venerable contributor, against the vicious attack. In fact it didn’t even report what Decter had said. This was to become a pattern as the neocons made similar charges against Patrick Buchanan, me, and others who were mildly critical of the state of Israel. This was my introduction to what you might call ostrich journalism: ‘If we ignore unpleasant news, our readers will be ne’er the wiser.’ Mustn’t risk offending the neocons!

    “Kirk must have been deeply hurt. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that I’d urged Buckley to say something — anything — in his behalf, but he could hardly have failed to notice the loud silence when he needed friends. Ever since, the neocons have been able to count on National Review to play along with them. Today it hardly has an identity of its own; it seems just another neocon organ, forever urging war in the Middle East.

    “The older conservatives who, with Kirk, had helped create National Review 50 years ago — James Burnham, Frank Meyer, Willmoore Kendall, Willi Schlamm, Whittaker Chambers — wouldn’t recognize it today. Even the Buckleys must wince when they read it now. It was founded in order to oppose Eisenhower Republicanism; it currently supports a Republican president far to the left of Eisenhower [i.e., George W. Bush]

    “In Kirk’s day, National Review was an exciting magazine, the only one seriously challenging the liberal consensus. Not content with debating liberals, it conducted lively debates among conservatives themselves over basic questions of political philosophy. It was magnetic. Its fearlessness in those days — it defended Joe McCarthy and Southern segregation — make a strange contrast to its timidity today.”

    http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050908.shtml

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    In response, I’d note that the neocon David Frum wrote a piece in NR in 2003 “excommunicating” conservative opponents of the Iraq war such as Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan as “unpatriotic conservatives.” I also quote what Joe Sobran wrote about the hostile takeover in 2005:

    A fanciful pseudo-history does not morph into a genuine history just because Joseph Sobran elects to subscribe to it. Sobran's falling out with the main body of conservative opinion journalism concerned he strange excursions in commentary during the period running from 1986 to 1993. Neither his Joo obsession nor his refounded isolationism were a feature of starboard discourse at all after 1958 and both stances were controversial during the period running from 1943 to 1959.

    and its context was a debate between Prof. Tonsor and David Frum over the “entryism” of the neocons.

    Again, the collection of writers Buckley gathered around him in 1955 included a number of disaffected leftists, among them those who had been members of the Coummunist Party or the Socialist Workers Party. Disaffected leftists were nothing new in the world of starboard opinion journalism. Tonsor was perfectly aware of this. With the exception of Kristol, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Sidney Hook, the parties in question generally did not have a history of unconventional political views. They were less red than a previous generation of starboard opinion journalists.

    “In Kirk’s day, National Review was an exciting magazine, the only one seriously challenging the liberal consensus.

    Kirk was many things. 'Exciting' wasn't one. He was a contributor to National Review, not on staff. The publication he actually founded was Modern Age, which has always been rather soporific and in its content removed from the day to day concerns of political life.

    Keep in mind that Kirk was a lapsed English professor, not a historian or a student of social relations. He was a critic, not one who could guide any practitioners. He signed on to the Goldwater campaign in 1964 (Goldwater's many shortcomings aside) and was capable of uttering historical howlers. (He somehow got the idea in his head that Jim Crow consisted of antique social practices when in truth it hadn't antedated his own grandfathers).

    “In 1985 Kirk made a speech to the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, in which he quipped that the neoconservatives — who were then attaching themselves to the conservative movement — seemed to think that the center of Western civilization was in Tel Aviv. This caused Midge Decter, the den mother of the neocons, to accuse Kirk of anti-Semitism.
    “It was a crude smear. But to my amazement, National Review didn’t defend Kirk, its oldest and most venerable contributor, against the vicious attack.

    Kirk was rude to Decter. She was rude right back to him. Buckley declines to remark on this in his magazine. For some reason, you fancy that's a problem.

    You're not acknowledging why the conventional right finds the output of the von Mises Institute, the Rockford Institute, and the circles around Wick Allison, Justin Raimondo, and Ron Unz to be so unattractive. It's not just the nonagenarians who once ran the Committee on the Present Danger. You guys cannot sell this sh!t. The paid circulation of National Review exceeds that of Chronicles by more than 10-fold. That's not because Joos control the media.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Art Deco
    Stephen Tonsor’s remark on the neocons’ hostile takeover effort when it was going on - “”It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church… Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, then matters have been carried too far.”

    Tonsor was a critic of the think tank / opinion magazine subculture, which he thought diverted people from authentic scholarship. He didn't much care for the Rockford Institute or it's works after 1987. His concise description of them: "flaky cranks". Leopold Tyrmand's widow offered that her husband would have gagged over what Thomas Fleming did to his magazine.

    And, again, there was no 'hostile takeover', for reasons already delineated.

    Tonsor was a critic of the think tank / opinion magazine subculture, which he thought diverted people from authentic scholarship.

    That is as may be, but the particular passage I quoted was uttered at a meeting of the Philadelphia Society at which I was present, and its context was a debate between Prof. Tonsor and David Frum over the “entryism” of the neocons. Frum impressed me then as an oleaginous twit, and he does not seem to have improved with age.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Crawfurdmuir

    And, again, there was no ‘hostile takeover’, for reasons already delineated.
     
    In response, I'd note that the neocon David Frum wrote a piece in NR in 2003 "excommunicating" conservative opponents of the Iraq war such as Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan as "unpatriotic conservatives." I also quote what Joe Sobran wrote about the hostile takeover in 2005:

    "In 1985 Kirk made a speech to the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, in which he quipped that the neoconservatives — who were then attaching themselves to the conservative movement — seemed to think that the center of Western civilization was in Tel Aviv. This caused Midge Decter, the den mother of the neocons, to accuse Kirk of anti-Semitism.

    "It was a crude smear. But to my amazement, National Review didn’t defend Kirk, its oldest and most venerable contributor, against the vicious attack. In fact it didn’t even report what Decter had said. This was to become a pattern as the neocons made similar charges against Patrick Buchanan, me, and others who were mildly critical of the state of Israel. This was my introduction to what you might call ostrich journalism: 'If we ignore unpleasant news, our readers will be ne’er the wiser.' Mustn’t risk offending the neocons!

    "Kirk must have been deeply hurt. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that I’d urged Buckley to say something — anything — in his behalf, but he could hardly have failed to notice the loud silence when he needed friends. Ever since, the neocons have been able to count on National Review to play along with them. Today it hardly has an identity of its own; it seems just another neocon organ, forever urging war in the Middle East.

    "The older conservatives who, with Kirk, had helped create National Review 50 years ago — James Burnham, Frank Meyer, Willmoore Kendall, Willi Schlamm, Whittaker Chambers — wouldn’t recognize it today. Even the Buckleys must wince when they read it now. It was founded in order to oppose Eisenhower Republicanism; it currently supports a Republican president far to the left of Eisenhower [i.e., George W. Bush]

    "In Kirk’s day, National Review was an exciting magazine, the only one seriously challenging the liberal consensus. Not content with debating liberals, it conducted lively debates among conservatives themselves over basic questions of political philosophy. It was magnetic. Its fearlessness in those days — it defended Joe McCarthy and Southern segregation — make a strange contrast to its timidity today."

    http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050908.shtml

    In response, I’d note that the neocon David Frum wrote a piece in NR in 2003 “excommunicating” conservative opponents of the Iraq war such as Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan as “unpatriotic conservatives.” I also quote what Joe Sobran wrote about the hostile takeover in 2005:

    A fanciful pseudo-history does not morph into a genuine history just because Joseph Sobran elects to subscribe to it. Sobran’s falling out with the main body of conservative opinion journalism concerned he strange excursions in commentary during the period running from 1986 to 1993. Neither his Joo obsession nor his refounded isolationism were a feature of starboard discourse at all after 1958 and both stances were controversial during the period running from 1943 to 1959.

    and its context was a debate between Prof. Tonsor and David Frum over the “entryism” of the neocons.

    Again, the collection of writers Buckley gathered around him in 1955 included a number of disaffected leftists, among them those who had been members of the Coummunist Party or the Socialist Workers Party. Disaffected leftists were nothing new in the world of starboard opinion journalism. Tonsor was perfectly aware of this. With the exception of Kristol, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Sidney Hook, the parties in question generally did not have a history of unconventional political views. They were less red than a previous generation of starboard opinion journalists.

    “In Kirk’s day, National Review was an exciting magazine, the only one seriously challenging the liberal consensus.

    Kirk was many things. ‘Exciting’ wasn’t one. He was a contributor to National Review, not on staff. The publication he actually founded was Modern Age, which has always been rather soporific and in its content removed from the day to day concerns of political life.

    Keep in mind that Kirk was a lapsed English professor, not a historian or a student of social relations. He was a critic, not one who could guide any practitioners. He signed on to the Goldwater campaign in 1964 (Goldwater’s many shortcomings aside) and was capable of uttering historical howlers. (He somehow got the idea in his head that Jim Crow consisted of antique social practices when in truth it hadn’t antedated his own grandfathers).

    “In 1985 Kirk made a speech to the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, in which he quipped that the neoconservatives — who were then attaching themselves to the conservative movement — seemed to think that the center of Western civilization was in Tel Aviv. This caused Midge Decter, the den mother of the neocons, to accuse Kirk of anti-Semitism.
    “It was a crude smear. But to my amazement, National Review didn’t defend Kirk, its oldest and most venerable contributor, against the vicious attack.

    Kirk was rude to Decter. She was rude right back to him. Buckley declines to remark on this in his magazine. For some reason, you fancy that’s a problem.

    You’re not acknowledging why the conventional right finds the output of the von Mises Institute, the Rockford Institute, and the circles around Wick Allison, Justin Raimondo, and Ron Unz to be so unattractive. It’s not just the nonagenarians who once ran the Committee on the Present Danger. You guys cannot sell this sh!t. The paid circulation of National Review exceeds that of Chronicles by more than 10-fold. That’s not because Joos control the media.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Tel Aviv was a horrible slur. Trump understands it is Jerusalem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Art Deco
    In response, I’d note that the neocon David Frum wrote a piece in NR in 2003 “excommunicating” conservative opponents of the Iraq war such as Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan as “unpatriotic conservatives.” I also quote what Joe Sobran wrote about the hostile takeover in 2005:

    A fanciful pseudo-history does not morph into a genuine history just because Joseph Sobran elects to subscribe to it. Sobran's falling out with the main body of conservative opinion journalism concerned he strange excursions in commentary during the period running from 1986 to 1993. Neither his Joo obsession nor his refounded isolationism were a feature of starboard discourse at all after 1958 and both stances were controversial during the period running from 1943 to 1959.

    and its context was a debate between Prof. Tonsor and David Frum over the “entryism” of the neocons.

    Again, the collection of writers Buckley gathered around him in 1955 included a number of disaffected leftists, among them those who had been members of the Coummunist Party or the Socialist Workers Party. Disaffected leftists were nothing new in the world of starboard opinion journalism. Tonsor was perfectly aware of this. With the exception of Kristol, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Sidney Hook, the parties in question generally did not have a history of unconventional political views. They were less red than a previous generation of starboard opinion journalists.

    “In Kirk’s day, National Review was an exciting magazine, the only one seriously challenging the liberal consensus.

    Kirk was many things. 'Exciting' wasn't one. He was a contributor to National Review, not on staff. The publication he actually founded was Modern Age, which has always been rather soporific and in its content removed from the day to day concerns of political life.

    Keep in mind that Kirk was a lapsed English professor, not a historian or a student of social relations. He was a critic, not one who could guide any practitioners. He signed on to the Goldwater campaign in 1964 (Goldwater's many shortcomings aside) and was capable of uttering historical howlers. (He somehow got the idea in his head that Jim Crow consisted of antique social practices when in truth it hadn't antedated his own grandfathers).

    “In 1985 Kirk made a speech to the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, in which he quipped that the neoconservatives — who were then attaching themselves to the conservative movement — seemed to think that the center of Western civilization was in Tel Aviv. This caused Midge Decter, the den mother of the neocons, to accuse Kirk of anti-Semitism.
    “It was a crude smear. But to my amazement, National Review didn’t defend Kirk, its oldest and most venerable contributor, against the vicious attack.

    Kirk was rude to Decter. She was rude right back to him. Buckley declines to remark on this in his magazine. For some reason, you fancy that's a problem.

    You're not acknowledging why the conventional right finds the output of the von Mises Institute, the Rockford Institute, and the circles around Wick Allison, Justin Raimondo, and Ron Unz to be so unattractive. It's not just the nonagenarians who once ran the Committee on the Present Danger. You guys cannot sell this sh!t. The paid circulation of National Review exceeds that of Chronicles by more than 10-fold. That's not because Joos control the media.

    Tel Aviv was a horrible slur. Trump understands it is Jerusalem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. When did I mention Chronicles once in any of my previous comments? Why do you see fit to keep bringing it, the Rockford Institute, etc., into this discussion?

    That there was a previous conservatism before the present infestation of neocons is made evident by Frum’s effort to “excommunicate” representatives of the old right such as Novak and Buchanan (neither of them associated with Chronicles), who had been fixtures on the right long before Frum and his confrères came to public notice.

    Buchanan was the forerunner to Trump. It is because of this that neocons of the NR/Kristol/Frum/Stephens school detest the President. NR may have ten times the circulation of Chronicles, but Breitbart now has many times NR’s page views and revenues. NR nailed its colors to the mast with its NeverTrump stance, and (judging by the desperate tone of its year-end fundraising appeals) is now taking on water badly. It may well sink, and few will mourn if it should.

    NR is the publication having trouble “sell[ing] this shit.” It after all licked the mud off of George W. Bush’s boots, and supported losing candidates like McCain and Romney. Trump by contrast followed the Sailer Strategy, did without NR’s support, and won.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I don't know how to break it to you, but Frum's article was largely a critique of people associated with the Rockford Institute in one way or another. Of course I would bring it into the conversation. The dissent from standard currents in starboard opinion journalism was manifest there.



    That there was a previous conservatism before the present infestation of neocons is

    Over the period between 1972 and 1989 you saw the usual personnel changes you'd expect as old people retire and die and young people find work in a new trade. You had much the same personnel contributing to National Review, Human Events, The American Spectator &c. at both points in time, including Buckley himself and Emmett Tyrrell. You had new hires during that era, e.g. Richard Brookhiser and Terry Teachout. Not sure why these constitute an 'infestation' in your mind. Commentary, The Public Interest, and The American Scholar were already in existence in 1972. They changed their editorial line significantly during that period of time and (in the case of the former), their party preference. Commentary had a circulation 1/3 that of National Review in this era and The Public Interest 1/10th. In the course of changing their editorial line, they moved closer to National Review's position, not the other way around.



    Buchanan was the forerunner to Trump. It is because of this that neocons of the NR/Kristol/Frum/Stephens school detest the President.

    No, he wasn't. The one thing they have in common is that both are resistant to uncontrolled immigration and skeptical of the web of trade agreements the world labors under. Otherwise, they're at least as dissimilar from each other as either is from the Republican mainstream. Ross Perot has some similarities to Trump (and some differences from him as well). As for the specific persons you mention, Stephens is (as far as I can tell) a vocational snob, Frum is in his third or fourth incarnation as a pundit, Kristol is largely retired and too sanguine a man to detest anyone, and the NR clown car has a variegated disposition nowadays.



    NR is the publication having trouble “sell[ing] this shit.” It after all licked the mud off of George W. Bush’s boots, and supported losing candidates like McCain and Romney. Trump by contrast followed the Sailer Strategy, did without NR’s support, and won.

    Trump followed his own strategy. There isn't much reason to believe he knows Steve Sailer from a cord of wood.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Crawfurdmuir
    When did I mention Chronicles once in any of my previous comments? Why do you see fit to keep bringing it, the Rockford Institute, etc., into this discussion?

    That there was a previous conservatism before the present infestation of neocons is made evident by Frum's effort to "excommunicate" representatives of the old right such as Novak and Buchanan (neither of them associated with Chronicles), who had been fixtures on the right long before Frum and his confrères came to public notice.

    Buchanan was the forerunner to Trump. It is because of this that neocons of the NR/Kristol/Frum/Stephens school detest the President. NR may have ten times the circulation of Chronicles, but Breitbart now has many times NR's page views and revenues. NR nailed its colors to the mast with its NeverTrump stance, and (judging by the desperate tone of its year-end fundraising appeals) is now taking on water badly. It may well sink, and few will mourn if it should.

    NR is the publication having trouble "sell[ing] this shit." It after all licked the mud off of George W. Bush's boots, and supported losing candidates like McCain and Romney. Trump by contrast followed the Sailer Strategy, did without NR's support, and won.

    I don’t know how to break it to you, but Frum’s article was largely a critique of people associated with the Rockford Institute in one way or another. Of course I would bring it into the conversation. The dissent from standard currents in starboard opinion journalism was manifest there.

    That there was a previous conservatism before the present infestation of neocons is

    Over the period between 1972 and 1989 you saw the usual personnel changes you’d expect as old people retire and die and young people find work in a new trade. You had much the same personnel contributing to National Review, Human Events, The American Spectator &c. at both points in time, including Buckley himself and Emmett Tyrrell. You had new hires during that era, e.g. Richard Brookhiser and Terry Teachout. Not sure why these constitute an ‘infestation’ in your mind. Commentary, The Public Interest, and The American Scholar were already in existence in 1972. They changed their editorial line significantly during that period of time and (in the case of the former), their party preference. Commentary had a circulation 1/3 that of National Review in this era and The Public Interest 1/10th. In the course of changing their editorial line, they moved closer to National Review‘s position, not the other way around.

    Buchanan was the forerunner to Trump. It is because of this that neocons of the NR/Kristol/Frum/Stephens school detest the President.

    No, he wasn’t. The one thing they have in common is that both are resistant to uncontrolled immigration and skeptical of the web of trade agreements the world labors under. Otherwise, they’re at least as dissimilar from each other as either is from the Republican mainstream. Ross Perot has some similarities to Trump (and some differences from him as well). As for the specific persons you mention, Stephens is (as far as I can tell) a vocational snob, Frum is in his third or fourth incarnation as a pundit, Kristol is largely retired and too sanguine a man to detest anyone, and the NR clown car has a variegated disposition nowadays.

    NR is the publication having trouble “sell[ing] this shit.” It after all licked the mud off of George W. Bush’s boots, and supported losing candidates like McCain and Romney. Trump by contrast followed the Sailer Strategy, did without NR’s support, and won.

    Trump followed his own strategy. There isn’t much reason to believe he knows Steve Sailer from a cord of wood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Kristol is largely retired and too sanguine a man to detest anyone, and the NR clown car has a variegated disposition nowadays.

    I am not sure how you consider Kristol “sanguine.” He is more appropriately called sanguinary, considering the blood shed by American soldiers in the foolish wars he has so indefatigably advocated. He recently remarked, “The GOP tax bill’s bringing out my inner socialist. The sex scandals are bringing out my inner feminist. Donald Trump and Roy Moore are bringing out my inner liberal.” Perhaps what’s really showing is his inner red diaper baby. The same is true of his fellow NeverTrumper Max Boot, who is now whining about “white privilege.”

    As for the “NR Clown Car,” the thing that characterizes a clown car is the large number of clowns that fit into its seemingly small space. How many “clowns” fit in NR’s “Against Trump” issue? They were all singing the same tune then. That’s been the overarching characteristic of NR since the Republican primaries began in 2016. If the animus still displayed by Goldberg, French, and Williamson is not repeated with equal fervor by Lowry these days, perhaps it’s because he has seen the hæmmorhage of support for the journal that has been the result of its anti-Trump stridency.

    But it is probably too late – NR is the organ of the Jeff Flake wing of the GOP, following a “principled” ideological purism under which the support of “free trade” necessitates support for the free movement across national borders not just of capital and goods, but also of people – no matter that the latter include illiterate mestizos certain to become welfare-dependents, would-be jihadis posing as Middle Eastern “refugees,” and sufferers of contagious diseases that most American physicians have never encountered outside of a textbook. Flake announced he would not run for Senate in 2018 – with an 18% approval rating that’s no surprise. I think that is on the high side and reflects Arizonan Mormon voters’ loyalty to a co-religionist rather than support for his positions. Flakeism as a platform might garner single-digit support nationally – about what the equivalent corporate, internationalist, “classical liberal” parties like Germany’s Free Democrats do in Europe.

    The one thing they [i.e., Buchanan and Trump] have in common is that both are resistant to uncontrolled immigration and skeptical of the web of trade agreements the world labors under.

    And were not those exactly the points on which both of them differed from the GOP establishment, and for which both were anathematized by the neocons?

    Trump followed his own strategy. There isn’t much reason to believe he knows Steve Sailer from a cord of wood.

    That may be. It remains the case that Steve Sailer identified the strategy well before Trump followed it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  157. @peterike

    As for Communist movements, they’ve been quite vigorous in places wherein the Jewish population is of modest significance or no significance (Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, Greece, Chile…)

     

    Chile? Well Allende was Jewish, so there's that.

    In any case, numbers only matter in terms of street agitators, and they're always easy to gin up if you've got what really matters, which is money and organization, and preferably some kind of media backing (newspapers in those days). It doesn't take a whole lot of Communists to run the movement. Hell, there were even Jews behind Mao, in China. And there weren't all that many Jews in South Africa, yet they effectively destroyed the country and ended Apartheid. The point being, Jewish population numbers don't necessarily indicate anything about who was driving a given Communist movement in a given nation.

    There were also tons of Jews in the Spanish Civil War, though probably most of them weren't actually Spanish. You know, rootless and all that.

    This is an interesting list to scroll through.

    https://communismblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/list-of-communist-jews/

    What is the evidence that Allende was Jewish? I have read a good deal about Allende but never saw any references to Jewish ancestry. Leftist and Jewish oriented publications have never been shy about acknowledging even fractional Jewish ancestry among Communists but I find no such references.

    You provide a link to a site with little credibility. The entry under for Allende asserts his Jewishness but offers no source. And the photo with that entry doesn’t even look like Allende. I found other sites such as the dumbed down Wikipedia ( “Simple English”) claiming he was Jewish but that also offered no sources.

    The closest I could come was an article in the leftist Der Spiegel that quotes one of Allende’s communist cronies saying he had a Jewish mother but that was in an effort to argue that he, Allende, was NOT an anti-Semite!

    His mother’s name was Gossens but that, along with variants such as Goossens, is among the most common surnames in Belgium, Holland, and South Africa. I have lived in Belgium and South Africa, traveled all over Holland, and have met many people named Gossens or Goossens but none were Jewish. I could not turn up a single reference to Jewish Gossens or Goossens even after a good deal of googling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I knew some Goosens at Notre Dame HS. They were a huge devout Catholic family of half-Jewish descent, with numerous colorful avocations like boxing promotion. So at least one Goosen in the U.S. was Jewish.

    One of the older Goosen brothers from NDHS played major league baseball for five years and is quoted frequently in Jim Bouton's "Ball Four." Casey Stengel said of Greg Goosen, "Goossen is only 20, and in 10 years he has a chance to be 30." After baseball, he became a private detective and then became Gene Hackman's stand-in on numerous movies.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/sports/baseball/04goossen.html

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @PV van der Byl
    What is the evidence that Allende was Jewish? I have read a good deal about Allende but never saw any references to Jewish ancestry. Leftist and Jewish oriented publications have never been shy about acknowledging even fractional Jewish ancestry among Communists but I find no such references.

    You provide a link to a site with little credibility. The entry under for Allende asserts his Jewishness but offers no source. And the photo with that entry doesn't even look like Allende. I found other sites such as the dumbed down Wikipedia ( "Simple English") claiming he was Jewish but that also offered no sources.

    The closest I could come was an article in the leftist Der Spiegel that quotes one of Allende's communist cronies saying he had a Jewish mother but that was in an effort to argue that he, Allende, was NOT an anti-Semite!

    His mother's name was Gossens but that, along with variants such as Goossens, is among the most common surnames in Belgium, Holland, and South Africa. I have lived in Belgium and South Africa, traveled all over Holland, and have met many people named Gossens or Goossens but none were Jewish. I could not turn up a single reference to Jewish Gossens or Goossens even after a good deal of googling.

    I knew some Goosens at Notre Dame HS. They were a huge devout Catholic family of half-Jewish descent, with numerous colorful avocations like boxing promotion. So at least one Goosen in the U.S. was Jewish.

    One of the older Goosen brothers from NDHS played major league baseball for five years and is quoted frequently in Jim Bouton’s “Ball Four.” Casey Stengel said of Greg Goosen, “Goossen is only 20, and in 10 years he has a chance to be 30.” After baseball, he became a private detective and then became Gene Hackman’s stand-in on numerous movies.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/sports/baseball/04goossen.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Here are Jim Bouton's "Ball Four" sections about Greg Goosen:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/ny-review-of-books-donald-trumps-brains/?trashed=1&ids=2147358

    For example:

    August 1

    Another example of a general manager generously giving a ballplayer money that he is absolutely entitled to. Greg Goossen told the story. He lost $200 in rent when he was called up (from Triple-A) and (GM) Marvin Milkes put his hand on his shoulder and said, “We’re picking up your rent check. (It’s a rule that he has to.) And since you’ve signed a major-league contract, today you start on the pension plan.” “He made it sound like a special gift from him, a pot sweetener,” said Goossen. “It was only after I left his office that I realized there was no way he could prevent me from starting on the pension plan today, even if he wanted to.”

    August 7

    On the bus from the airport to the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, we passed a huge government building that had a bronze plaque on the front announcing it had been “erected in 1929.” And Greg Goossen said, “That’s quite an erection.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Steve Sailer
    I knew some Goosens at Notre Dame HS. They were a huge devout Catholic family of half-Jewish descent, with numerous colorful avocations like boxing promotion. So at least one Goosen in the U.S. was Jewish.

    One of the older Goosen brothers from NDHS played major league baseball for five years and is quoted frequently in Jim Bouton's "Ball Four." Casey Stengel said of Greg Goosen, "Goossen is only 20, and in 10 years he has a chance to be 30." After baseball, he became a private detective and then became Gene Hackman's stand-in on numerous movies.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/sports/baseball/04goossen.html

    Here are Jim Bouton’s “Ball Four” sections about Greg Goosen:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/ny-review-of-books-donald-trumps-brains/?trashed=1&ids=2147358

    For example:

    August 1

    Another example of a general manager generously giving a ballplayer money that he is absolutely entitled to. Greg Goossen told the story. He lost $200 in rent when he was called up (from Triple-A) and (GM) Marvin Milkes put his hand on his shoulder and said, “We’re picking up your rent check. (It’s a rule that he has to.) And since you’ve signed a major-league contract, today you start on the pension plan.” “He made it sound like a special gift from him, a pot sweetener,” said Goossen. “It was only after I left his office that I realized there was no way he could prevent me from starting on the pension plan today, even if he wanted to.”

    August 7

    On the bus from the airport to the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, we passed a huge government building that had a bronze plaque on the front announcing it had been “erected in 1929.” And Greg Goossen said, “That’s quite an erection.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored