The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
PBS: Bill Kristol's Son-in-law Denounces "Alt-right" Nobodies Because They "Believe in Hierarchies"

From PBS:

Why the ‘alt-right’ is coming out of online chat rooms to support Trump
August 25, 2016 at 6:30 PM EDT

Donald Trump is appealing to voters who reject mainstream conservative ideals. These members of the so-called “alt-right” have typically taken their frustrations to the internet, rather than to the polls.

John Yang interviews the Washington Free Beacon’s Matthew Continetti and The Washington Post’s David Weigel about the alt-right’s “hierarchical” tendencies and potential impact on conservatism.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Back in this country, both presidential candidates were in full attack mode today. At issue, Republican nominee Donald Trump’s alleged connections to a fringe conservative philosophy.

John Yang has the story.

JOHN YANG: Today, Hillary Clinton debuted a fresh line of attack against Donald Trump.

HILLARY CLINTON (D), Presidential Nominee: That is what I want to make clear today. A man with a long history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far, dark reaches of the Internet, should never run our government or command our military.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

JOHN YANG: This comes a little more than a week after Trump made Steve Bannon his campaign’s CEO.

Bannon is on leave from his job as executive chairman of Breitbart News, a Web site Bannon has called a platform for something called the alt- right. It’s a movement that lives largely online, rejects mainstream conservative politics, and is linked to nationalist and white supremacist sentiments.

Clinton said Trump has echoed alt-right rhetoric.

HILLARY CLINTON: All of this adds up to something we have never seen before. Now, of course, there’s always been a paranoid fringe in our politics, a lot of arising from racial resentment. But it’s never had the nominee of a major party stoking it, encouraging it, and giving it a national megaphone, until now.

JOHN YANG: Clinton’s campaign backed up their candidate’s message online with this new video that includes a Ku Klux Klan member expressing support for Trump.

MAN: Donald Trump would be best for the job.

QUESTION: For president?

MAN: Yes.

Screenshot 2016-08-25 23.12.18

Hillary’s new ad

MAN: I am a farmer and white nationalist. Support Donald Trump.

This farmer isn’t some obscurity who is only tangentially tied to a candidate, like, say, Rev. Jeremiah Wright happened to be Obama’s “spiritual adviser” for two decades. Nobody dared run ads in 2008 mentioning that Rev. Wright was the hero of a glowing chapter in Obama’s autobiography because that would have been McCarthyite guilt by association.

But this isn’t Donald Trump’s spiritual adviser, this is a farmer. How can we not take seriously the menace posed by Trump in league with his natural henchmen, the farmers? They have pitchforks!

Only Hillary can smash the Farmer-Trump Axis of Evil before it’s too late.

JOHN YANG: Even before Clinton spoke, Trump hit back.

DONALD TRUMP (R), Presidential Nominee: When Democratic policies fail, they are left with only this one tired argument: You’re racist, you’re racist, you’re racist. They keep saying it. You’re racist.

It’s a tired, disgusting argument. The people of this country who want their laws enforced and respected, and respected by all, and who want their border secured, are not racists.

If you want to have strong borders, so that people come into our country, but they come in legally through a legal process, that doesn’t make you a racist. It makes you smart. It makes you an American.

JOHN YANG: Today’s exchange between the candidates shining a spotlight on a little-known movement.

So, what is the alt-right? And how it is influencing this year’s presidential race?

For that, we are joined by Matthew Continetti, editor in chief of The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news Web site, and from Manchester, New Hampshire, David Weigel, who covers national politics for The Washington Post.

Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us.

Dave, let me start with you and ask you that question. What is alt-right, who’s behind it, where did it come from?

DAVID WEIGEL, The Washington Post: Well, it’s a fairly young movement with fairly old ideas.

I would say what they’re against, which is easier to define, is a philosophy of invite the world, invade the world.

Wow, just wow. I’d never heard before that there were any radical extremists who question the philosophy of “invite the world, invade the world.”

Who are these nuts and why haven’t they been dealt with already?

They are generally anti-intervention and anti-multiculturalism.

And they started to grow in 2007, as the Bush administration was falling to below 30 percent, was seen as discredited, was obviously going to help Democrats win the next election. Ron Paul’s campaign seeded some of this, but it really grew under the presidency of Barack Obama.

And they’re fairly young people. This is, I think, what’s worrying for a lot of progressives and a lot of people on the right, fairly young people, under 25, under 30, who have only known the Republican Party as a disappointment. And they have gravitated to these ideas which are very anti-immigrant, very anti-intervention.

JOHN YANG: And they’re getting a lot of attention, Dave, because of the anti-Semitic and anti-white — or — and white supremacist rhetoric. How central is that to their message and to what they believe in?

DAVID WEIGEL: It’s enabled in a lot of their messaging.

Not every alt-right thinker or activist is a white nationalist, by far, but there’s a sense that political correctness is a bigger problem than racism, and that racism is used as a cudgel for silencing what they want to say, what they want to argue about.

That’s, again, an older idea. Before the alt-right, there were paleoconservatives, like Sam Francis, like Pat Buchanan, who argued this and said, look, what the left wants to do to America, how it wants to import lots of immigrants, decrease the number of traditional white Americans, what they want to do is not popular, and they have to kind of Trojan a horse through culturally, and we’re against that.

JOHN YANG: Matthew, what is your take on this? What would you add to that, to what Dave said?

MATTHEW CONTINETTI, Washington Free Beacon: I think I have a slightly narrower definition of the alt-right than Dave does.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEW CONTINETTI: It’s true, there has always been this kind of critique of conservatism from the non-interventionist, the non-multicultural view.

I think the alt-right takes it a degree further. And so what you have that unifies a lot of these alt-righters on the Internet is really a disgust at the idea of egalitarianism.

They do believe in hierarchies.

In contrast, Continetti, like all respectable conservatives, hates the very idea of hierarchies. Look at how Continetti’s father-in-law, William Kristol, came up the hard way from the ground up without a privilege in the world, what with being the son of Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb, getting hired by Dan Quayle, and having Rupert Murdoch give him millions to start a magazine.

Some of them are racial. They also believe in sexual hierarchies. So, a lot of them kind of wave the banner of the men’s rights movement.

The next thing these pathetic freaks will be telling you is that men and women should ease off waging the War of the Genders against each other because they are happier when they are fraternizing with the enemy.

But that’s just sick.

And so you start off from that political conclusion. And very quickly, when you read the rhetoric, it devolves into just outright racism, outright misogyny. So part of it starts with these ideas of Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, Pat Buchanan, that have been around since the end of the Cold War, really.’

It’s almost as if 25 years ago Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, and Pat Buchanan noticed the Cold War had ended and therefore it was time for some new ideas.

But real Americans know that the eternal enemy is the Czar.

But a lot now of it is now much more visceral, hatred of the mainstream cultural movement for embracing some version of egalitarianism, civil rights, equality of the sexes.

JOHN YANG: And, David, what is the link, or is there a link or is there a connection between the Trump campaign and the alt-right?

DAVID WEIGEL: Well, there always has been. There been alt-right support for Trump mostly manifested online or even sometimes the T-shirts and signs you see at rallies.

There is a big alt-right presence on sites like 4chan and Reddit. And it was good that Matt mentioned the men’s rights movement. You could mention Gamergate. That was kind of a gateway for a lot of activists who consider themselves alt-right.

So, they supported Trump in the first place. The more direction came when Steve Bannon, the CEO of Breitbart, became the CEO of Trump’s campaign. Breitbart, very, I think, in a calculated and then also in a natural way became a forum for alt-right thinking and alt-right coverage, coverage of politics the way that those 4chan and Reddit people wanted it covered.

And that’s when this connection became harder to deny and when I think the Clinton campaign thought it was something to exploit.

JOHN YANG: And, Matthew, what does this mean for the future of the conservative movement?

MATTHEW CONTINETTI: I think it’s one more sign that conservatism as we understand it is coming under great strain during the era of Trump.

And so you have all of these criticisms of the mainstream conservatism represented by William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan. All these critics now feel empowered with the rise of Donald Trump.

Why don’t Americans just shut up and do as they are told? What’s with all this critical thinking lately?

Anyone who had a bone to pick with the George W. Bush administration, with the Republicans in Congress, with the editors of National Review, of The Weekly Standard now says, Trump is our guy. Trump is going to be the agent of change that legitimates our somewhat fringe, marginal ideas.

The little people in the conservative ranks must drop all this fringe, marginal nonsense about “hierarchies” and go back to obeying their betters, like in the good old days when Bill Buckley and Bill Kristol told them what they could think and who they could read, and they didn’t have the impudence to give the Bills any lip.

When the Bills said M.J. Sobran was banned, conservatives let Joe go off and die in poverty.

Now that was respect!

What’s wrong with this country today? Why don’t commoners listen to their natural superiors anymore?

Now, is there a large constituency for these ideas? No. I mean, you can find it on the Internet, but the danger for the conservative mainstream is to say, oh, all of a sudden, since it’s on the Internet, maybe we need to incorporate it into our thinking.

As soon as that happens, I think you’re going to find conservatism itself illegitimated.

Those bastards. Why isn’t there deference anymore toward the legitimate dynasties of Conservatism Inc., the Kristol-Continettis, the Podhoretzes? Why have people stopped reading Commentary? Just because the editor is an ill-tempered idiot shouldn’t stop conservatives from doing their duty and reading his bad magazine. Look, JPod is the editor of Commentary because he’s Norman Podhoretz’s son. Doesn’t that mean anything to you people anymore?

Not letting yourself be bullied by John Podhoretz is like voting for George Washington instead of submitting to King George III.

It’s un-American.

JOHN YANG: You talk about the days of William F. Buckley, when he was sort of the one who said who was a conservative.

A.K.A., the Good Old Days, before all these revolutionaries believed in hierarchies.

Does the conservative movement, do you think, bear any responsibility for the emergence of this sentiment, the alt-right?

MATTHEW CONTINETTI: I think it’s bottom-up, really. So, I don’t think you had the same gatekeepers that you did in the earlier media age, when there were one or two conservative magazines that published biweekly or monthly.

Now we live in the Internet, and it’s the Wild West. Anyone with an opinion, a Twitter account, a YouTube channel, they can express themselves. They can put these opinions into the public sphere. And what we have found, much to the surprise of conservatives like myself, is, there is a large audience for this type of rhetoric, these types of ideas.

Who could have guessed that Republicans might find “the philosophy of invite the world, invade the world” to be imprudent?

Doesn’t anybody believe in Propositions anymore?

I don’t know, I guess this just isn’t the Extended Stay Globomerica that at least some of us grew up in …

And also one thing that needs to be mentioned with the alt-right, they’re kind of cyber-bullies.

When Bill Buckley purged Pat Buchanan, he didn’t do it through cyber-space: instead, he published thousands of words in his magazine about how Pat was a Right-Deviationist Wrecker.

And we saw, with the rise of Trump in 2015, groups of these advocates and activists on Twitter going after in many cases Jewish conservatives and calling them anti-Semitic tropes.

This is something that I think is very ugly. And I worry for the future of conservatism, that it may displace the more traditional mainstream conservatism that most Americans think of when they think conservatism for the last 30 years.

JOHN YANG: We should point out that one of the targets of Breitbart was your father-in-law, William Kristol, who they went after right — in a very…

MATTHEW CONTINETTI: I wouldn’t like them anyway, though.

My father-in-law has a proven record as a forecaster. He said I was going to do well in the pundit business and here I am, on TV, just like he said.

That’s science.

(LAUGHTER)

JOHN YANG: OK.

Dave, what’s the future of this movement? You say that they feel like this is their moment, with Donald Trump as the nominee. Regardless of what happens to Donald Trump in November, what’s going to happen to this movement?

DAVID WEIGEL: Well, the light at the end of the tunnel for a lot of Republicans is, they don’t think they’re going to win the election. They think Trump will lose.

And there will be an effort — I don’t think a cynical effort, I think in part a sincere effort — to say the reason he lost is because he embraced a lot of radical ideas that can’t win in America anymore, we need to get rid of those elements.

To key off what Matt was saying, it wasn’t like they were part of the conservative conversation, the mainstream conversation anyway. They weren’t writing for National Review. They weren’t writing for The Weekly Standard.

They were always on the outs, but I think they will be actively ostracized after the election.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Alt Right, American Media, Neocons 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. That speech of Hillary is more damaging to Conservatism Inc. than anything else. Liberals always like to define what a conservative is supposed to be (never seen the opposite though). Hillary stated that McCain or Dole are good conservatives, which is a big problem for the Conservatism Inc. type, they like to sell a narrative of opposing liberals but when liberals are openly stating how they should behave (i.e. politically impotent) and praising them, it really makes it hard to come across as being in opposition instead of the reality of the uniparty sytem they are so comfortable with.

    • Replies: @countenance
    Are we supposed to believe that Hillary and the blue team have all this new found love and respect for Dole, Bush and McCain? Remember, when they were their parties' nominees, they were Nazi and Klan, too. If this year's nominee was a lamer con or neocon type, such as Jeb!, Hillary would have used the occasion of this speech today to denounce him as Nazi and Klan.

    The Republicans nominate Hitler every four years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/pbs-bill-kristols-son-in-law-denounces-alt-right-because-they-believe-in-hierarchies/#comment-1542265
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. They’re scared.

    • Agree: Bill
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "They're scared."

    What does Carl think?

    Oops, sorry. Paul Verhoeven's over-the-top nazi vibe and NPH's portrayal of Doogie Heydrich might give some people the wrong impression of the alt-right.

    , @donut
    Maybe we should be scared .

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/17/internet-two-months-left-obama-gives-control-dictators/


    http://www.newstarget.com/2016-08-15-technology-groups-urging-congress-to-sue-obama-administration-to-block-handing-over-control-of-internet-to-authoritarian-regimes.html

    http://www.newstarget.com/2016-08-26-obama-handing-the-internet-to-globalists-prepare-for-censorship-of-alt-media.html
  3. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “…but I think they will be actively ostracized after the election.”

    From ostracism to persecution is how far?

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    The main appeal will be to the purist* base's self-interest. There is a precedent for this in the UK and Canada, where the base was actively told to stuff it and outright change its positions. It worked for Cameron, but it didn't for Harper. Lots of repetition that true conservatism is about "individual freedom", "free markets" and nothing else. In the US there would be tremendous repetition of "strong national defense" as well.

    Never underestimate the ability of people who have been followers all of their life, to convince themselves and others that it is us who are the problem. Generations of Arab leaders have been able to deflect all criticism by blaming Israel, it would not surprise me that Conservatism Inc. could get 10 years of blaming the eeevil racists for its problems. Altruistic punishment.

    *Think the Ted Cruz supporter, the skids would be greased by having Cruz make a big pro-gay rights speech and announce that he supports abortion being a state issue. He could also make an appeal that criticizing any liberal Republican is wrong, appealing to Reagan. Rubio has already gone in this direction.
    , @Lagertha
    get your sword and shield ready!
    , @George Taylor

    “…but I think they will be actively ostracized after the election.”

    From ostracism to persecution is how far?
     
    Since many of the neocon's have openly sided with Hillary, not far, not far at all.
  4. DAVID WEIGEL: Well, the light at the end of the tunnel for a lot of Republicans is, they don’t think they’re going to win the election. They think Trump will lose.

    In other words, they are embracing defeat. The American Vichy revealed.

    • Agree: NickG
    • Replies: @415 reasons
    Seriously. Their policy platform is... What, exactly? Exactly the same as the Democrats but with a capital gains tax cut? It will certainly ease the bitter pill of my kids growing up in the North American version of Tegucigalpa to know that I can keep 10% more of the proceeds from selling my AMZN holdings.
    , @syonredux
    After reading this......stuff, I needed a restorative. From Anne Coulter's new book, In Trump We Trust:

    Why shouldn’t Americans fight to preserve their culture? All of us have a place that we think of as home. . . . Other people are allowed to have a home.
     

    Of all the places in the history of the world, this is the culture that gleams and works the best. There’s a reason the Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution happened where they happened. And that the Declaration of Independence was written in a British colony. [.....] That’s why the socialist left finally gave up on traditional Americans and pinned their hopes on immigrants, who bring their socialism with them.
     

    Conservationists correctly point out that once a species is gone, it’s gone. There’s no getting it back. As Western Europe is discovering, the same is true of countries. If Trump loses, at least we’ll finally know: it was too late.
     

    It was as if all the Republican candidates got together and agreed to never use steroids. No one would be at a competitive disadvantage, because none of them would have popular positions. Then Trump came along and said, I don’t care, I’m taking steroids. That made him much better than all the other candidates. When he didn’t back down in the face of wall-to-wall hysteria, it showed his courage and toughness.
     
    , @Forbes
    Weigel is just mouthing the lapdog media narrative. Saw the same in 2004 when Dems were sure beyond a doubt Bush would lose. As I recall, that was the beginning of the Bush Derangement Syndrome, with reams of articles about Dems in need of psychological counseling after the election.
  5. I knew Weigel a bit when we were both teenagers. I liked him, he’s smart and honest in a friendly aspie-awkward way. It does not surprise me he’s basically the only MSM journalist who is willing to give an honest, non-shrieking description of the alt-right. How many others have even bothered once to note our opposition to all the Bush/Clinton/Obama stupid foreign wars?

    I am also not surprised that the sewer-brained Udolpho and his site decided to make a thread attacking him.

    • Replies: @RamonaQ
    Don't you remember journolist? Weigel viscerally loathes the right. My guess is, he is interested in honestly representing the alt-right inasmuch as he wants to shove it in Conservatism Inc's face and say "see, you created this fascist movement, proto-fascists"
    , @Anonymous
    What's funny is that Udolpho still craves respectability, so he spends half his time furiously denouncing white nationalism. He was sort of an aspiring writer and critic, who's old and bitter now that nobody took his writing seriously and it never led anywhere. He now just assuages himself by curating a circle jerk where posters feign interest in his completely unoriginal and jejune ideas like SCALE so they can go back to making race and scat jokes.
    , @SF
    I wonder what Weigel's on-line handle is. His using "Invade the World, Invite the World," marks him as a likely reader here, and as a pundit he would have a hard time keeping from commenting.
    , @Dahlia
    Agree. I like David, too, and hated what they did to him. Seems evil. Miss the old Udolpho, but only check out MPC (it's hilarious) about twice a year cause he's just gotten too mean in his older age.
    I know he'd say "bullycide" is legit and effective. I don't know.
    , @Mikey Darmody
    Who is Udolpho?
    , @ben tillman

    I am also not surprised that the sewer-brained Udolpho and his site decided to make a thread attacking him.
     
    He attacked us first. He deserves to reap what he's sown.
  6. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Mike Cernovich on Hillary’s Rally today:

    https://www.periscope.tv/Cernovich/1zqKVVvXQWXKB?

    Hillary’s new campaign slogan:

    The Cough Stops Here

  7. @Lot
    I knew Weigel a bit when we were both teenagers. I liked him, he's smart and honest in a friendly aspie-awkward way. It does not surprise me he's basically the only MSM journalist who is willing to give an honest, non-shrieking description of the alt-right. How many others have even bothered once to note our opposition to all the Bush/Clinton/Obama stupid foreign wars?

    I am also not surprised that the sewer-brained Udolpho and his site decided to make a thread attacking him.

    Don’t you remember journolist? Weigel viscerally loathes the right. My guess is, he is interested in honestly representing the alt-right inasmuch as he wants to shove it in Conservatism Inc’s face and say “see, you created this fascist movement, proto-fascists”

    • Replies: @Lot

    Don’t you remember journolist? Weigel viscerally loathes the right.
     
    Some reporters on journolist do hate the right. There is not indicated from his posts on it that Weigel shares those feelings. Maybe I missed some of them, but the one at the link seems to have all the other ones mentioned elsewhere on them. Here's what appears to be the "worst" of what he said:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/an_apology_to_my_readers.html

    I don't see a "loathing" of the right, but minor personal piques against Matt Drudge and someone working for Byron York's website.

    Weigel's a secular libertarian in the Cato Institute type, and Cato staff make up many of his friends and roommates. He says who he votes for, and that includes liberal local DC Republicans, Bob Barr, and Obama.

    My guess is, he is interested in honestly representing the alt-right inasmuch as he wants to shove it in Conservatism Inc’s face and say “see, you created this fascist movement, proto-fascists”
     
    If that were the case, he could just have done another "OMG ALT RIGHT RACISTS! TRUMP RETWEETED NEONAZIS!" article. Instead, he quoted Steve Sailer's favorite phrase to sell his own views.

    I liked his campaign reporting from 2008 and 2012, there really was no fairer MSM reporter covering Paul or the various fringe evangelical-favorites.
  8. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Too bad Trump doesn’t have serious reframing skills like Ron Paul.

    Every time the witch Rodham opens her mouth it’s a great reframing opportunity.

    Bad news that Trump doesn’t point the KKK types to their natural home which is Democrat. Why doesn’t he slay La Raza as a brown Nazi movement in suits?

    Bad news that Trump is using the absurd “11 million” number on the immigration issue. That’s a crap statistic that the left has used for ten years!

    Trump is kinda weak. He misses layups every damn day.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    You are making the "Dems are the real racist" argument. It doesn't work.

    To really turn it on their heads, you must say "The Democrats are anti-white". The leftist must either respond that indeed they are anti-white, or that they are really pro-white. The first is a crippling statement, the latter is patently false.
    , @anon

    Bad news that Trump doesn’t point the KKK types to their natural home which is Democrat. Why doesn’t he slay La Raza as a brown Nazi movement in suits?
     
    That line of argument reinforces the enemy narrative - it's basically a trap.
    , @ConceptDelta
    Yeah, but as they say, "you go to war with the army you have."

    Hopefully the Breitbart guy can help.
    , @Forbes

    Too bad Trump doesn’t have serious reframing skills like Ron Paul.
     
    Which got Ron Paul what, exactly? Debate points?
  9. I saw on Wikipedia that Matthew Continetti converted to Judaism before marrying Bill Kristol’s daughter.

    I vaguely recall (about twenty-five years ago) that Bill Kristol’s sister Elizabeth married a Catholic. Does anyone here know if I recalled that correctly? Did they divorce? Did Elizabeth convert to Catholicism or not? If she converted and then divorced, did she revert to Judaism?

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Unsure, but Pat Buchanan's sister married a Mormon. There was also a time when he was in favor of illegal immigration and thought Muslims were the greatest thing to ever happen for conservatism.
    , @The Man From K Street
    Don't know about the Kristol family situation, but it reminds me of David Brooks' now-ex-wife. When he married her, she converted (from Baptist?) to Brooks' Judaism, and, to mix metaphors, became more papal than the Pope, as the Germans put it. The full Monty of Orthodox observance, including mikvah baths (don't know if it was the same DC synagogue where the rabbi turned out to be a peeping tom at the mikvah). Now that Brooks has kicked her to the curb, I have to wonder what her bearings are now.

    Ezra Klein is I think the only straight Journolister to have *not* married a shiksa.
    , @AnotherDad

    I saw on Wikipedia that Matthew Continetti converted to Judaism before marrying Bill Kristol’s daughter.
     
    This strikes me as exceptionally beta and pathetic.

    It's one thing for a wife to convert to her husband's religion, like Ivanka. That's a wife submitting--which is what wives do--and throwing her lot in with her husbands' family.

    It's also fine for a guy to just take a pass--"hey you want to raise the kids Catholic, peachy". Or make the trivial adjustment, "I was raised Methodist but my wife's a Presbyterian so we went with that."

    But a full on conversion to the wife's faith? Sorta cucky.

    And double, triple, quadruple, heck an order of magnitude more for conversion to Judaism. Because it is at core an ethnic religion for the Jewish people. Continetti, no matter how you slice it, is not a Jew. So he's not only tossing his father's faith, but turning his back on his whole lineage and embracing some other people's lineage of which he is distinctly *not* a part.

    Very girly. In fact, it's what girls have to do when an invader conquers their tribe--submit and join the conquerors to survive. Perfectly understandable for a girl. But for a guy? Continetti is an invaded, occupied, half-man. A cuck. A joke.
    , @Anonymous
    None of those people are devout, and hardly any of them isn't an atheist.

    "Conversion" are a traditional, ageless way hegemonic power shows itself, and loyalty to hegemonic power is expressed.
  10. “To key off what Matt was saying, it wasn’t like they were part of the conservative conversation, the mainstream conversation anyway. They weren’t writing for National Review. They weren’t writing for The Weekly Standard.”

    That’s the tongue in cheek line … “mainstream” like Tikkun, Commentary and NY Review of Books.

  11. I’m not a republican, I’m a liberal.
    I think communism is intillectually base, and I am opposed to anti white racists.
    I am skeptical of everyting, modernity has taught me to be.
    “But a lot now of it is now much more visceral, hatred of the mainstream cultural movement for ” pretending that Katy Perry is talented. For calling me sexist when pointing out that she is untalented. For persecution of me for my gender and the color of my skin. For scathing hatred of the very essence of whiteness.
    Hillary if you hate my opinions, then I don’t care. I am the victim here, you formented my status. You are the cause of my vitim status, and you need to fix my problems. Or just get old and die off already. Your regressive ideals are hindering both my progress and my exellence.

  12. Cuck says alt-righters “believe in hierarchies.” Liberals believe in hierarchies more than alt-righters do–hierarchies of victimhood. The whole society must be organized around intersectionality.

    Dave Weigel seems pretty fair-minded. Matthew Continetti is clueless. He has no idea what’s going on.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Ok..I should go to sleep - "short circuiting any minute now" ;)

    hierarchies + intersectionality (WTF?!) < order. Simpler math: hierarchies + consensus= order. Consensus with leadership leading, keeps us from starvation.
    , @M
    The "Alt Right" *believes* in hierarchies in the sense that the MSM seems to constantly be telling them that they're at the top of the them, for no reason, and ought to really be firmly at the bottom of them.

    When there are people who tell you that society is deeply hierarchical, is a battle to establish a hierarchy and who would put you at the base of one, you tend to argue back in that context.

    I doubt very strongly that they particularly *prefer* or *desire* hierarchies.
    , @dr kill
    To say the A/R believes in hierarchy is not correct. I believe in meritocracy , which organizes itself based on the natural truth that people are not all equally capable, but individual talents and skills will sort themselves organically. Proggs live with a feudal/hierarchical dream of social organization, with themselves playing the role of courtier/minister to the throne. In the Progg world, status is gained by nepotism and cronyism, accident of birth, not by talent, skill or hard work. Certainly no self-respecting Proggie ever considered themselves as serf. They are vassals, they owe their life and livelihood the the Crown. As favor is bestowed, so it can be withdrawn. That's why we scare them. We do actually earn a living without kissing the ring every day. They have no skill or talent beyond that, and can't imagine anyone does. In a just world organized on merit, the rightful Progg Kingdom is in the mud.
    , @Tracy
    It's highlarious how the writer goes on about how Alt-Righters "believe in hierarchy" even as he comes up with a line like, "You talk about the days of William F. Buckley, when he was sort of the one who said who was a conservative." Buckley had so much rank he could define words for us all, but it's we who "believe in hierarchy." Then there's "I think it’s bottom-up, really. So, I don’t think you had the same gatekeepers that you did in the earlier media age, when there were one or two conservative magazines that published biweekly or monthly. Now we live in the Internet, and it’s the Wild West. Anyone with an opinion, a Twitter account, a YouTube channel, they can express themselves." *Anyone* can talk now! They're not being reined in by "the gatekeepers"! But it's we who are into hierarchy for the sake of hierarchy.

    It's amazing how almost totally blind to reality and their own lack of reason these people are. Though, as a Catholic, I don't have a 100% evolutionary take on things, most liberals have to in order to be consistent with their Godless premises. But it's they who decry the concept of "hierarchy" when such a thing is found in any damned wolf pack around. Populations separated by continents and hundreds and hundreds of years somehow developed in exactly the same way, handing down the same genetic traits, in spite of Darwin, whose writings are accepted by all the "right" people. And then there's "race doesn't exist" meme coupled with the "whitey is the cause of all problems" meme. "Men and women are totally the same" and "white cis-gendered males are natural born rapists." "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" and "Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the earth." (speaking of which, can you imagine being the offspring of someone who'd say this?: "The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration," as Michael W. Fox, Scientific Director and former Vice President of the Humane Society did? Wow!)

    Yeah, I think The Powers That Be are scared. They're realizing their brainwashing hasn't worked as well as they'd wanted. I could just cry thinking of their pain.
  13. Funny that a bunch of nobodies can get both Hillary and Trump to mention White Genocide. Amazing what those working class, anonymous people can do.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Who said we were nobodies and working class? We coulda been contenders! We coulda been somebody
    , @CK
    Some of our ancestors really were Kings
  14. The many effective ads that rich John McCain and rich Mitt Romney ran featuring rich Jeremiah Wright, are legendary. As the lawyer-trained Clintons must know, it is a risk to open up the defendant (on direct examination) to impeachment (character) evidence. Well, Jeremiah Wright as character evidence is out of date – good thing for the Clintons that there are no possible ways that they can be associated with people who are considered despicable!

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    well, they gotta splain the fact that their Foundation is registered in Canada! They hope they out-smarted all US investigators of their escapades, but, they weren't counting on Anonymous.
    , @ben tillman

    The many effective ads that rich John McCain and rich Mitt Romney ran featuring rich Jeremiah Wright, are legendary. As the lawyer-trained Clintons must know, it is a risk to open up the defendant (on direct examination) to impeachment (character) evidence. Well, Jeremiah Wright as character evidence is out of date – good thing for the Clintons that there are no possible ways that they can be associated with people who are considered despicable!
     
    Ha ha - you are right! They can even be tied to the ultimate evil -- Donald Trump!
  15. This farmer calling into talk radio ….

    Or what about the Afghan father of the Orlando mass murderer actually attending a Hillary rally and getting a seat on stage right behind her?

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Yuge . Yuge mistake. - (ok, I need one of the Sailermates to download the scene in Pretty Woman, right now, when Julia Roberts says, "big, big mistake," during a return to Rodeo Drive!) But, even if his website was scrubbed of the Muslim Brotherhood stuff, it is still caught by the seine net of Wikileaks.

    The Afghan father and mother (she may be oblivious) are scheisters par exellence, like the Clintons (takes one to know one), who know (well, he knows) exactly what they are doing. Because of the 'ole man's devotion to sharia (stuff he conveniently/frantically scrubbed off his website), he is not able to follow-through now, to attack anyone legally/defame anyone. There is always a price to pay. They should dodge the Clintons; or it's a OWT back to their homeland...why is would that be a bad thing? Why would they resist? Awful Americans won't persecute or disparage them there.

    , @Anonym
    My god, yes. If Trump responds with an ad, it would be awesome if it featured Hillary's actual links with actual people. Such as the actual father of the mass murderer who sat behind her in her rally. BLM. Etc.
    , @The Alarmist

    "Or what about the Afghan father of the Orlando mass murderer actually attending a Hillary rally and getting a seat on stage right behind her?"
     
    The Dems will just tell us he was looking for a safe-space to escape the opression of the Trumpeteers.
  16. The lack of sincerity is just so obvious and nauseating. Do they honestly expect us to believe that they’re having this little conversation whilst clutching their pearls?

  17. And so what you have that unifies a lot of these alt-righters on the Internet is really a disgust at the idea of egalitarianism.

    He definitely got that part right. It’s almost as if he read my proposed definition of alt-right.

    • Agree: Maj. Kong
    • Replies: @415 reasons
    It actually seems to be reality itself that seems to have the most disgust with egalitarianism.

    I mean I'm all for equality before the law and a reasonable attempt to provide equality of opportunity. But the Democrats' version of egalitarianism seems to be like a perfect mockery of the scientific method. No matter how much evidence accumulates to the contrary, the Central Dogma of Racism can never be questioned.
    , @Jason Liu
    Anti-egalitarianism was already the standard definition of the alt-right before it was overrun by white nationalists.
  18. @Anonymous
    "...but I think they will be actively ostracized after the election."

    From ostracism to persecution is how far?

    The main appeal will be to the purist* base’s self-interest. There is a precedent for this in the UK and Canada, where the base was actively told to stuff it and outright change its positions. It worked for Cameron, but it didn’t for Harper. Lots of repetition that true conservatism is about “individual freedom”, “free markets” and nothing else. In the US there would be tremendous repetition of “strong national defense” as well.

    Never underestimate the ability of people who have been followers all of their life, to convince themselves and others that it is us who are the problem. Generations of Arab leaders have been able to deflect all criticism by blaming Israel, it would not surprise me that Conservatism Inc. could get 10 years of blaming the eeevil racists for its problems. Altruistic punishment.

    *Think the Ted Cruz supporter, the skids would be greased by having Cruz make a big pro-gay rights speech and announce that he supports abortion being a state issue. He could also make an appeal that criticizing any liberal Republican is wrong, appealing to Reagan. Rubio has already gone in this direction.

    • Replies: @Bill

    The main appeal will be to the purist* base’s self-interest. There is a precedent for this in the UK and Canada, where the base was actively told to stuff it and outright change its positions. It worked for Cameron, but it didn’t for Harper. Lots of repetition that true conservatism is about “individual freedom”, “free markets” and nothing else. In the US there would be tremendous repetition of “strong national defense” as well.
     
    What you are describing is what the neocons did during the 70s and 80s. Relatively sane Southern and Midwestern conservatives were transformed in place into the freakshow bible-thumping libertarian cucks they are now. We exported it to the UK and Canada, not the reverse.

    Here is Irving Kristol in 2003 describing the largely completed task he had devoted his life to:


    Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.
     
    Today's American conservative who self-consciously worships the vile Michael King is the product of this mind-control apparatus. Guys at NRO have already said that they are OK with gay marriage. One standard line of attack against the official boogeyman du jour, Muslims, is that they take female modesty seriously. We don't have to dream about the day when every "conservative" is really a cultural marxist. It's here right now.
    , @celt darnell

    The main appeal will be to the purist* base’s self-interest. There is a precedent for this in the UK and Canada, where the base was actively told to stuff it and outright change its positions. It worked for Cameron, but it didn’t for Harper. Lots of repetition that true conservatism is about “individual freedom”, “free markets” and nothing else. In the US there would be tremendous repetition of “strong national defense” as well.
     
    Just curious about your claim about the base being actively told to stuff it and change its positions and such a move worked for Cameron in the UK but not Harper in Canada.

    By any measurement, Harper was a far more successful politician than Cameron -- what'd he win? Four terms in office? Also, on what points did Harper tell his base to "stuff it"?

    Cameron did only to an extent. He had two governments -- one, a coalition with the left-wing Lib Dems which restricted his room for maneuver. His telling the base to "stuff it" seems to have been limited to gay marriage and despite winning a majority government, by stuffing his base on Europe (see his cast iron guarantee on Lisbon) he lost the referendum and his job.

    I'd actually argue that between Harper and Cameron, Cameron was not only more inclined to tell his base to stuff it, but was far less successful -- as a consequence.

    That said, I'm not an expert on Canada, so there may be something about Harper I'm unaware of...
    , @Anonymous
    How did it work for Camoron--who was himself told to stuff it at Brexit and made a humiliating departure.
    , @ogunsiron
    It worked for Cameron, but it didn’t for Harper. Lots of repetition that true conservatism is about “individual freedom”, “free markets” and nothing else
    ----
    Do you think the conservative party in Canada is really conservative in any significant way ? The same conservative party that's now headed by that brazilian woman or something ?
  19. @neutral
    That speech of Hillary is more damaging to Conservatism Inc. than anything else. Liberals always like to define what a conservative is supposed to be (never seen the opposite though). Hillary stated that McCain or Dole are good conservatives, which is a big problem for the Conservatism Inc. type, they like to sell a narrative of opposing liberals but when liberals are openly stating how they should behave (i.e. politically impotent) and praising them, it really makes it hard to come across as being in opposition instead of the reality of the uniparty sytem they are so comfortable with.

    Are we supposed to believe that Hillary and the blue team have all this new found love and respect for Dole, Bush and McCain? Remember, when they were their parties’ nominees, they were Nazi and Klan, too. If this year’s nominee was a lamer con or neocon type, such as Jeb!, Hillary would have used the occasion of this speech today to denounce him as Nazi and Klan.

    The Republicans nominate Hitler every four years.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Or, we could make some popcorn, invite our neighbors over, and watch Bulworth and Wag the Dog, sheesh, watch Gallipoli (Mel Gibson's flight to stardom...or tardom, well, later) to get a sense of "who really is going to stand up for our values of freedom, integrity and hope."
    , @Mr. Anon
    Yeah, all of a sudden Bob Dole is Abraham Lincoln. Back when Bill Clinton was President, he used to refer to his meetings with (then Senate majority leader) Bob Dole as "Nazi time". Doubly offensive given that Dole was crippled for life by a german bullet in WWII.
  20. @Pete in TX
    I saw on Wikipedia that Matthew Continetti converted to Judaism before marrying Bill Kristol's daughter.

    I vaguely recall (about twenty-five years ago) that Bill Kristol's sister Elizabeth married a Catholic. Does anyone here know if I recalled that correctly? Did they divorce? Did Elizabeth convert to Catholicism or not? If she converted and then divorced, did she revert to Judaism?

    Unsure, but Pat Buchanan’s sister married a Mormon. There was also a time when he was in favor of illegal immigration and thought Muslims were the greatest thing to ever happen for conservatism.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    Kong, I'm low on coffee and running late, so I sure would appreciate it if you'd scare up a couple of links supporting your position. Thanks in advance.
    , @unadorned
    Bull shit. Pat Buchanan was NEVER in favor of illegal immigration and he NEVER thought Muslims were the greatest thing to ever happen for conservatism. Why are you lying?? The (((people))) who hate Pat will say anything.
  21. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    That’s a pretty damning analysis of Commentary. But of course its so crappy that I never read it so I have no idea if it is true.

  22. Hillary told us today that Trump is evil because of cartoon frogs.

    Why is her husband still a member of one of his golf clubs?

  23. @Anonymous
    Too bad Trump doesn't have serious reframing skills like Ron Paul.

    Every time the witch Rodham opens her mouth it's a great reframing opportunity.

    Bad news that Trump doesn't point the KKK types to their natural home which is Democrat. Why doesn't he slay La Raza as a brown Nazi movement in suits?

    Bad news that Trump is using the absurd "11 million" number on the immigration issue. That's a crap statistic that the left has used for ten years!

    Trump is kinda weak. He misses layups every damn day.

    You are making the “Dems are the real racist” argument. It doesn’t work.

    To really turn it on their heads, you must say “The Democrats are anti-white”. The leftist must either respond that indeed they are anti-white, or that they are really pro-white. The first is a crippling statement, the latter is patently false.

    • Agree: Anonym
    • Replies: @U. Ranus
    The leftist responds that no, we're all equal but we need to correct for structural injustice resulting from a history of racist oppression that you obviously would like to perpetuate, racist.
    , @ConceptDelta
    I agree that the "Dems are the real racists" won't work. There are some good comments on Radix.com about alternative rhetorical strategies that seem more effective (be warned there are also idiotic comments as well).

    There is African-American identity and Asian-American identity. What we are seeking is equal protection for European-American identity.

    "The Alt Right - Coming Home" by ramzpaul is also excellent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPnZa1FHcN4
    , @AndrewR
    I concur that "Dems are the real racists" should not be the centerpiece of our rhetorical strategy, but it is true. The average Democrat is far more obsessed with race and full of racial prejudices than the average Republican. Of course the left has responded to this undeniable fact by saying only whites can be racist and that whites cannot be the targets of racism. It is here that we can and should point to the infinite examples of non-white racists and white victims of racism. Of course we should not shy away from saying that the Democrats are anti-white but explicitly pro-white rhetoric is not going to sit well with most conservatives and centrists who, as I pointed out, tend to be truly colorblind in the manner that MLK dishonestly called for.
  24. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Lot
    I knew Weigel a bit when we were both teenagers. I liked him, he's smart and honest in a friendly aspie-awkward way. It does not surprise me he's basically the only MSM journalist who is willing to give an honest, non-shrieking description of the alt-right. How many others have even bothered once to note our opposition to all the Bush/Clinton/Obama stupid foreign wars?

    I am also not surprised that the sewer-brained Udolpho and his site decided to make a thread attacking him.

    What’s funny is that Udolpho still craves respectability, so he spends half his time furiously denouncing white nationalism. He was sort of an aspiring writer and critic, who’s old and bitter now that nobody took his writing seriously and it never led anywhere. He now just assuages himself by curating a circle jerk where posters feign interest in his completely unoriginal and jejune ideas like SCALE so they can go back to making race and scat jokes.

  25. @Anonymous
    "...but I think they will be actively ostracized after the election."

    From ostracism to persecution is how far?

    get your sword and shield ready!

  26. @syonredux

    DAVID WEIGEL: Well, the light at the end of the tunnel for a lot of Republicans is, they don’t think they’re going to win the election. They think Trump will lose.
     
    In other words, they are embracing defeat. The American Vichy revealed.

    Seriously. Their policy platform is… What, exactly? Exactly the same as the Democrats but with a capital gains tax cut? It will certainly ease the bitter pill of my kids growing up in the North American version of Tegucigalpa to know that I can keep 10% more of the proceeds from selling my AMZN holdings.

  27. @countenance
    Are we supposed to believe that Hillary and the blue team have all this new found love and respect for Dole, Bush and McCain? Remember, when they were their parties' nominees, they were Nazi and Klan, too. If this year's nominee was a lamer con or neocon type, such as Jeb!, Hillary would have used the occasion of this speech today to denounce him as Nazi and Klan.

    The Republicans nominate Hitler every four years.

    Or, we could make some popcorn, invite our neighbors over, and watch Bulworth and Wag the Dog, sheesh, watch Gallipoli (Mel Gibson’s flight to stardom…or tardom, well, later) to get a sense of “who really is going to stand up for our values of freedom, integrity and hope.”

    • Replies: @Lot

    watch Gallipoli (Mel Gibson’s flight to stardom
     
    The 1981 version is hopelessly out of date and too short. Please do watch last year's 7-part Australian series in HDTV commemorating the 100th anniversary of the battle.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_%28miniseries%29

    It was expensively produced by Australia's top private TV network, whose multi-billionaire co-owner, James Packer, is not above a bit of public brawling on Bondi beach with one of his top executives, a friend from boarding school, wedding best man, and flatmate.

    Happy to embarrass his local rivals, Murdoch paid $200,000 for photos of the brawl and put them on the cover of all his newspapers and websites under "JAPAN BOMBS PEARL HARBOR" style giant headlines.
  28. Yes, Conservatism, Inc. bears responsibility. By drifting ever leftward. By purging all their interesting characters. By following the left’s (and those beholden to a certain foreign nation’s) orders on whom to purge. By only pretending to want to stop immigration, shrink Washington, stop or even slow down socialism, etc. By cobbling together coalitions and ignoring large parts of them. (How long have Republican protectionists gone spokesmanless? know they exist, because I’ve run into them on conservative websites since forever, and they came out of hiding in the primaries this year.) By ignoring race, among a million other obvious things. By being warmongers and crony capitalist stooges.

    But they know all that. The most important thing is that they’re all bores. Who reads anything by a Kristol these days? Or a George Will? The movement used to have Menckens and J. Nocks. Nothing in Conservatism, Inc. is a hundredth as fun as the Derb. You could be full-time toadies to the left and I might be influenced by you anyway if you could but hold my attention.

  29. @countenance
    And so what you have that unifies a lot of these alt-righters on the Internet is really a disgust at the idea of egalitarianism.

    He definitely got that part right. It's almost as if he read my proposed definition of alt-right.

    It actually seems to be reality itself that seems to have the most disgust with egalitarianism.

    I mean I’m all for equality before the law and a reasonable attempt to provide equality of opportunity. But the Democrats’ version of egalitarianism seems to be like a perfect mockery of the scientific method. No matter how much evidence accumulates to the contrary, the Central Dogma of Racism can never be questioned.

    • Agree: Antonymous
    • Replies: @iffen
    I mean I’m all for equality before the law and a reasonable attempt to provide equality of opportunity.

    This is the egalitarian idea that I can support. Of course the well known problem of inequality of outcomes will come to the fore. At that point it will break down because it is very difficult to divine whether the inequality of outcomes was not in some way tilted by inequality of opportunity. If you are HBD-woke then you know that we will have unequal outcomes, but that wokeness will not let you definitively understand or parse the equality of opportunity questions. The second part is that by knowing we will have unequal outcomes, regardless of whether we have starting equality, what if anything should we do to ameliorate the harsher conditions of the outcomes?
    , @Forbes
    "Equality before the law without preference or prejudice" is all that is necessary.

    But that horse left the barn half a century ago. Because it's never sufficient--there's always "more work to be done," as we're constantly hectored. The classic idea of equality became equal opportunity, which morphed into equal outcomes. Therefore, the act of noticing differences between and among peoples is per se proof of inequality which must be rectified by unequal treatment. Meanwhile, "celebrate diversity!" because we're all the same.

    The prog-left has moved on from 1984, they now use Harrison Bergeron as their operating manual.
    , @Bill
    "I mean I’m all for equality before the law "

    Why? Holding people you know to be more likely to do wrong to the same standards as people you know to be less likely is utterly irrational. It violates Bayes Rule, for example. I most certainly want the police rousting blacks vastly more often than they roust whites. Standards of evidence to convict them should be lower. Their testimony should be worth less. Etc. Equality before the law is just HBD-denial in unconvincing drag.
  30. @iSteveFan

    This farmer calling into talk radio ....
     
    Or what about the Afghan father of the Orlando mass murderer actually attending a Hillary rally and getting a seat on stage right behind her?

    Yuge . Yuge mistake. – (ok, I need one of the Sailermates to download the scene in Pretty Woman, right now, when Julia Roberts says, “big, big mistake,” during a return to Rodeo Drive!) But, even if his website was scrubbed of the Muslim Brotherhood stuff, it is still caught by the seine net of Wikileaks.

    The Afghan father and mother (she may be oblivious) are scheisters par exellence, like the Clintons (takes one to know one), who know (well, he knows) exactly what they are doing. Because of the ‘ole man’s devotion to sharia (stuff he conveniently/frantically scrubbed off his website), he is not able to follow-through now, to attack anyone legally/defame anyone. There is always a price to pay. They should dodge the Clintons; or it’s a OWT back to their homeland…why is would that be a bad thing? Why would they resist? Awful Americans won’t persecute or disparage them there.

  31. @GW
    They're scared.

    “They’re scared.”

    What does Carl think?

    Oops, sorry. Paul Verhoeven’s over-the-top nazi vibe and NPH’s portrayal of Doogie Heydrich might give some people the wrong impression of the alt-right.

    • Replies: @Pat Casey
    LOL. But speaking of a possible wrong impression of the alt-right, I would like to say, for the historical record's sake if nothing else, that Richard Spenser has too much ambition for his britches, is a totally defective leader of any ideological movement, and does not understand the way the United States deals with devotees of "movements" that say off the bat, "We are dangerous"---the understanding there being because that's the choice chosen, what you are aiming to be. That was a really stupid thing to say when he said it on an online video he posted shortly after starting alternative right dot com. Not because Richard Spencer is truly dangerous, except insofar as he can influence impressionable people to take that kind of jejune rhetorical bravery to heart, and see what logical conclusions can be drawn with that heady spirit. I wrote five or six pieces for him when I was a junior in college and a few of them were about the rediculous idea of initiating a very deliberate project of racial separatism that I called tribal localism. Tellingly, this supposedly brave idea of my irresponsibly idealistic mind paralleled Richard Spencer's personal life in real ways. I take it he's the kind of guy who does not move away in good standing by the community's consensus. For a very dumb reason he couldn't believe he once called Arlington, VA home, something about its dumb consumerism conformities--- he didn't respect the norm of dress when it comes to brown flip-flops as I recall. Then, according to what I read in some takimag comments, he was in NYC out and about calling himself a White Nationalist, at like bars I guess and stuff. That, we can be sure, didn't make him any friends in the big bagel, and his next home I believe was the wilderness, Montana, where I recall he said he was very happy, in sort of a fatalistic way considering he was not allowed to travel into Canada where he was wanting to be. And this is my point, he would share these adventures with readers and laugh them off, and that is the truly anti-social reaction to imperfectly getting along just as he did. That stuffs not funny, and Richard Spencer is just not smooth enough to laugh it off like the most interesting man in the world. He was learning in his thirties how to alienate yourself with a braggadocio that has no inherent virtue about it at all, it's a bunch of fuckin opinions, especially when you even admit that you can only scribble--though I understand he's dyslexic. But basically the point I would like to hammer home is that Richard Spencer is just a rich kid who thinks he can found an ideology on the fly and get away with it like he's not a fraud; that was obvious when one day he decided what the alternative right is really about is actually an aesthetic philosophy; anyways I think the only thing we can say about Richard Spencer's aesthetics is that his favorite color is black. I don't know if its worse to lose your social standing when your in college or when you're in your thirties; I just know mine never recovered, and I'm pretty positive I had more close friends than Richard Spencer ever did. Point being, this stuff about "dangerous" ideological movements that invent vile epithets, its not a game folks, at least it wasn't for me with my record, not in this country or technological day and age. I'll just say thank God for the sanity of Steve Sailer, which pretty much saved my mind from the unfun fever swamps for sure. That and the good guardian angels I know I got.
  32. Aren’t we already ostracized? Although I do still find it amusing that Americans came up with a new word for, and speak of, nationalism like it was some strange phenomenon.

    …believe in hierarchy.

    Nobody who thinks clearly, i.e. without the shackles of moralism, compassion, fear etc, could possibly believe anything else.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Nobody who thinks clearly, i.e. without the shackles of moralism, compassion, fear etc, could possibly believe anything else."

    Shackles? There is nothing "shackling" about moralism, compassion, or fear. Not for an actual human being, that is, as opposed to some kind of fictitious Randian hero. Nor does someone who lacks these (perfectly normal) human traits necessarily think clearly.

    Moreover, even a person who has compassion, fear, and a sense of morals, if they are honest, must admit that there are heirarchies.
    , @Jack D
    I don't think that he really meant hierarchy in the sense that the left still believes that armies should not have ranks, orchestras should not have conductors, etc. - that was abandoned by pretty much everyone a long time ago (especially since the left, once it gained power, became even MORE hierarchical than the right).

    Rather, he was trying to come up with a different word for "racist" and "sexist" since those words have pretty much been stripped of all meaning. So belief in "hierarchy" in his sense means opposition to the leftist meme that all humans have exactly same potential in every field of endeavor, or "anti-blank slatist". You could say that there is a "hierarchy" of natural talent in sprinting, where West African Blacks stand at the top and Ashkenazi Jews rank near the bottom. Or, and this is where it gets dangerous, a hierarchy of talent in physics that runs the other way. Or a "sexual hierarchy" where men make better firefighters and masons than women due to upper body strength, etc. and women make better kindergarten teachers.

    Now the "hierarchical" view has the advantage of actually conforming with reality, but humans often prefer fantasy to reality. If we could only believe in things that had a basis in reality, where would this leave religion? Now you could say that basing your entire political system on a religious belief that doesn't correspond with reality is a really bad idea, but our society is not the first time this has been tried.
  33. “It’s enabled in a lot of their messaging.

    Not every alt-right thinker or activist is a white nationalist, by far, but there’s a sense that political correctness is a bigger problem than racism, and that racism is used as a cudgel for silencing what they want to say, what they want to argue about.

    That’s, again, an older idea. Before the alt-right, there were paleoconservatives, like Sam Francis, like Pat Buchanan, who argued this and said, look, what the left wants to do to America, how it wants to import lots of immigrants, decrease the number of traditional white Americans, what they want to do is not popular, and they have to kind of Trojan a horse through culturally, and we’re against that.”
    -DAVID WEIGEL-

    This is among the most serious and fair consideration of the ideas by a mainstream media voice I’ve ever read… He doesn’t just dismiss it as “racist” “stupid” and unworthy of serious consideration. I don’t know what the future for whatever this movement would be, but I can’t help thinking that antagonizing mainstream voices isn’t exactly productive. Should we take them seriously and treat them with dignity in hope that we earn the same respect?

    One of the reasons that Mr. Sailer is among my favorite voices, he is fair and grown up about what he presents. Sure he can mock the absurdity or hypocrisy of intellectual and ideological rivals, but he always engages them as equals and doesn’t exactly dismiss with contempt like so many of the establishment are fond of doing.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    No, there is no time for dignity. They do not respect anyone who is "the other side," - even the ole' Bernie Bros. Look at what "they/SHE" said today: essentially, calling EVERYONE who supports Trump a racist, bigot, etc. Wow!

    It's one thing to call people racists, but it's another to say ALL Republicans are racists.

    And, all the Manginas of her campaign justified her statement on national TV tonight. As a woman, I thought, "lordy, just like the jihadies, they're not gettin' any."

  34. @countenance
    And so what you have that unifies a lot of these alt-righters on the Internet is really a disgust at the idea of egalitarianism.

    He definitely got that part right. It's almost as if he read my proposed definition of alt-right.

    Anti-egalitarianism was already the standard definition of the alt-right before it was overrun by white nationalists.

    • Replies: @countenance
    WNs aren't anti-egalitarian?
    , @Forbes
    Defining/arguing about a standard definition of alt-right is a silly exercise. It's not a prescriptive ideology, it's an attitude, a perspective that is an alternative to what's pejoratively called Conservatism, Inc., and the GOPe. The iSteve formulation of opposition to "invade the world, invite the world" policies seems the connective tissue.

    The rest is an attempt to pigeon-hole folks into categories that are not politically correct, as beyond reputable discussion by the use of ad hominem. It is the same exclusionary tactic deployed by the prog-left to command the language.
  35. @countenance
    Are we supposed to believe that Hillary and the blue team have all this new found love and respect for Dole, Bush and McCain? Remember, when they were their parties' nominees, they were Nazi and Klan, too. If this year's nominee was a lamer con or neocon type, such as Jeb!, Hillary would have used the occasion of this speech today to denounce him as Nazi and Klan.

    The Republicans nominate Hitler every four years.

    Yeah, all of a sudden Bob Dole is Abraham Lincoln. Back when Bill Clinton was President, he used to refer to his meetings with (then Senate majority leader) Bob Dole as “Nazi time”. Doubly offensive given that Dole was crippled for life by a german bullet in WWII.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    I know, so vile by Bill. Do you have any evidence of that, that can be sent to JA? or Trump Train? Or anyone who can benefit? I just can't see these Grifters return to the WH!
    , @Olorin
    I think you misspelled

    (((crippled for life by a German bullet in WWII)))

    There. Now it has the necessary element of histrionic Echoplex.

  36. @Harry Baldwin
    Cuck says alt-righters "believe in hierarchies." Liberals believe in hierarchies more than alt-righters do--hierarchies of victimhood. The whole society must be organized around intersectionality.

    Dave Weigel seems pretty fair-minded. Matthew Continetti is clueless. He has no idea what's going on.

    Ok..I should go to sleep – “short circuiting any minute now” ;)

    hierarchies + intersectionality (WTF?!) < order. Simpler math: hierarchies + consensus= order. Consensus with leadership leading, keeps us from starvation.

    • Replies: @ConceptDelta
    Diversity + Proximity = Hostility

    This has been shown across cultures and even with computer simulations.
  37. @Mr. Anon
    Yeah, all of a sudden Bob Dole is Abraham Lincoln. Back when Bill Clinton was President, he used to refer to his meetings with (then Senate majority leader) Bob Dole as "Nazi time". Doubly offensive given that Dole was crippled for life by a german bullet in WWII.

    I know, so vile by Bill. Do you have any evidence of that, that can be sent to JA? or Trump Train? Or anyone who can benefit? I just can’t see these Grifters return to the WH!

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "I know, so vile by Bill. Do you have any evidence of that, that can be sent to JA?"

    I forgot exactly where I heard that. I think Dick Morris might have revealed that little tidbit. Not that pointing it out now would do any good, or even be acknowledged by the Media or the Clinton campaign (but I repeat myself).

  38. @RamonaQ
    Don't you remember journolist? Weigel viscerally loathes the right. My guess is, he is interested in honestly representing the alt-right inasmuch as he wants to shove it in Conservatism Inc's face and say "see, you created this fascist movement, proto-fascists"

    Don’t you remember journolist? Weigel viscerally loathes the right.

    Some reporters on journolist do hate the right. There is not indicated from his posts on it that Weigel shares those feelings. Maybe I missed some of them, but the one at the link seems to have all the other ones mentioned elsewhere on them. Here’s what appears to be the “worst” of what he said:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/an_apology_to_my_readers.html

    I don’t see a “loathing” of the right, but minor personal piques against Matt Drudge and someone working for Byron York’s website.

    Weigel’s a secular libertarian in the Cato Institute type, and Cato staff make up many of his friends and roommates. He says who he votes for, and that includes liberal local DC Republicans, Bob Barr, and Obama.

    My guess is, he is interested in honestly representing the alt-right inasmuch as he wants to shove it in Conservatism Inc’s face and say “see, you created this fascist movement, proto-fascists”

    If that were the case, he could just have done another “OMG ALT RIGHT RACISTS! TRUMP RETWEETED NEONAZIS!” article. Instead, he quoted Steve Sailer’s favorite phrase to sell his own views.

    I liked his campaign reporting from 2008 and 2012, there really was no fairer MSM reporter covering Paul or the various fringe evangelical-favorites.

    • Replies: @MC
    I got the feeling that a lot of what Weigel said on Journolist was to fit in with the "cool kids" like Ezra. You could tell even five or so years ago that he was interested in Sailer and Alt Rightish ideas, even if he doesn't agree with them. He is smarter than the average journo for sure.
    , @Sam Haysom
    My suggestion would be for you to research Weigels journalists posting a little more closely. Weigel actually comes across as one of the most unhinged of the posters prone to accusing anyone to the right of Pete Stupak as a ratfuc$r. I think MC is right that some of it might have been a social insecure nerd trying to show off for the more polished kids like Ezra Klein, but his posts show a real animus to conservatism and a penchant for screaming racist at anyone who criticized Obama.

    Additionally the libertarian claims Weigel made are completed belied by the fact that journalist postings by Weigel spent quite a bit of time actively tailoring his reporting and picking the targets of his reporting based on his vehement support for Obamacare which is one of the least "libertarian" policies possible (which isn't to say libertarians are right).
  39. @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    “It’s enabled in a lot of their messaging.

    Not every alt-right thinker or activist is a white nationalist, by far, but there’s a sense that political correctness is a bigger problem than racism, and that racism is used as a cudgel for silencing what they want to say, what they want to argue about.

    That’s, again, an older idea. Before the alt-right, there were paleoconservatives, like Sam Francis, like Pat Buchanan, who argued this and said, look, what the left wants to do to America, how it wants to import lots of immigrants, decrease the number of traditional white Americans, what they want to do is not popular, and they have to kind of Trojan a horse through culturally, and we’re against that.”
    -DAVID WEIGEL-

    This is among the most serious and fair consideration of the ideas by a mainstream media voice I’ve ever read… He doesn’t just dismiss it as “racist” “stupid” and unworthy of serious consideration. I don’t know what the future for whatever this movement would be, but I can’t help thinking that antagonizing mainstream voices isn’t exactly productive. Should we take them seriously and treat them with dignity in hope that we earn the same respect?

    One of the reasons that Mr. Sailer is among my favorite voices, he is fair and grown up about what he presents. Sure he can mock the absurdity or hypocrisy of intellectual and ideological rivals, but he always engages them as equals and doesn’t exactly dismiss with contempt like so many of the establishment are fond of doing.

    No, there is no time for dignity. They do not respect anyone who is “the other side,” – even the ole’ Bernie Bros. Look at what “they/SHE” said today: essentially, calling EVERYONE who supports Trump a racist, bigot, etc. Wow!

    It’s one thing to call people racists, but it’s another to say ALL Republicans are racists.

    And, all the Manginas of her campaign justified her statement on national TV tonight. As a woman, I thought, “lordy, just like the jihadies, they’re not gettin’ any.”

  40. @Lagertha
    I know, so vile by Bill. Do you have any evidence of that, that can be sent to JA? or Trump Train? Or anyone who can benefit? I just can't see these Grifters return to the WH!

    “I know, so vile by Bill. Do you have any evidence of that, that can be sent to JA?”

    I forgot exactly where I heard that. I think Dick Morris might have revealed that little tidbit. Not that pointing it out now would do any good, or even be acknowledged by the Media or the Clinton campaign (but I repeat myself).

  41. @middle aged vet
    The many effective ads that rich John McCain and rich Mitt Romney ran featuring rich Jeremiah Wright, are legendary. As the lawyer-trained Clintons must know, it is a risk to open up the defendant (on direct examination) to impeachment (character) evidence. Well, Jeremiah Wright as character evidence is out of date - good thing for the Clintons that there are no possible ways that they can be associated with people who are considered despicable!

    well, they gotta splain the fact that their Foundation is registered in Canada! They hope they out-smarted all US investigators of their escapades, but, they weren’t counting on Anonymous.

  42. @Jason Liu
    Aren't we already ostracized? Although I do still find it amusing that Americans came up with a new word for, and speak of, nationalism like it was some strange phenomenon.

    ...believe in hierarchy.
     
    Nobody who thinks clearly, i.e. without the shackles of moralism, compassion, fear etc, could possibly believe anything else.

    “Nobody who thinks clearly, i.e. without the shackles of moralism, compassion, fear etc, could possibly believe anything else.”

    Shackles? There is nothing “shackling” about moralism, compassion, or fear. Not for an actual human being, that is, as opposed to some kind of fictitious Randian hero. Nor does someone who lacks these (perfectly normal) human traits necessarily think clearly.

    Moreover, even a person who has compassion, fear, and a sense of morals, if they are honest, must admit that there are heirarchies.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Moreover, even a person who has compassion, fear, and a sense of morals, if they are honest, must admit that there are heirarchies.
     
    On the contrary, the pursuit and acceptance of truth (including the truth about the existence and utility of hierarchies) is the epitome of compassion*, the product of a healthy fear, principally of God, and the hallmark of any morality worth it's salt.

    * - compassion (in the Greek, sympathy) means literally suffering together. The truth both hurts and is the only effective linchpin of shared experience.

  43. So Coulter’s retweeted Steve twice in the past few hours. Steve, you really need to write a full length book.

    • Replies: @Lot

    Steve, you really need to write a full length book.

     

    He did.

    http://www.lulu.com/shop/steve-sailer/americas-half-blood-prince-barack-obamas-story-of-race-and-inheritance/paperback/product-4054093.html

    PS That link was hard to find! There are a lot of dead links to the old vdare book landing page that no longer exists.

    , @Harry Baldwin
    I would certainly like a Steve book in which he puts a number of his favorite themes and observations together in one place. It would be a great resource. However, it's very difficult to make any money from a book unless you have the opportunity to be on TV a lot flogging it, like Ann Coulter, or on the radio like Rush Limbaugh. Even then, there's no guarantee. Every time Alan Colmes appears on Fox, they mention he's the author of Thank the Liberals for Saving America. It's Amazon sales rank is #382,295, which is pretty bad. I have several books that rank higher on Amazon and I'm not even on TV and radio like Mr. Colmes. He can't be making much money of his.
  44. I have long felt that one of the great distinctions between 19th and 20th century thinking was that people got comfortable thinking in terms of distributions, rather than hierarchies.

    By “people” I mean smart people. Some people still have trouble with the concept.

  45. I think everyone supporting Trump needs to make the point, wherever we can, that we believe in free speech and free exchange of ideas. Hillary Clinton in her speech did not engage with the ideas of the alt-right, she simply denounced it.

    One of the things Hillary did was list various politically incorrect Breitbart headlines, and ascribe them to Trump. So what, Trump is responsible now for every word on a large multi-author website that one of his employees manages?

    The Islamic/left coalition runs terror operations against those whose ideas it disagrees with. The Islamic end murders Theo Van Gough, the left end murders Pim Fortyn. What Hillary wants is for Steve Bannon not to lose to her in an exchange of ideas, but be silenced and run off any respectable job.

  46. @Lot
    I think everyone supporting Trump needs to make the point, wherever we can, that we believe in free speech and free exchange of ideas. Hillary Clinton in her speech did not engage with the ideas of the alt-right, she simply denounced it.

    One of the things Hillary did was list various politically incorrect Breitbart headlines, and ascribe them to Trump. So what, Trump is responsible now for every word on a large multi-author website that one of his employees manages?

    The Islamic/left coalition runs terror operations against those whose ideas it disagrees with. The Islamic end murders Theo Van Gough, the left end murders Pim Fortyn. What Hillary wants is for Steve Bannon not to lose to her in an exchange of ideas, but be silenced and run off any respectable job.

    Hillary just did the point-’n’-sputter.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    And virtually the entire interview quoted here is point and sputter.

    There's absolutely no engagement with the ideas. They even quote Trump saying:


    The people of this country who want their laws enforced and respected, and respected by all, and who want their border secured, are not racists.

    If you want to have strong borders, so that people come into our country, but they come in legally through a legal process, that doesn’t make you a racist. It makes you smart. It makes you an American.
     

    These people are so limited intellectually that they can't see the importance of trying to rebut those ideas. Trump makes these points, clear as day, and they ignore them.

    What do these people think thinking is about? If what Trump says is so absurd that he can be dismissed as a fool, where's the refutation of what he's saying that's so obvious only a fool wouldn't see it?

    I detest these sorts of limited poseurs. Where's the elite in the elite? Shouldn't a capacity for rational argument be part of the package?

  47. @Broski
    So Coulter's retweeted Steve twice in the past few hours. Steve, you really need to write a full length book.

    Steve, you really need to write a full length book.

    He did.

    http://www.lulu.com/shop/steve-sailer/americas-half-blood-prince-barack-obamas-story-of-race-and-inheritance/paperback/product-4054093.html

    PS That link was hard to find! There are a lot of dead links to the old vdare book landing page that no longer exists.

    • Replies: @ConceptDelta
    How about one on HBD and politics for intelligent but unaware individuals?
  48. Now, is there a large constituency for these ideas? No. I mean, you can find it on the Internet, but the danger for the conservative mainstream is to say, oh, all of a sudden, since it’s on the Internet, maybe we need to incorporate it into our thinking.

    So, let’s see, both Trump and later Cruz came out and attacked current immigration policies — central to whatever the alt-right might be. Between them they carry maybe 75% of the Republican vote.

    But somehow those ideas are just an Internet thing, and they certainly should never be incorporated into conservative thinking?

    Sometimes I wonder, does Reality happen if nobody pays attention to it?

    • Replies: @Forbes
    If a tree falls in the wood, and the NYTimes didn't report it, did it make a sound?
  49. He wrote that in like 3 weeks. I’m talking about a magnum opus that explains modern America.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Most if that territory is covered by Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities and Jonathan Franzen's Freedom.
  50. @Steve Sailer
    Hillary just did the point-'n'-sputter.

    And virtually the entire interview quoted here is point and sputter.

    There’s absolutely no engagement with the ideas. They even quote Trump saying:

    The people of this country who want their laws enforced and respected, and respected by all, and who want their border secured, are not racists.

    If you want to have strong borders, so that people come into our country, but they come in legally through a legal process, that doesn’t make you a racist. It makes you smart. It makes you an American.

    These people are so limited intellectually that they can’t see the importance of trying to rebut those ideas. Trump makes these points, clear as day, and they ignore them.

    What do these people think thinking is about? If what Trump says is so absurd that he can be dismissed as a fool, where’s the refutation of what he’s saying that’s so obvious only a fool wouldn’t see it?

    I detest these sorts of limited poseurs. Where’s the elite in the elite? Shouldn’t a capacity for rational argument be part of the package?

    • Agree: 415 reasons
    • Replies: @guest
    These people don't run debating societies. This is about the presidential election, which is about power and patronage. The left is fighting, not thinking, to hold onto the most powerful nation on earth. For Conservatism, Inc., it's about holding onto their little, rightwing (barely) duchy. It's about careers and prestige and money.

    It's not a marketplace of ideas, and may the best man win. You need to get into the who/whom mindset, because that's how everybody else thinks.
  51. last post for a while as I am “low energy”:). when I re-read the original conversation in Steve’s post, it was a eureka moment!

    The Millennials, the ones specifically, born in ’94- 2001, they are not buying the bs of the Democratic party. They are YUUUGELY angry at the liberals and republicans ruining their future (20 Trillion $ debt and all). They are sooooooo cynical, and want all Boomers and Gen X to just effin’ die and go away – I know I have talked about them before on this forum. Or, if they take a cue from Iceland: fire all the banksters, that may work to pacify this Tsunami of youngsters who will force all of us Boomers and Gen X to retire and retreat. Weird factoid: they don’t care about money!!!!!? They are kinda’ the ultimate Hippies that were spawned 2 generations later!

    They are very attracted to Alt-right (still, to me, like a bar in NYC like King Tut’s!) because the last 2 parties they grew up hearing about through their parents, had just made things get worse. All they have heard since they were babies is: 9/11, Islam, Immigrants, Austerity, Wall Street graft and meltdown/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Egypt/Iran/Iraq…the whole middle east/ Mexicans, many lone children, coming from wherever from S.A./USA starting “War Games” (Millennials top 5 movie) with Russia…China, whatever/ fracking/floods & droughts/Katrina-Global Climate Change/Animals dying by poaching and over-fishing (never underestimate Millennials love of wildlife; never), and all the BLM stirred-pot/after the fact riots in cities.

    There are sooo many smart kids who see the world in Darwinian terms now. This is a fact. The upshot is: it’s a diverse group of Millennials. But, they eschew money…listen to the songs of the artists they love.

    • Replies: @M
    With Millennial attitudes to money, the way it is:

    Most goods are pretty cheap today, due to trade with China / automation, but at the same time, across most of the Anglosphere, property ownership and mortgages are ultra expensive and out of reach.

    So you have this generation (Generation Rent aka The Millennials) that is actually still quite materialistic (though less hedonistic), but doesn't really strive too much for money both because their lifestyle goods are pretty cheap and they also see no point in striving for a bigger income because it's not going to help very much at getting that house.

    The incentives for them to save money are pretty horrible.

    At the same time, also, unlike the Boomers, who were waaaay more educated than the generations that came before them, the Millennials are only as educated as X and the Boomers.

    They're facing this big established, highly educated workforce. They can't use education to queue jump and get ahead fast (particularly compared to Boomers), so the ones who are interested in getting ahead end up valuing personal connections, charm and bullshitting to get ahead, and are much more cynical about the power of qualifications and hard work.
    , @415 reasons
    "I wanna be a billionaire so freakin' bad..." was the hook from their summer anthem a couple years ago
    , @guest
    The dominant form of popular music is hip-hop, and if that's about eschewing money I'll eat my hat. But I know what you're getting at. They're not ambitious. They're not career-driven. They're not work-oriented as a rule. But that doesn't mean they're hippies. It's not as if they're sitting in drum circles instead of getting ahead.

    What are they doing instead? Immersing themselves in the electronic media bath. Playing with stuff. They're very stuff-oriented. They're also fat and in debt. They are mass consumer culture babies, to the core. They are also stone-ignorant and credulous. They're both cynical and gullible, which is a weird and dangerous mixture.

    I say this as a quasi-millenial myself. I came in at the tail end of "Generation X" and the beginning of what they used to call "Generation Y." Then generation y disappeared, and they called them millennials. So I don't know what I am. Which makes me despise all talk about generations, unless there was some real mass event to unite one, like WWII.

  52. And then there’s this:

    And they have gravitated to these ideas which are very anti-immigrant, very anti-intervention.

    Let’s just grant that the question of immigration is controversial, and that some people like to think it entails “racism”.

    But what in God’s name is controversial in the same way about being “anti-intervention”? How is that even possibly something so crazy and radical and immoral that any movement that embraces it is beyond the pale?

    Do these people ever think?

    • Replies: @anon
    Do these people ever think?

    Yes, of course they do. They think "There are a lot of people who could be convinced that 'Invade the world, invite the world' is a really bad idea, and there aren't a whole lot of good arguments for it that would convince them. So, we have to make opposition to it seem scary and bad, so that enough of them will steer clear of that line of thinking.".

    And it's going to work on a fairly large number of people.

  53. @AndyBoy
    Funny that a bunch of nobodies can get both Hillary and Trump to mention White Genocide. Amazing what those working class, anonymous people can do.

    Who said we were nobodies and working class? We coulda been contenders! We coulda been somebody

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    would just like to avoid being sent to "re-education camps," by thought police.
    , @Bill Jones
    In the Japanese dubbed version of that scene I'm told what was translated was " I coulda been somebody, I coulda been a bar-tender"
  54. @iSteveFan

    This farmer calling into talk radio ....
     
    Or what about the Afghan father of the Orlando mass murderer actually attending a Hillary rally and getting a seat on stage right behind her?

    My god, yes. If Trump responds with an ad, it would be awesome if it featured Hillary’s actual links with actual people. Such as the actual father of the mass murderer who sat behind her in her rally. BLM. Etc.

  55. @Lot

    Don’t you remember journolist? Weigel viscerally loathes the right.
     
    Some reporters on journolist do hate the right. There is not indicated from his posts on it that Weigel shares those feelings. Maybe I missed some of them, but the one at the link seems to have all the other ones mentioned elsewhere on them. Here's what appears to be the "worst" of what he said:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/an_apology_to_my_readers.html

    I don't see a "loathing" of the right, but minor personal piques against Matt Drudge and someone working for Byron York's website.

    Weigel's a secular libertarian in the Cato Institute type, and Cato staff make up many of his friends and roommates. He says who he votes for, and that includes liberal local DC Republicans, Bob Barr, and Obama.

    My guess is, he is interested in honestly representing the alt-right inasmuch as he wants to shove it in Conservatism Inc’s face and say “see, you created this fascist movement, proto-fascists”
     
    If that were the case, he could just have done another "OMG ALT RIGHT RACISTS! TRUMP RETWEETED NEONAZIS!" article. Instead, he quoted Steve Sailer's favorite phrase to sell his own views.

    I liked his campaign reporting from 2008 and 2012, there really was no fairer MSM reporter covering Paul or the various fringe evangelical-favorites.

    I got the feeling that a lot of what Weigel said on Journolist was to fit in with the “cool kids” like Ezra. You could tell even five or so years ago that he was interested in Sailer and Alt Rightish ideas, even if he doesn’t agree with them. He is smarter than the average journo for sure.

  56. @Mr. Anon
    "They're scared."

    What does Carl think?

    Oops, sorry. Paul Verhoeven's over-the-top nazi vibe and NPH's portrayal of Doogie Heydrich might give some people the wrong impression of the alt-right.

    LOL. But speaking of a possible wrong impression of the alt-right, I would like to say, for the historical record’s sake if nothing else, that Richard Spenser has too much ambition for his britches, is a totally defective leader of any ideological movement, and does not understand the way the United States deals with devotees of “movements” that say off the bat, “We are dangerous”—the understanding there being because that’s the choice chosen, what you are aiming to be. That was a really stupid thing to say when he said it on an online video he posted shortly after starting alternative right dot com. Not because Richard Spencer is truly dangerous, except insofar as he can influence impressionable people to take that kind of jejune rhetorical bravery to heart, and see what logical conclusions can be drawn with that heady spirit. I wrote five or six pieces for him when I was a junior in college and a few of them were about the rediculous idea of initiating a very deliberate project of racial separatism that I called tribal localism. Tellingly, this supposedly brave idea of my irresponsibly idealistic mind paralleled Richard Spencer’s personal life in real ways. I take it he’s the kind of guy who does not move away in good standing by the community’s consensus. For a very dumb reason he couldn’t believe he once called Arlington, VA home, something about its dumb consumerism conformities— he didn’t respect the norm of dress when it comes to brown flip-flops as I recall. Then, according to what I read in some takimag comments, he was in NYC out and about calling himself a White Nationalist, at like bars I guess and stuff. That, we can be sure, didn’t make him any friends in the big bagel, and his next home I believe was the wilderness, Montana, where I recall he said he was very happy, in sort of a fatalistic way considering he was not allowed to travel into Canada where he was wanting to be. And this is my point, he would share these adventures with readers and laugh them off, and that is the truly anti-social reaction to imperfectly getting along just as he did. That stuffs not funny, and Richard Spencer is just not smooth enough to laugh it off like the most interesting man in the world. He was learning in his thirties how to alienate yourself with a braggadocio that has no inherent virtue about it at all, it’s a bunch of fuckin opinions, especially when you even admit that you can only scribble–though I understand he’s dyslexic. But basically the point I would like to hammer home is that Richard Spencer is just a rich kid who thinks he can found an ideology on the fly and get away with it like he’s not a fraud; that was obvious when one day he decided what the alternative right is really about is actually an aesthetic philosophy; anyways I think the only thing we can say about Richard Spencer’s aesthetics is that his favorite color is black. I don’t know if its worse to lose your social standing when your in college or when you’re in your thirties; I just know mine never recovered, and I’m pretty positive I had more close friends than Richard Spencer ever did. Point being, this stuff about “dangerous” ideological movements that invent vile epithets, its not a game folks, at least it wasn’t for me with my record, not in this country or technological day and age. I’ll just say thank God for the sanity of Steve Sailer, which pretty much saved my mind from the unfun fever swamps for sure. That and the good guardian angels I know I got.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Spencer seems to have been fairly effective at starting something. He's been more successful at giving air to dissident (but true) ideas than any number of other young intellectuals who have gone to man the megaphone at NRO (an appropriately, taseteful and and conservatively down-sized megaphone, mind you). He's been more effective at standing up for something that might actually be called "conservative" than, for example, Matthew Continetti.
    , @ConceptDelta
    I can't speak to the history of Richard Spencer, but he is much more articular and philosophically grounded than any other person I've read on the Alt Right (excluding Steve).

    I enjoy reading/watching many of the articles on his website Radix.com.

    Let's cut him some slack... the guy has guts - he's been banned in over a dozen countries for publicly speaking out for the Alt Right. I wish there were more people on the Alt Right like him.
    , @Bill
    Do you know anything about his family? You say he is a rich kid. Who are his parents?
    , @G Pinfold
    Remarkable post, Casey. I always thought you were an old guy. Older than Sailer, older than me.
    I tried to warm to Spencer... Couldn't.
  57. Can we crowdfund the removal and deportation of Irving Kristol’s progeny to a remote desert island? What’s the joke Murray Rothbard used to tell…there are only 12 neoconservatives in America, and 11 of them are syndicated columnists?

    • Replies: @Lot

    there are only 12 neoconservatives in America, and 11 of them are syndicated columnists?
     
    Oh my no! Have you seen those "open letters" they love to circulate? How many Jeb managed to hire and/or appoint to honorary positions in his campaign?

    Here is my list of top neo-conservatives, ranked in official order. Yes, they are hierarchical.

    1. Dick Cheney - Official War Starter, Official Provider of Big Oil and Military Contractor Funding, Black Éminence grise

    2. William Kristol - Chief of Staff, Chief of Ideological Enforcement Division (Hereditary Position, inherited from father Irving)

    3. John Bolton - Chief Envoy to the Hard Right

    3. Jeffrey Goldberg - Chief Envoy to Liberal Democrats

    5. Robert Kagan - Chief of Kagans

    6. John McCain - Official Senator
  58. @Harry Baldwin
    Cuck says alt-righters "believe in hierarchies." Liberals believe in hierarchies more than alt-righters do--hierarchies of victimhood. The whole society must be organized around intersectionality.

    Dave Weigel seems pretty fair-minded. Matthew Continetti is clueless. He has no idea what's going on.

    The “Alt Right” *believes* in hierarchies in the sense that the MSM seems to constantly be telling them that they’re at the top of the them, for no reason, and ought to really be firmly at the bottom of them.

    When there are people who tell you that society is deeply hierarchical, is a battle to establish a hierarchy and who would put you at the base of one, you tend to argue back in that context.

    I doubt very strongly that they particularly *prefer* or *desire* hierarchies.

  59. Also, LOL at Hillary’s decades-long paranoid obsession with conservative talk radio. I read somewhere that she supported Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda in their quest to create profitable, feminist talk radio (bankrupt within months).

    Her charming serial-rapist husband, if I recall, blamed Rush Limbaugh back in the nineties for Tim McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing.

    • Replies: @DCThrowback
    Which is why Eric Holder's/Bill Clinton's FBI buried the Iraqi terrorism angle of John Doe #2 (Hussain al-Hussani and his local support network) - the political attack narrative of right wing militias and talk radio wouldn't have stuck if the meticulous evidence put together by Jayna Davis in "The Third Terrorist" was revealed in the FBI investigation. Davis intimates that McVeigh & Nichols got material bomb making knowledge from that connection. Having control of the megaphone matters.

    The investigation was political from the beginning. It would've made the election of Bill in '96 much more problematic had it been revealed some rogue Iraqis who made it through our "Iraqi immigrant refugee program" after Gulf War 1 had snuck through and killed 180+ Americans. The other later reveals, that the FBI/SPLC had been monitoring the camp at Elohim City and likely had advance notice of the bomb, further indicts the admin and Deep State.

    Rotten to the core, but the Clintons have been protected since the days of Mena. A "retired" Mormon CIA agent running for POTUS to win Utah means the payoffs to the Clintons are still coming.
  60. Are we now going to see Alt-Right written in poop on college campuses?

  61. @Lagertha
    last post for a while as I am "low energy":). when I re-read the original conversation in Steve's post, it was a eureka moment!

    The Millennials, the ones specifically, born in '94- 2001, they are not buying the bs of the Democratic party. They are YUUUGELY angry at the liberals and republicans ruining their future (20 Trillion $ debt and all). They are sooooooo cynical, and want all Boomers and Gen X to just effin' die and go away - I know I have talked about them before on this forum. Or, if they take a cue from Iceland: fire all the banksters, that may work to pacify this Tsunami of youngsters who will force all of us Boomers and Gen X to retire and retreat. Weird factoid: they don't care about money!!!!!? They are kinda' the ultimate Hippies that were spawned 2 generations later!

    They are very attracted to Alt-right (still, to me, like a bar in NYC like King Tut's!) because the last 2 parties they grew up hearing about through their parents, had just made things get worse. All they have heard since they were babies is: 9/11, Islam, Immigrants, Austerity, Wall Street graft and meltdown/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Egypt/Iran/Iraq...the whole middle east/ Mexicans, many lone children, coming from wherever from S.A./USA starting "War Games" (Millennials top 5 movie) with Russia...China, whatever/ fracking/floods & droughts/Katrina-Global Climate Change/Animals dying by poaching and over-fishing (never underestimate Millennials love of wildlife; never), and all the BLM stirred-pot/after the fact riots in cities.

    There are sooo many smart kids who see the world in Darwinian terms now. This is a fact. The upshot is: it's a diverse group of Millennials. But, they eschew money...listen to the songs of the artists they love.

    With Millennial attitudes to money, the way it is:

    Most goods are pretty cheap today, due to trade with China / automation, but at the same time, across most of the Anglosphere, property ownership and mortgages are ultra expensive and out of reach.

    So you have this generation (Generation Rent aka The Millennials) that is actually still quite materialistic (though less hedonistic), but doesn’t really strive too much for money both because their lifestyle goods are pretty cheap and they also see no point in striving for a bigger income because it’s not going to help very much at getting that house.

    The incentives for them to save money are pretty horrible.

    At the same time, also, unlike the Boomers, who were waaaay more educated than the generations that came before them, the Millennials are only as educated as X and the Boomers.

    They’re facing this big established, highly educated workforce. They can’t use education to queue jump and get ahead fast (particularly compared to Boomers), so the ones who are interested in getting ahead end up valuing personal connections, charm and bullshitting to get ahead, and are much more cynical about the power of qualifications and hard work.

    • Replies: @27 year old
    >Most goods are pretty cheap today, due to trade with China / automation, but at the same time, across most of the Anglosphere, property ownership and mortgages are ultra expensive and out of reach.

    >So you have this generation (Generation Rent aka The Millennials) that is actually still quite materialistic (though less hedonistic), but doesn’t really strive too much for money both because their lifestyle goods are pretty cheap and they also see no point in striving for a bigger income because it’s not going to help very much at getting that house.

    Yes.

    For the "aging millennial" set like myself, I would simplify to: money can't buy what we really want - life with dignity in a nice white community - so what good is it?

    Also, we've (re?)learned the fact that money is just one aspect of status, and have so sought out other ways to compete for status (social media followers, notch count, hipster-ism, etc).

    >the ones who are interested in getting ahead end up valuing personal connections, charm and bullshitting to get ahead, and are much more cynical about the power of qualifications and hard work.

    Many people who get ahead are cynical, but many seem to genuinely believe they came out on top in a meritocratic system. One thing is for sure, the people who are -not- getting ahead, are extremely cynical about the power of hard work relative to connections/bullshitting.
    , @Bill

    They can’t use education to queue jump and get ahead fast (particularly compared to Boomers), so the ones who are interested in getting ahead end up valuing personal connections, charm and bullshitting to get ahead, and are much more cynical about the power of qualifications and hard work.
     
    Like 27-year-old said, you don't know enough of the winners. Every Ivy League school, medical school, top 14 law school, etc is chock-a-block full of people who got there by meticulous hard work and high intelligence. In perception if not entirely in reality.
  62. @Anonymous
    What's funny is that Udolpho still craves respectability, so he spends half his time furiously denouncing white nationalism. He was sort of an aspiring writer and critic, who's old and bitter now that nobody took his writing seriously and it never led anywhere. He now just assuages himself by curating a circle jerk where posters feign interest in his completely unoriginal and jejune ideas like SCALE so they can go back to making race and scat jokes.

    What was SCALE?

  63. @Broski
    He wrote that in like 3 weeks. I'm talking about a magnum opus that explains modern America.

    Most if that territory is covered by Tom Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities and Jonathan Franzen’s Freedom.

  64. @Lagertha
    Or, we could make some popcorn, invite our neighbors over, and watch Bulworth and Wag the Dog, sheesh, watch Gallipoli (Mel Gibson's flight to stardom...or tardom, well, later) to get a sense of "who really is going to stand up for our values of freedom, integrity and hope."

    watch Gallipoli (Mel Gibson’s flight to stardom

    The 1981 version is hopelessly out of date and too short. Please do watch last year’s 7-part Australian series in HDTV commemorating the 100th anniversary of the battle.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_%28miniseries%29

    It was expensively produced by Australia’s top private TV network, whose multi-billionaire co-owner, James Packer, is not above a bit of public brawling on Bondi beach with one of his top executives, a friend from boarding school, wedding best man, and flatmate.

    Happy to embarrass his local rivals, Murdoch paid $200,000 for photos of the brawl and put them on the cover of all his newspapers and websites under “JAPAN BOMBS PEARL HARBOR” style giant headlines.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Thank you, Lot. The drama of the brawlers will be on my mind when I watch the series!

    I have this theory: everyone who either wants to be, inspires to be, has grown up with being, or their business is to be: IN FRONT OF A CAMERA, are just wild and crazy people. I have never known boring and steady people to be in film or TV...all arts. In other words, students in accounting or mechanical engineering never got involved in tv/film. ...... O-Oh, major opps! - I'm gonna hammered on my flip phone for this!
  65. I support Hillary because she will curtail hate speech. America needs laws like in Europe where there are consequences for saying racist and sexist things.

    I believe in free speech but within the limits of reasonableness

    • Replies: @MEH 0910

    I support Hillary because she will curtail hate speech.
     
    From a previous Tiny Duck comment:

    Whites have to go and white women deserved to be “raped”
     
    Tiny Duck, you love hate speech.
    , @The Alarmist

    "I believe in free speech but within the limits of reasonableness."
     
    Sounds like controlled speech (and thought) to me.
    , @schmenz
    Thank you, Commissar Duck. I am sure you will be hoping to supervise the purges.
    , @Olorin
    You believe in American laws and free speech, comrade?

    You are now on our list.
  66. Hillary:

    HILLARY CLINTON: All of this adds up to something we have never seen before. Now, of course, there’s always been a paranoid fringe in our politics, a lot of arising from racial resentment. But it’s never had the nominee of a major party stoking it, encouraging it, and giving it a national megaphone, until now.

    You have to admire the bare faced chutzpah and unashamed irony.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    That's an amazing thing to say with a straight face.

    Paranoid racial resentment has been stoked, encouraged and given a national megaphone (with predictably murderous consequences) by the President, the Dem candidate and the Department of Justice (and the media)..
  67. @Marie
    Can we crowdfund the removal and deportation of Irving Kristol's progeny to a remote desert island? What's the joke Murray Rothbard used to tell...there are only 12 neoconservatives in America, and 11 of them are syndicated columnists?

    there are only 12 neoconservatives in America, and 11 of them are syndicated columnists?

    Oh my no! Have you seen those “open letters” they love to circulate? How many Jeb managed to hire and/or appoint to honorary positions in his campaign?

    Here is my list of top neo-conservatives, ranked in official order. Yes, they are hierarchical.

    1. Dick Cheney – Official War Starter, Official Provider of Big Oil and Military Contractor Funding, Black Éminence grise

    2. William Kristol – Chief of Staff, Chief of Ideological Enforcement Division (Hereditary Position, inherited from father Irving)

    3. John Bolton – Chief Envoy to the Hard Right

    3. Jeffrey Goldberg – Chief Envoy to Liberal Democrats

    5. Robert Kagan – Chief of Kagans

    6. John McCain – Official Senator

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "3. John Bolton – Chief Envoy to the Hard Right"

    John Bolton is a Neocon For Trump.
    , @Marie
    Oh, I know. Rothbard was just emphasizing their hugely disproportionate influence in politics and media - not at all commensurate with their statistical size among Ameeicans.

    John Bolton wrote a great and quite humorous autobiography about how much he hates the U.N. And he's chair of the Gatestone Institute (who have been adeptly chronicling Europe's shucked) so I'll give him a pass.

    Cheney, Kristol, Goldberg, Kagan, McTraitor - DEPORT!
  68. @Tiny Duck
    I support Hillary because she will curtail hate speech. America needs laws like in Europe where there are consequences for saying racist and sexist things.

    I believe in free speech but within the limits of reasonableness

    I support Hillary because she will curtail hate speech.

    From a previous Tiny Duck comment:

    Whites have to go and white women deserved to be “raped”

    Tiny Duck, you love hate speech.

  69. @Lot

    there are only 12 neoconservatives in America, and 11 of them are syndicated columnists?
     
    Oh my no! Have you seen those "open letters" they love to circulate? How many Jeb managed to hire and/or appoint to honorary positions in his campaign?

    Here is my list of top neo-conservatives, ranked in official order. Yes, they are hierarchical.

    1. Dick Cheney - Official War Starter, Official Provider of Big Oil and Military Contractor Funding, Black Éminence grise

    2. William Kristol - Chief of Staff, Chief of Ideological Enforcement Division (Hereditary Position, inherited from father Irving)

    3. John Bolton - Chief Envoy to the Hard Right

    3. Jeffrey Goldberg - Chief Envoy to Liberal Democrats

    5. Robert Kagan - Chief of Kagans

    6. John McCain - Official Senator

    “3. John Bolton – Chief Envoy to the Hard Right”

    John Bolton is a Neocon For Trump.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    “3. John Bolton – Chief Envoy to the Hard Right”

    John Bolton is a Neocon For Trump.
     
    So is Dick Cheney.

    So, as bad as the neocons are, the gentile ones are less perfidious.
  70. @Lot

    there are only 12 neoconservatives in America, and 11 of them are syndicated columnists?
     
    Oh my no! Have you seen those "open letters" they love to circulate? How many Jeb managed to hire and/or appoint to honorary positions in his campaign?

    Here is my list of top neo-conservatives, ranked in official order. Yes, they are hierarchical.

    1. Dick Cheney - Official War Starter, Official Provider of Big Oil and Military Contractor Funding, Black Éminence grise

    2. William Kristol - Chief of Staff, Chief of Ideological Enforcement Division (Hereditary Position, inherited from father Irving)

    3. John Bolton - Chief Envoy to the Hard Right

    3. Jeffrey Goldberg - Chief Envoy to Liberal Democrats

    5. Robert Kagan - Chief of Kagans

    6. John McCain - Official Senator

    Oh, I know. Rothbard was just emphasizing their hugely disproportionate influence in politics and media – not at all commensurate with their statistical size among Ameeicans.

    John Bolton wrote a great and quite humorous autobiography about how much he hates the U.N. And he’s chair of the Gatestone Institute (who have been adeptly chronicling Europe’s shucked) so I’ll give him a pass.

    Cheney, Kristol, Goldberg, Kagan, McTraitor – DEPORT!

  71. @Harry Baldwin
    Cuck says alt-righters "believe in hierarchies." Liberals believe in hierarchies more than alt-righters do--hierarchies of victimhood. The whole society must be organized around intersectionality.

    Dave Weigel seems pretty fair-minded. Matthew Continetti is clueless. He has no idea what's going on.

    To say the A/R believes in hierarchy is not correct. I believe in meritocracy , which organizes itself based on the natural truth that people are not all equally capable, but individual talents and skills will sort themselves organically. Proggs live with a feudal/hierarchical dream of social organization, with themselves playing the role of courtier/minister to the throne. In the Progg world, status is gained by nepotism and cronyism, accident of birth, not by talent, skill or hard work. Certainly no self-respecting Proggie ever considered themselves as serf. They are vassals, they owe their life and livelihood the the Crown. As favor is bestowed, so it can be withdrawn. That’s why we scare them. We do actually earn a living without kissing the ring every day. They have no skill or talent beyond that, and can’t imagine anyone does. In a just world organized on merit, the rightful Progg Kingdom is in the mud.

  72. @Lagertha
    well, they gotta splain the fact that their Foundation is registered in Canada! They hope they out-smarted all US investigators of their escapades, but, they weren't counting on Anonymous.

    Is that true?

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Yes. A friend of mine recently told me the Clinton Foundation is registered in Canada! - I was shocked! You can look it up - I did. He explained to me that "what do you expect from 2 lawyers? It keeps vital info out of U.S. hands."
  73. The only way Donald Trump will become president will be if Julian Assange puts an October surprise stake through Crooked Hildabeast’s political heart the way Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward did to Richard Milhous Nixon.

    Anything that reveals she orders assassins to murder people she politically disagrees with, is a closet Lesbian, and or in very poor health would be great.

    I bring up closet Lesbian because that would prove Crooked Hildabeast is an extremely untrustworthy dishonest lying politician. If she is willing to lie about her sexual orientation to the American people, what else would she be willing to lie about if she becomes president?

    I hope Crooked Hildabeast turns out to be the Rock Hudson of politics.

    I like honest fags more than I like closet fags. Closet fags come off as sneaky and untrustworthy.

  74. @AndyBoy
    Funny that a bunch of nobodies can get both Hillary and Trump to mention White Genocide. Amazing what those working class, anonymous people can do.

    Some of our ancestors really were Kings

  75. @NickG
    Hillary:

    HILLARY CLINTON: All of this adds up to something we have never seen before. Now, of course, there’s always been a paranoid fringe in our politics, a lot of arising from racial resentment. But it’s never had the nominee of a major party stoking it, encouraging it, and giving it a national megaphone, until now.
     
    You have to admire the bare faced chutzpah and unashamed irony.

    That’s an amazing thing to say with a straight face.

    Paranoid racial resentment has been stoked, encouraged and given a national megaphone (with predictably murderous consequences) by the President, the Dem candidate and the Department of Justice (and the media)..

  76. @iSteveFan

    This farmer calling into talk radio ....
     
    Or what about the Afghan father of the Orlando mass murderer actually attending a Hillary rally and getting a seat on stage right behind her?

    “Or what about the Afghan father of the Orlando mass murderer actually attending a Hillary rally and getting a seat on stage right behind her?”

    The Dems will just tell us he was looking for a safe-space to escape the opression of the Trumpeteers.

  77. @Tiny Duck
    I support Hillary because she will curtail hate speech. America needs laws like in Europe where there are consequences for saying racist and sexist things.

    I believe in free speech but within the limits of reasonableness

    “I believe in free speech but within the limits of reasonableness.”

    Sounds like controlled speech (and thought) to me.

    • Replies: @Tiny Duck
    It sounds like that to you because of your white privilege
    , @Alfa158
    Alarmist, MEH;
    Tiny Duck is an absurdist who posts here frequently; his schtick is doing a parody of the craziest, most brain-dead leftists and Blacks. Notice he uses a self-insulting handle that sounds like Tiny Dick. He could have used a handle like "Brain Dod" instead. We aren't expected to actually respond, we're supposed to shake our heads ruefully , chuckle and say to ourselves, "yep, and there are real people, who actually think stuff almost as stupid". It probably amuses him when he "gets" a new sucker to take it seriously and respond.
    He sometimes gives his game away by going too far over the top, but actually makes a good point. When any activity becomes indistinguishable from a parody of itself, then it is doomed. Many years ago I saw an old comedic ballet troupe, Ballet Trocaderos, doing a parody of Martha Graham modern dance, and it was quite funny but, I realized it was absolutely indistinguishable from a real Modern Dance routine except that the dancers were men in drag. Modern Dance basically died away about the same time.
  78. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    Too bad Trump doesn't have serious reframing skills like Ron Paul.

    Every time the witch Rodham opens her mouth it's a great reframing opportunity.

    Bad news that Trump doesn't point the KKK types to their natural home which is Democrat. Why doesn't he slay La Raza as a brown Nazi movement in suits?

    Bad news that Trump is using the absurd "11 million" number on the immigration issue. That's a crap statistic that the left has used for ten years!

    Trump is kinda weak. He misses layups every damn day.

    Bad news that Trump doesn’t point the KKK types to their natural home which is Democrat. Why doesn’t he slay La Raza as a brown Nazi movement in suits?

    That line of argument reinforces the enemy narrative – it’s basically a trap.

  79. There are two obvious responses to this:

    1)Play clips of Prof Carol M Swain describing the KKK as the “terrorist arm of the Democrat Party” as often as possible.

    2)Demand to know why the Revolutionary Communist Party, Answer Coalition, etc., etc., are so often demonstrating for Dem Party goals, and that THEY be disavowed. Essentially no one has seen the Klan in the street, but everyone has seen the ANSWER/REVCOM types out causing massive property damage.

  80. @MEH 0910

    I support Hillary because she will curtail hate speech.
     
    From a previous Tiny Duck comment:

    Whites have to go and white women deserved to be “raped”
     
    Tiny Duck, you love hate speech.

    You are an idiot. What I said was not hateful

    • Disagree: MEH 0910
    • Replies: @ConceptDelta
    Tiny Duck was being sarcastic (or he's an idiot).
  81. @The Alarmist

    "I believe in free speech but within the limits of reasonableness."
     
    Sounds like controlled speech (and thought) to me.

    It sounds like that to you because of your white privilege

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    What's the point of being white if you don't have the privilege? Mighty white of me to admit it, no?
    , @Grandpa Jack
    What's funny is that 160 years ago, you would have been the one demanding that slavery be allowed to continue. You lack the sense to think for yourself and just parrot the sentiments of the elites, the zeitgeist. The current bs they are spouting is that blacks are the ones being discriminated against and whites are the privileged.

    In reality, it is blatantly obvious that it is blacks who actually receive every privilege in the book, from privileged treatment by the press, schools and society at large, to a huge thumb on the scales at college admissions, access to blacks only clubs and countless restricted opportunities, blacks only grants, special set asides for career opportunities, minority owned business privileges, etc.- the list goes on and on. Whites are scapegoated for every evil blacks commit; whites pockets are picked to pay for the special privileges of blacks, and white men are deprived of true equal opportunity at every turn.
  82. @Mr. Anon
    "Nobody who thinks clearly, i.e. without the shackles of moralism, compassion, fear etc, could possibly believe anything else."

    Shackles? There is nothing "shackling" about moralism, compassion, or fear. Not for an actual human being, that is, as opposed to some kind of fictitious Randian hero. Nor does someone who lacks these (perfectly normal) human traits necessarily think clearly.

    Moreover, even a person who has compassion, fear, and a sense of morals, if they are honest, must admit that there are heirarchies.

    Moreover, even a person who has compassion, fear, and a sense of morals, if they are honest, must admit that there are heirarchies.

    On the contrary, the pursuit and acceptance of truth (including the truth about the existence and utility of hierarchies) is the epitome of compassion*, the product of a healthy fear, principally of God, and the hallmark of any morality worth it’s salt.

    * – compassion (in the Greek, sympathy) means literally suffering together. The truth both hurts and is the only effective linchpin of shared experience.

  83. @Maj. Kong
    Unsure, but Pat Buchanan's sister married a Mormon. There was also a time when he was in favor of illegal immigration and thought Muslims were the greatest thing to ever happen for conservatism.

    Kong, I’m low on coffee and running late, so I sure would appreciate it if you’d scare up a couple of links supporting your position. Thanks in advance.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    http://beta.deseretnews.com/top/1914/14/Bay-Buchanan-Prominent-Mormons-in-politics-and-government.html

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2000/10/20/october-20-2000-the-american-muslim-vote/13641/
  84. @Maj. Kong
    You are making the "Dems are the real racist" argument. It doesn't work.

    To really turn it on their heads, you must say "The Democrats are anti-white". The leftist must either respond that indeed they are anti-white, or that they are really pro-white. The first is a crippling statement, the latter is patently false.

    The leftist responds that no, we’re all equal but we need to correct for structural injustice resulting from a history of racist oppression that you obviously would like to perpetuate, racist.

  85. Dems talk about the Ku Klux Klan like it still has the numbers it had in the 1920s. Really, are there more than a thousand of them in the whole country?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Dems talk about the Ku Klux Klan like it still has the numbers it had in the 1920s. Really, are there more than a thousand of them in the whole country?"

    Probably not. And most of them are likely old diabetic men riding around on rascal scooters (Night Riders!). "The Klan" are today about as real a group as "The Carthaginians".
    , @L Woods
    Counting or not counting the majority that are FBI agents?
    , @Forbes
    Since former Senate Democrat Majority Leader Robert Byrd died in 2010, there's one fewer.
    , @Barnard
    The Anti-Defamation League estimates the Klan has a membership of 3,000 nationwide. As @L Woods points out, that includes the undercover members of the FBI and every other law enforcement agency who feels the need to still infiltrate the Klan. In the ADL's section on Klan violence they don't have anything recent listed. You have to wonder if some of these people aren't being subsidized by the left in order to make for a convenient boogeyman.


    http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/crime.html?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk
  86. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jefferson
    "3. John Bolton – Chief Envoy to the Hard Right"

    John Bolton is a Neocon For Trump.

    “3. John Bolton – Chief Envoy to the Hard Right”

    John Bolton is a Neocon For Trump.

    So is Dick Cheney.

    So, as bad as the neocons are, the gentile ones are less perfidious.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "So is Dick Cheney.

    So, as bad as the neocons are, the gentile ones are less perfidious."

    Better a Neocon For Trump than a Libertarian Never Trumper who drools all over Gary Johnson.
  87. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @candid_observer
    And then there's this:

    And they have gravitated to these ideas which are very anti-immigrant, very anti-intervention.
     
    Let's just grant that the question of immigration is controversial, and that some people like to think it entails "racism".

    But what in God's name is controversial in the same way about being "anti-intervention"? How is that even possibly something so crazy and radical and immoral that any movement that embraces it is beyond the pale?

    Do these people ever think?

    Do these people ever think?

    Yes, of course they do. They think “There are a lot of people who could be convinced that ‘Invade the world, invite the world’ is a really bad idea, and there aren’t a whole lot of good arguments for it that would convince them. So, we have to make opposition to it seem scary and bad, so that enough of them will steer clear of that line of thinking.”.

    And it’s going to work on a fairly large number of people.

  88. You talk about the days of William F. Buckley, when he was sort of the one who said who was a conservative.

    Wer a Konservative is, bestimm i!

    So let me get this straight – in the old days conservatism was sort of like the Skull & Bones Society at Yale – it had a club leader who decided whether or not you could belong to their snooty club. He would even do it using some kind of strange affected upper class accent spoken by no one else alive. But alt.righters are the ones who believe in hierarchies.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    Because WFB purged/ostracized the John Birch Society in 1962 from the conservative movement. Which was before Weigel or Continetti were born. That's some ancient history to fall back on...
  89. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    https://mobile.twitter.com/continetti/status/720347094158954496

    Coach Finstock:
    In which Arch-Shabbos Goy @continetti pines for a leader like WF Buckley, who conserved nothing but his own vanity. commentarymagazine.com/articles/comin…

    Continetti:
    Fact-check: I converted to Judaism in 2011.

    • Replies: @schmenz
    I am going to assume that with an Italian name like Continetti, Matthew was born some sort of Catholic (one badly brought up most likely). If so, he didn't "convert" to Judaism. He apostatized, which is something altogether different.
  90. @Marie
    Also, LOL at Hillary's decades-long paranoid obsession with conservative talk radio. I read somewhere that she supported Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda in their quest to create profitable, feminist talk radio (bankrupt within months).

    Her charming serial-rapist husband, if I recall, blamed Rush Limbaugh back in the nineties for Tim McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing.

    Which is why Eric Holder’s/Bill Clinton’s FBI buried the Iraqi terrorism angle of John Doe #2 (Hussain al-Hussani and his local support network) – the political attack narrative of right wing militias and talk radio wouldn’t have stuck if the meticulous evidence put together by Jayna Davis in “The Third Terrorist” was revealed in the FBI investigation. Davis intimates that McVeigh & Nichols got material bomb making knowledge from that connection. Having control of the megaphone matters.

    The investigation was political from the beginning. It would’ve made the election of Bill in ’96 much more problematic had it been revealed some rogue Iraqis who made it through our “Iraqi immigrant refugee program” after Gulf War 1 had snuck through and killed 180+ Americans. The other later reveals, that the FBI/SPLC had been monitoring the camp at Elohim City and likely had advance notice of the bomb, further indicts the admin and Deep State.

    Rotten to the core, but the Clintons have been protected since the days of Mena. A “retired” Mormon CIA agent running for POTUS to win Utah means the payoffs to the Clintons are still coming.

    • Replies: @Bubba
    Got that right. OKC was (and still is) concentrated with lots of radical Muslims who were familiar with crude bomb technology used in the WTC bombing in 1993. The Clinton administration did everything they could to downplay any Muslim connections in that terrorist attack. And we had plenty of Muslim terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration leading up to 9/11 that were conveniently forgotten or ignored (like TWA 800 in 1996, and if you believe that FBI explanation then you should write-in Jeb! or vote for Hillary). Steve Emerson talked about this in an incredibly prescient interview back with Daniel Pipes in 1997. http://www.danielpipes.org/6320/steven-emerson-get-ready-for-twenty-world-trade-center-bombings
  91. @M
    With Millennial attitudes to money, the way it is:

    Most goods are pretty cheap today, due to trade with China / automation, but at the same time, across most of the Anglosphere, property ownership and mortgages are ultra expensive and out of reach.

    So you have this generation (Generation Rent aka The Millennials) that is actually still quite materialistic (though less hedonistic), but doesn't really strive too much for money both because their lifestyle goods are pretty cheap and they also see no point in striving for a bigger income because it's not going to help very much at getting that house.

    The incentives for them to save money are pretty horrible.

    At the same time, also, unlike the Boomers, who were waaaay more educated than the generations that came before them, the Millennials are only as educated as X and the Boomers.

    They're facing this big established, highly educated workforce. They can't use education to queue jump and get ahead fast (particularly compared to Boomers), so the ones who are interested in getting ahead end up valuing personal connections, charm and bullshitting to get ahead, and are much more cynical about the power of qualifications and hard work.

    >Most goods are pretty cheap today, due to trade with China / automation, but at the same time, across most of the Anglosphere, property ownership and mortgages are ultra expensive and out of reach.

    >So you have this generation (Generation Rent aka The Millennials) that is actually still quite materialistic (though less hedonistic), but doesn’t really strive too much for money both because their lifestyle goods are pretty cheap and they also see no point in striving for a bigger income because it’s not going to help very much at getting that house.

    Yes.

    For the “aging millennial” set like myself, I would simplify to: money can’t buy what we really want – life with dignity in a nice white community – so what good is it?

    Also, we’ve (re?)learned the fact that money is just one aspect of status, and have so sought out other ways to compete for status (social media followers, notch count, hipster-ism, etc).

    >the ones who are interested in getting ahead end up valuing personal connections, charm and bullshitting to get ahead, and are much more cynical about the power of qualifications and hard work.

    Many people who get ahead are cynical, but many seem to genuinely believe they came out on top in a meritocratic system. One thing is for sure, the people who are -not- getting ahead, are extremely cynical about the power of hard work relative to connections/bullshitting.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    One thing is for sure, the people who are -not- getting ahead, are extremely cynical about the power of hard work relative to connections/bullshitting.

    That's because they are correct.
    , @M
    >> Many people who get ahead are cynical, but many seem to genuinely believe they came out on top in a meritocratic system. One thing is for sure, the people who are -not- getting ahead, are extremely cynical about the power of hard work relative to connections/bullshitting.

    Probably. I'm thinking for successful people in the Millennial generation relatively (compared to their older successful peers).
    , @SFG
    Having had some success, but much less than I could have had with better networking, I will share my thoughts.

    Hard work and networking are both necessary conditions for big-time success. You can get by with one but it is not as good.

    Naturally people with one tend to overrate the other, since everyone notices what is missing.

    The catch is that networking becomes more important when openings are fewer. You may remember during the Internet boom computer nerds were getting jobs despite a lack of social skills because their skills were needed. Came the downturn, and their jobs went to India.

    We're in an extended downturn as far as jobs go (even if there are jobs most of them stink), so networking becomes more important. It also increases the salience of identity politics (white or black or brown or kosher or what-have-you), since it makes it more important to set aside some jobs for your group--it's not like you're going to start your own successful private-sector business anymore.

  92. David
    I can see you have looked into the NRX/Alt right enough to understand a bit, so Im guessing youre reading Steves piece and maybe my comment. I hope you have read enough to understand the neo reactionary v alt right v WN differences. But yes you’re right in a sense it does come down to race and hierarchy.I wont go over Steves points he did that well. But I want to make another point, its the type of point you probably wont get till you get it. For what its worth Im not Millenial Im a blue collar guy from a highly successful artist/ intellectual NYC family,who escaped Murray’s cognitive sieve because of this I have observed life from the slums of the lower east side to the parties at the met and the mountains of of the Northwest.We were not a default liberal family and I was introduced to genteel intellectual thought while still in my anti establishment youth phase, as liberalism revealed itself to be less about freedom and more about enforced equality i began to take another look at conservative thought. In short I was a life long reader of Publications like NR Commentary etc I cant read them anymore without retching. I do still subscribe to first things and the new criterion. I only say this to signal I do get where your coming from on a very fine level.
    Ironically your position is remarkably similar to the neo reactionaries vs the alt right in fact they pretty much purged the alt right last year and predictably that attracted lower elements to the altright shifting it more demotist.
    Heres what i want to say, youre right a lot of old school conservative principles worked well for a period, they are more or less intellectually consistent. But heres the thing.
    You could strap a high IQ leftist in a chair and powerpoint him with all the facts, bring in the rand corporation and break down for him the utter failure of liberal policy and carefully take him through decision trees of political philosophy you could reinforce this with with electroshock but you wont change his mind.He is either the not rational type that only reacts emotionally or for social status,Or a true believer who already understands the truth very well but has an agenda you dont get or severely underestimate.The only way you convince those types is in the first case you must seize control of the country and change the religion and status markers. But while that might be done non violently in theory in reality you have the second type between you and that goal. You seem not to understand who these people are they are the intellectual heirs of Stalin. They are willing to destroy the world they are actively doing just that while explicitly saying what they are doing and importing tens of millions of third world thugs to vote and fight for them. George they mean to kill us. They are deadly serious. They have progressed so far become so brazen their rhetoric so explicitly anti white I could go on the point is its so obvious one begins to wonder if people like you are not part of it thus the cuck meme.
    I dont think you all are I think you are stuck on ideas and yes its only ideas in the end that will reorder civilization. But George there comes a time when thinking men have to admit that all civilization is based on superior violence, no its not a step taken lightly but frankly the 60s is when people who believed as we do should have taken to the streets and cracked heads, I know it seemed at the time like some liberal ideas ought to be given a chance but we were naive it should have been strangled in the grave, because that would have been the less violent path. George your choice is stark they are never ever ever going to be persuaded they are willing to die for marxism or whatever euphemism they use today they are willing to destroy whats left of western civilization and subjugate and eventually kill all europeans they are a perhaps one administration away from declaring themselves the law.You can assist them by standing on principle or you can fight to save your people your civilization and ultimately mankind if you win a modified conservatism that takes into consideration how western civilization was turned against itself by its enemies and that all men are not created equal.

  93. @Jason Liu
    Anti-egalitarianism was already the standard definition of the alt-right before it was overrun by white nationalists.

    WNs aren’t anti-egalitarian?

    • Replies: @Alden
    I am a White Nationalist. All I care about is the restoration of the 14th amendment to Whites. That would end affirmative action meaning that the federal government would stop enforcing hiring solely on the basis of race.

    I am also against the endless government aided and abetted bullying of White children in the school system by black thugs and black in White crime.

    That's all a White Nationalist cares about.
  94. @Pete in TX
    I saw on Wikipedia that Matthew Continetti converted to Judaism before marrying Bill Kristol's daughter.

    I vaguely recall (about twenty-five years ago) that Bill Kristol's sister Elizabeth married a Catholic. Does anyone here know if I recalled that correctly? Did they divorce? Did Elizabeth convert to Catholicism or not? If she converted and then divorced, did she revert to Judaism?

    Don’t know about the Kristol family situation, but it reminds me of David Brooks’ now-ex-wife. When he married her, she converted (from Baptist?) to Brooks’ Judaism, and, to mix metaphors, became more papal than the Pope, as the Germans put it. The full Monty of Orthodox observance, including mikvah baths (don’t know if it was the same DC synagogue where the rabbi turned out to be a peeping tom at the mikvah). Now that Brooks has kicked her to the curb, I have to wonder what her bearings are now.

    Ezra Klein is I think the only straight Journolister to have *not* married a shiksa.

    • Replies: @nglaer
    Pointed, funny comment. I met the woman only once, about 25 years ago or more, sat next to her at a dinner. She told me a story from her junior high days, she was assigned to do a joint class project with two black girls, and the teacher took her aside after class and told her she would have to do all the work, and to expect that.
    , @dr kill
    I am amused by the volume of deep thinkers who have converted/reverted/apostated for marriage. I sense a lack of self. But I expect it from these people.
    , @SFG
    This is from Isaac Asimov's jokebook, so it probably is set in the 50s or so.

    Guy marries a shiksa, dad says, "I told you not to marry a shiksa!"

    "No, Dad, she'll convert, it's all good."

    Lady converts, learns all the kosher rituals, etc.

    Saturday morning comes by, the guy gets a call from Dad. "Davey, we have to go over the receipts for the store!"

    "I can't dad, I have to go to temple!"

    Dad immediately says, "I told you not to marry a shiksa!"
  95. @415 reasons
    It actually seems to be reality itself that seems to have the most disgust with egalitarianism.

    I mean I'm all for equality before the law and a reasonable attempt to provide equality of opportunity. But the Democrats' version of egalitarianism seems to be like a perfect mockery of the scientific method. No matter how much evidence accumulates to the contrary, the Central Dogma of Racism can never be questioned.

    I mean I’m all for equality before the law and a reasonable attempt to provide equality of opportunity.

    This is the egalitarian idea that I can support. Of course the well known problem of inequality of outcomes will come to the fore. At that point it will break down because it is very difficult to divine whether the inequality of outcomes was not in some way tilted by inequality of opportunity. If you are HBD-woke then you know that we will have unequal outcomes, but that wokeness will not let you definitively understand or parse the equality of opportunity questions. The second part is that by knowing we will have unequal outcomes, regardless of whether we have starting equality, what if anything should we do to ameliorate the harsher conditions of the outcomes?

    • Replies: @Jack D

    what if anything should we do to ameliorate the harsher conditions of the outcomes?
     
    I know what you SHOULDN'T DO - what we are doing now, where you create perverse incentives that tend to perpetuate in the long run the very inequalities that you are supposedly trying to ameliorate. We also shouldn't encourage those with the highest likelihood of poor outcomes to have more children and those with the lowest to have fewer, which is what we are doing now. And we shouldn't be adding to the problem by accepting millions of immigrants with a high probability of poor outcomes now and in future generations. But we are doing all of these things - we are trying to put out the fire with gasoline.

    On the one hand, as a humane society, you can't just let people starve to death, but on the other hand you can't expect people to work hard in order to support others who are capable of, but not willing to, work and just want to exploit the safety net. Multiculturalism makes this harder because not only are you taking care of people who are not members of your "family" even in the broadest sense but also because some of these other cultures are based on assumptions that are quite different than our own. You might regard life on welfare as a last resort that is shameful and degrading and inadequate to your needs, but someone from a small village in Guatemala might regard the same benefits as the equivalent of having hit the lottery.

    , @Bill

    At that point it will break down because it is very difficult to divine whether the inequality of outcomes was not in some way tilted by inequality of opportunity.
     
    Yes, that. But more, also. Humans are not calculating machines. Once they get ego-involved, their ability to assess evidence declines. Worse, because intelligence is so important to success today, the failures tend to be lower IQ which further reduces their ability to assess causes.

    Basically, if you take this "equality before the law" line, you are going to be faced with explaining to blacks that, although we're very sorry, you negroes really do have to live in tar-paper shacks because, well, you blacks are stupid, and, consequently, your labor is worthless. Not our fault.

    It's easy to see how utterly impossible that is. They won't believe you. No matter how much evidence you bring, they won't believe you. Or they will believe you but will be so pissed at the way the world works that they will act as if they don't. However you like to parse these things.

    Plus, it won't even be true. If you take away the punishment for racial discrimination, people will go right back to doing it. They will do it because it makes sense to do it. Because statistical discrimination is a good idea. Because it works. But the side effect of statistical discrimination is that part of D'Shawon's failure will, in fact, be down to the discrimination.

    You can have slavery. You can have Jim Crow. You can have separatism. You can't have an integrated, libertarianish society. Won't work. I don't think our current affirmative action setup is going to work long-term, either. It especially won't work with whites in a minority. But no purpose that I can see is served by pretending that we're going to replace it with some obviously unworkable alternative.

    Nor is a welfare state the answer. You still have to explain why it is that 10% of whites and 50% of blacks (or whatever the figures turn out to be) are on the dole. "So sorry, you have crappy genes" is still not going to cut it as an answer---it's a bad answer especially because it is true.
  96. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Now, of course, there’s always been a paranoid fringe in our politics, a lot of arising from racial resentment. But it’s never had the nominee of a major party stoking it, encouraging it, and giving it a national megaphone, until now. – Hillary

    Sooooo….. this means that when you called every other GOP nominee a “racist”, for the last 4 decades, you were lying and you knew it? What an admission. In a just world this would be headline news.

  97. @Pat Casey
    LOL. But speaking of a possible wrong impression of the alt-right, I would like to say, for the historical record's sake if nothing else, that Richard Spenser has too much ambition for his britches, is a totally defective leader of any ideological movement, and does not understand the way the United States deals with devotees of "movements" that say off the bat, "We are dangerous"---the understanding there being because that's the choice chosen, what you are aiming to be. That was a really stupid thing to say when he said it on an online video he posted shortly after starting alternative right dot com. Not because Richard Spencer is truly dangerous, except insofar as he can influence impressionable people to take that kind of jejune rhetorical bravery to heart, and see what logical conclusions can be drawn with that heady spirit. I wrote five or six pieces for him when I was a junior in college and a few of them were about the rediculous idea of initiating a very deliberate project of racial separatism that I called tribal localism. Tellingly, this supposedly brave idea of my irresponsibly idealistic mind paralleled Richard Spencer's personal life in real ways. I take it he's the kind of guy who does not move away in good standing by the community's consensus. For a very dumb reason he couldn't believe he once called Arlington, VA home, something about its dumb consumerism conformities--- he didn't respect the norm of dress when it comes to brown flip-flops as I recall. Then, according to what I read in some takimag comments, he was in NYC out and about calling himself a White Nationalist, at like bars I guess and stuff. That, we can be sure, didn't make him any friends in the big bagel, and his next home I believe was the wilderness, Montana, where I recall he said he was very happy, in sort of a fatalistic way considering he was not allowed to travel into Canada where he was wanting to be. And this is my point, he would share these adventures with readers and laugh them off, and that is the truly anti-social reaction to imperfectly getting along just as he did. That stuffs not funny, and Richard Spencer is just not smooth enough to laugh it off like the most interesting man in the world. He was learning in his thirties how to alienate yourself with a braggadocio that has no inherent virtue about it at all, it's a bunch of fuckin opinions, especially when you even admit that you can only scribble--though I understand he's dyslexic. But basically the point I would like to hammer home is that Richard Spencer is just a rich kid who thinks he can found an ideology on the fly and get away with it like he's not a fraud; that was obvious when one day he decided what the alternative right is really about is actually an aesthetic philosophy; anyways I think the only thing we can say about Richard Spencer's aesthetics is that his favorite color is black. I don't know if its worse to lose your social standing when your in college or when you're in your thirties; I just know mine never recovered, and I'm pretty positive I had more close friends than Richard Spencer ever did. Point being, this stuff about "dangerous" ideological movements that invent vile epithets, its not a game folks, at least it wasn't for me with my record, not in this country or technological day and age. I'll just say thank God for the sanity of Steve Sailer, which pretty much saved my mind from the unfun fever swamps for sure. That and the good guardian angels I know I got.

    Spencer seems to have been fairly effective at starting something. He’s been more successful at giving air to dissident (but true) ideas than any number of other young intellectuals who have gone to man the megaphone at NRO (an appropriately, taseteful and and conservatively down-sized megaphone, mind you). He’s been more effective at standing up for something that might actually be called “conservative” than, for example, Matthew Continetti.

    • Replies: @Pat Casey
    Anything worth doing is worth doing badly I suppose. But I don't think he's published anything worth a tuppenpence halfpenny. What do we have up top: "Being a Machiavellian myself, here’s my best guess at [Clinton's] chain of reasoning." That's great, just perfect. Being a criminal myself.... What it is, for me, myself, finally, it's a gut instinct. I think Richard Spencer likes the color black too much. I think he'd be leaning out of an alley in a trenchcoat going psssst to some promising looking white kid if he was anything else.
  98. When the Bills said M.J. Sobran was banned, conservatives let Joe go off and die in poverty.

    Ouch. That one hits close to home. We had to shuffle him around; he always had a roof. I don’t know if I’ll ever forgive mom completely for making him move out of the basement, but, well, I’ll just make you read the story Steve.

    Getting to Know Joe
    By Patrick Casey

    When I started to read for the sake of enjoying good writing, my father gave me a book, an anthology of essays, and said, “I’d give my right arm to write like him.” I’ll never forget that, because I’ll never forget enjoying for the first time the perfectly brilliant word-joinery of a literary master. The book was titled Single Issues—two hundred pages of social commentary—and it’s a real rarity to find these days, even on Amazon. My copy, the one dad gave me, is worn and tattered, but most of all it is treasured. I got to get it signed by the author, a man whom, I’m proud to say, became my friend. His name was Joe Sobran.
    *
    When Robert Taft died in 1953, his death seemed to mark the end of a political opinion, one which his allies dated back to Jefferson. The fact that that opinion had come to be called “conservatism” is enough to let one know it was considered a dying idea anyways. Taft had called The New Deal, “a revolution within the form”—and that seemed to encapsulate the program’s stability. No one was asked to do more than pay a little more in taxes, and the ones who didn’t even have to do that were just given jobs doing what Roosevelt thought ought to be done. And yet, suddenly the State had transmogrified, and no one in Congress shouted louder about it than Robert Taft. With him gone, America seemed to have simply moved on.
    Then, an urbane firebrand, unlike anything America had ever quite had before, appeared on the scene, just as television was changing the media landscape. When William F. Buckley Jr founded National Review in 1955, a conformism of political opinion in style as much as substance in that middle decade was given a jolt, rather electrified. As George Will said, “For conservatives, happy days were here again.” Suddenly, the Right had a voice that could not be called dumb or styled retrograde. Around National Review, Buckley formed a phalanx of intellectuals that grew into a movement, which began setting the agenda for the Republican Party when it gave Barry Goldwater the momentum he needed to win the nomination in 1964. Aside from making a guy named Reagan relevant, Buckley introduced Kissinger to Nixon, hosted the longest running public affairs show in TV history, wrote a thrice weekly syndicated column and over fifty books, all the while editing National Review for forty years. He is arguably the most consequential opinion journalist in American history. And in 1972, he discovered Joe Sobran.
    *
    Joe was an old friend of my father’s when I met him in 2006, and for about the next three years I hung pretty close to his side. It was an incredibly lucky relationship, more than a privilege really; and that isn’t modest speaking—it’s conscience: I owe a debt to the man.
    There is no evidence that he ever wrote an inelegant sentence in his life, and the first thing a person would say about Joe after meeting him was that he never spoke one either. In an era when our discourse is mostly sound bytes of stuttering platitudes, Joe’s spoken eloquence may have been his most impressive quality. A man who worked next to the likes of Bill Buckley and James Burnham wrote in a history of the modern conservative movement that the finest conversationalist he had ever known was Joe Sobran. When Joe died, all who wrote personal remembrances of him basically restated that point. The National Review editorial on Joe’s death aptly compared his talent in this regard to Milton’s, whose blindness made writing a matter of dictating.
    Most of us hope to speak half as well as we write, and when you’re nineteen sitting next to an idol, well, I could only hope to speak in complete sentences at all. To say the least, I was shaky the first time I met Joe. So mostly I just listened. And that night Joe wanted to talk about baseball. His favorite player was Sandy Koufax: “Short, but peerless. He had to quit pitching at age 30 in 1966, his arm destroyed by its own cruel power, and I never really followed major-league baseball after that.” And Ted Williams? “He began his autobiography by saying that when he was a kid, his only ambition was to have people say, as he walked down the street, “There goes the greatest hitter who ever lived.” My own autobiography could start the same way. It would end a little differently, though.”
    Soon after that first evening, we took Joe to a Nationals game, the first time he’d been to a baseball stadium in years. We also took along a friend of my father’s from England, to whom Joe jested, “You should stay long enough to learn our language—it’s often mistaken for English.” The Englishman’s estimation of Joe was this: “I’ve never met someone who speaks in sentences you would only expect to read.” He brought to the game some fancy camera you can’t buy in England, and snapped a picture of Joe sitting in the stands, and he looks so perfectly himself in it that it’s hard to describe. Others have called his an “impish grin,” but in this picture it is softer than that, and endearing to the point of being poignant. I look at it and see an innocent old man with secret wisdom, but I suppose I’m biased.
    *
    Bill Buckley recalled detecting “singular powers” the first time he read something by Joe, and Pat Buchanan called him “the greatest columnist of our generation.” Hugh Kenner, the preeminent critic of literary modernism, was a contributing editor at National Review when Joe came aboard, and they became fast friends. I’ve always liked Kenner’s compliment of Joe’s writing the best: “The product of a mind in exemplary action.” It makes sense that a surveyor of literature should peg Joe so perfectly, because Joe was only accidentally a political commentator; his true passion, from start to finish, was Shakespeare.
    He liked to quote Kenner’s maxim that we are always blind to the styles of our time, but because his mind was most alive when he was thrilling to Shakespeare, you might say that Joe’s mind belonged more to Shakespeare’s age than our own, and it was this that gave his writing on other topics its unique tone: bemused where others were angry; intimate yet detached and never self-righteous. Like a time-traveler who finds the future a bizarre tragic-comedy, Joe could see the styles of our time.
    *
    To know Joe was to love him, partly because to know him was to entirely understand him, which is to say, if you ever made it into his house, you immediately understood him—and felt for him. There was always, according to my dad, a touch of dysfunction in his psyche, which was only amplified with age. Not too long after I met Joe, he was evicted from the townhouse he’d been living in for a decade, as it had come to resemble the home of a hoarder who lives on books, and who never bothered to clean up the milk he spilled a decade ago. Of course, he was not insane, not even a real hoarder. His life, like his writing, contained no a hint of artifice. He was an exemplar of the dysfunctional genius: Beethoven’s home looked the same.
    Anyways, that’s how Joe came to live with me and my family. He had no place else to go at that point, and I lobbied my mom hard. Up until then, Joe had been my dad’s friend whom I tried to tag along with; living with him made him my friend. He would sit on the front porch pretty much all day—the sedentary sage—accumulating a mess of newspapers and magazines and books around him. He would chain smoke cheap cigars. And I would sit with him, and we would talk about everything under the sun. Dad always said that Joe needed a Boswell, and I regret that I lacked the confidence at the time to make a project out of our relationship. I should have been writing his talk down, because when the rivers of his mind were really flowing, Joe was just peerless.
    At that time, he was writing a commentary on some of Shakespeare for a publisher who, for reasons I’ll get to, didn’t want Joe’s name attached to it. While he was writing them, my father and I attended with Joe a Kennedy Center production of Titus Andronicus, and this story is worth telling: I was in line with Joe at the gift shop before the show behind a man buying a book of the play. Joe was never more comfortable than amidst the company perfect strangers, and he said to the man ahead of us that he would have recited the play to him for free. Now, you have to understand what a eulogizer of Joe’s called the “childlike innocence” in his desire to please other people to see that he was not in such instances being an annoying braggart. The stranger shrugged with an incredulous smile and said something polite to Joe that I can’t now remember.
    Another point to bear in mind about Joe, and which will help you appreciate the strangeness of the situation from the stranger’s perspective, is that he usually wore pieces of a sort of otherworldly wardrobe out in public. He had this bright purple pair of glasses—the color helped him keep track of them—that he would wear, say, to the drugstore or out to the theater. His shirt and pants were primarily something comfortable and sometimes colorful. His beard was spotty and his shoes were usually slippers.
    To look at him you might find such exquisite uniqueness off-putting, until, of course, Joe spoke to you. Then you would recognize that the man matched the clothes in a profound way; that his mind was as otherworldly as his wardrobe. So imagine what the stranger of this story thought when this odd-looking and oddly personable man wound up sitting behind him, where Joe softly recited the entire play.
    *
    By the mid 80s, with conservatism officially ascendant under Reagan, Joe had become the most popular writer for National Review, and had one of the most widely syndicated columns in the country, as well as a weekly program on CBS radio. And he wasn’t typically popular either, as he had engendered an incredibly loyal, even tribal I would say, base of conservative Catholic readers. All this is just to say that in the world of opinion journalism, Joe Sobran was a force to be reckoned with. So, in 1986, when Joe began criticizing Israel and America’s relationship with the Jewish State, his stature was such that he couldn’t just be shoved down the memory-hole or simply ignored.
    What ensued was a particularly nasty campaign of character assassination against Joe carried out by Jewish intellectuals who had lately become an influential faction in the conservative movement. The controversy intermittently persisted for five years, then reached a boiling point in the run-up to the first Gulf War, which Joe said he hated with a “murderous fury,” and spared no expense in attacking Israel’s role in bringing it about. The debate was so pivotal that Bill Buckley felt the need to write an entire book about it, In Search of Anti-Semitism, where he examined at painstaking lengths the opinions of Joe and Pat Buchanan, with less sympathy than either probably deserved.
    Suffice to say, all the while Joe refused to lie down, and eventually had a very public falling out with Buckley. He was fired from National Review, lost his syndicated column and his radio show, and became a pariah.
    *
    I knew all about Joe’s troubles before I met him, and because I agreed with his opinions and disagreed with the way his career was devastated due to them, I admired him even more. He had the courage of his convictions. Losing your job is one thing, being blackballed from that industry another, but losing your friends is the worst thing of all. Given his functional limitations, Joe’s life was kind of in shambles when I met him. I couldn’t help but profoundly feel that I needed to do whatever I could to help him. So after he lived with us for a time, I moved him into another place, and then another, and then another, and I think there was one more after that.
    For almost three years I was his chauffeur, his assistant, his at-large caregiver. His health was failing and he needed the help. My efforts were supplemented by donations from magnanimous men you can read around the web, like Pat Buchanan, Taki Theodorocopulous, and Lew Rockwell. Still, his income was precarious. Even then, long after he’d been beaten, he remained at the mercy of Jewish activists hell-bent on preventing him from speaking in public for a fee, hounding any one who dared invite him to do so with determined threats. The only thing worse in journalism than being associated with an anti-Semite is being labeled one yourself. As Joe said, “These days an anti-Semite is less likely to be someone who hates Jews than someone who is hated by Jews.”
    More than once, he said to me that he had no regrets, and even though the sentiment came from the wilderness while living in poverty, I actually had to believe him. He never lost his sense of humor: “Being a full-time Jew-hater is hard work, much too hard for me”; “I’m not anti-Semitic, but I admit that I’m anti-semantic”; “I said when Barry Bonds breaks the home-run record I was going to send him a racist letter even worse than the one I sent Aaron forty years ago.” That last one was pure Joe, but you had to really know him to appreciate how funny it was: “The idea of someone sitting down and writing such a letter, and then actually walking it to the mailbox…”—and the notion then drowned in his own deep laughter.
    But truth be told, by the time I had to go away to college in Williamsburg, I wasn’t entirely unhappy to leave Joe behind. It had become obvious that his troubles were worse than they needed to be, due to bad habits aside from a dysfunction. Looking after him had taken a toll on me. We talked over the phone, and slowly lost touch. I heard toward the end that he finally wound up exactly where he belonged, teaching Shakespeare at a tiny, uniquely conservative Catholic school called Christendom College in Front Royal, Va.
    Then, in late September, 2010, I got a call from dad: “You need to come home, Joe is dying.” He was laid up in a hospice—complications from diabetes—and when I entered the place I was shocked and appalled to see nodding seniors literally lining the walls of the hallway in wheelchairs. This is how poor people die, I thought to myself. My father and I met Joe’s dogged long-time publisher Fran Griffin in Joe’s room, clutching a rosary. Joe was conscious but could neither open his eyes nor speak. The greatest conversationalist in the country had lost his voice. And I was back where I was the first time we met, unable to summon the right words. My tears were too heavy. I wanted to tell him how sorry I was for losing touch, for not being able to do more. Most of all I wanted to thank him for being my friend. Fran sat bedside with me and we prayed the rosary. Afterward, I just squeezed Joe’s hand for what must have been an hour, crying. He passed the next day.
    *
    The great political philosopher Paul Gottfried wrote a remembrance of Joe, in which he called him a hero. The much-lauded Presidential speech writer Matthew Scully called him our era’s master of plain-English prose. The always eloquent Jared Taylor doubted he would ever meet a man of such gifts again. And National Review compared him to Milton. And to think I knew this man as my friend…what can I say? Only that I’ll never forget him.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    That was beautiful. It's a shame what happened to him and that the low men that deprived your country of his talent never received their comeuppance.

    I have not yet read much by him. His more famous article on what happened to him and the one on the alienist and the nativist tendencies in society.

    , @Desiderius
    Pat,

    Thanks for that. Testament to your own character as well as Joe's.

    There is indeed a great deal of ruin in a country. It consists of such travesties/tragedies.
    , @SFG
    That was a very sad story, and beautiful in a sad way. I wish I could have met him.

    Hopefully he's up there with the angels.

    , @Rurik
    wow

    thank you for that

    I remember when I first started to glimmer the workings of our society, and the intrigues and so forth so long ago. Finding out who owned and controlled the media and the big banks, and so forth. And how this state of affairs had existed for since before the first world war, the revelation of the scheming behind the Balfour Declaration, 'we Jews will use our control of the American newspapers to bring the US into the war on the side of England if England will give us Palestine after they win the war'

    It wasn't so much the treachery vis-a-vis the war, but that 'the Jews' had achieved this power, and could use it on a whim and were like a monolithic group, all falling in line once it had been decided "what's good for the Jews".

    that was a tough pill to swallow, but swallow it I did, the alternative being a cowardly kind of zombie existence, living in perpetual, craven dishonesty.

    but as this harsh truth made sense of things, I was able to perceive the workings of what otherwise seemed so incomprehensible. Anyways...

    then I took an interest in what the "intellectuals" of "our" society were saying. I would listen with my antenna tweaking, and especially with regards to wars and the reasons for waging them.

    It didn't take long to see that Bill Buckley was a venal traitor to everything that he claimed he stood for. A Judas whore, who would shill and lie and smear honest men so that he could bolster his precious vanity and get on TV and blubber on about how smart he was.

    But smart or not, he was an execrable liar and a toady to the very forces of evil that were sending the sons of conservative America to die in contrived wars- to benefit those young men's worst and most intractable enemies. Just as they did in the world wars.

    Joe was trying to say the emperor wore no clothes, but Buckley was not going to allow anyone telling the truth- if it might mean he wouldn't be on TV and hailed by the PTB as some kind of pompous 'intellectual'. It was a contest between two reasonably intelligent men, but it didn't have much to do with intelligence, so much as with character. Joe had the character of a man who would not sell his soul to the devil. Buckley didn't just sell his soul, he set about destroying the very man who wouldn't. It was, for me, a theater of raw good vs. evil as man has ever known.

    Kind of like that movie, A Man For All Seasons, where you had the one guy who wouldn't sell out his convictions on pain of his very life, vs. the other guy, Richard Rich, who would not only sell his soul, but would also betray and lie and smear and condemn the honest man, out of sheer ambition/vanity. That was Buckley (rot in hell)

    I was sad to read that Joe, died in obscurity. God bless him (RIP)
  99. @Calogero
    Dems talk about the Ku Klux Klan like it still has the numbers it had in the 1920s. Really, are there more than a thousand of them in the whole country?

    “Dems talk about the Ku Klux Klan like it still has the numbers it had in the 1920s. Really, are there more than a thousand of them in the whole country?”

    Probably not. And most of them are likely old diabetic men riding around on rascal scooters (Night Riders!). “The Klan” are today about as real a group as “The Carthaginians”.

  100. @Jason Liu
    Aren't we already ostracized? Although I do still find it amusing that Americans came up with a new word for, and speak of, nationalism like it was some strange phenomenon.

    ...believe in hierarchy.
     
    Nobody who thinks clearly, i.e. without the shackles of moralism, compassion, fear etc, could possibly believe anything else.

    I don’t think that he really meant hierarchy in the sense that the left still believes that armies should not have ranks, orchestras should not have conductors, etc. – that was abandoned by pretty much everyone a long time ago (especially since the left, once it gained power, became even MORE hierarchical than the right).

    Rather, he was trying to come up with a different word for “racist” and “sexist” since those words have pretty much been stripped of all meaning. So belief in “hierarchy” in his sense means opposition to the leftist meme that all humans have exactly same potential in every field of endeavor, or “anti-blank slatist”. You could say that there is a “hierarchy” of natural talent in sprinting, where West African Blacks stand at the top and Ashkenazi Jews rank near the bottom. Or, and this is where it gets dangerous, a hierarchy of talent in physics that runs the other way. Or a “sexual hierarchy” where men make better firefighters and masons than women due to upper body strength, etc. and women make better kindergarten teachers.

    Now the “hierarchical” view has the advantage of actually conforming with reality, but humans often prefer fantasy to reality. If we could only believe in things that had a basis in reality, where would this leave religion? Now you could say that basing your entire political system on a religious belief that doesn’t correspond with reality is a really bad idea, but our society is not the first time this has been tried.

  101. @Lagertha
    last post for a while as I am "low energy":). when I re-read the original conversation in Steve's post, it was a eureka moment!

    The Millennials, the ones specifically, born in '94- 2001, they are not buying the bs of the Democratic party. They are YUUUGELY angry at the liberals and republicans ruining their future (20 Trillion $ debt and all). They are sooooooo cynical, and want all Boomers and Gen X to just effin' die and go away - I know I have talked about them before on this forum. Or, if they take a cue from Iceland: fire all the banksters, that may work to pacify this Tsunami of youngsters who will force all of us Boomers and Gen X to retire and retreat. Weird factoid: they don't care about money!!!!!? They are kinda' the ultimate Hippies that were spawned 2 generations later!

    They are very attracted to Alt-right (still, to me, like a bar in NYC like King Tut's!) because the last 2 parties they grew up hearing about through their parents, had just made things get worse. All they have heard since they were babies is: 9/11, Islam, Immigrants, Austerity, Wall Street graft and meltdown/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Egypt/Iran/Iraq...the whole middle east/ Mexicans, many lone children, coming from wherever from S.A./USA starting "War Games" (Millennials top 5 movie) with Russia...China, whatever/ fracking/floods & droughts/Katrina-Global Climate Change/Animals dying by poaching and over-fishing (never underestimate Millennials love of wildlife; never), and all the BLM stirred-pot/after the fact riots in cities.

    There are sooo many smart kids who see the world in Darwinian terms now. This is a fact. The upshot is: it's a diverse group of Millennials. But, they eschew money...listen to the songs of the artists they love.

    “I wanna be a billionaire so freakin’ bad…” was the hook from their summer anthem a couple years ago

  102. @Anonymous
    Too bad Trump doesn't have serious reframing skills like Ron Paul.

    Every time the witch Rodham opens her mouth it's a great reframing opportunity.

    Bad news that Trump doesn't point the KKK types to their natural home which is Democrat. Why doesn't he slay La Raza as a brown Nazi movement in suits?

    Bad news that Trump is using the absurd "11 million" number on the immigration issue. That's a crap statistic that the left has used for ten years!

    Trump is kinda weak. He misses layups every damn day.

    Yeah, but as they say, “you go to war with the army you have.”

    Hopefully the Breitbart guy can help.

  103. @The Alarmist

    "I believe in free speech but within the limits of reasonableness."
     
    Sounds like controlled speech (and thought) to me.

    Alarmist, MEH;
    Tiny Duck is an absurdist who posts here frequently; his schtick is doing a parody of the craziest, most brain-dead leftists and Blacks. Notice he uses a self-insulting handle that sounds like Tiny Dick. He could have used a handle like “Brain Dod” instead. We aren’t expected to actually respond, we’re supposed to shake our heads ruefully , chuckle and say to ourselves, “yep, and there are real people, who actually think stuff almost as stupid”. It probably amuses him when he “gets” a new sucker to take it seriously and respond.
    He sometimes gives his game away by going too far over the top, but actually makes a good point. When any activity becomes indistinguishable from a parody of itself, then it is doomed. Many years ago I saw an old comedic ballet troupe, Ballet Trocaderos, doing a parody of Martha Graham modern dance, and it was quite funny but, I realized it was absolutely indistinguishable from a real Modern Dance routine except that the dancers were men in drag. Modern Dance basically died away about the same time.

  104. Good job, Steve.

    Every ten months or so, you need to pick up some small crappy little neocon and throw him against the wall, just to show the world you mean business.

  105. @Maj. Kong
    You are making the "Dems are the real racist" argument. It doesn't work.

    To really turn it on their heads, you must say "The Democrats are anti-white". The leftist must either respond that indeed they are anti-white, or that they are really pro-white. The first is a crippling statement, the latter is patently false.

    I agree that the “Dems are the real racists” won’t work. There are some good comments on Radix.com about alternative rhetorical strategies that seem more effective (be warned there are also idiotic comments as well).

    There is African-American identity and Asian-American identity. What we are seeking is equal protection for European-American identity.

    “The Alt Right – Coming Home” by ramzpaul is also excellent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPnZa1FHcN4

  106. @Lagertha
    Ok..I should go to sleep - "short circuiting any minute now" ;)

    hierarchies + intersectionality (WTF?!) < order. Simpler math: hierarchies + consensus= order. Consensus with leadership leading, keeps us from starvation.

    Diversity + Proximity = Hostility

    This has been shown across cultures and even with computer simulations.

  107. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “what if anything should we do to ameliorate the harsher conditions of the outcomes?”

    Exactly what is already being done: handouts.

    The bottom line is that a people who had not risen to a certain stage of civilization, dependent on selection pressures and technological momentum encountered only on the Eurasian landmass, were dragged into that stage by merchants. They cannot be brought up to speed for the simple fact that they have not been selected for the drives which eventuated in that civilization. They are absolute dead-weight by necessity.

    Natural selection obtains or it doesn’t. If one is “HBD-woke”, one should bear well in mind that different groups means different drives, impulses, instincts, or whatever you wish to call it, from which a certain threshold of society proceeds given local conditions. The error isn’t Democratic policies; it’s assuming that there is a solution at all to the Völkerchaos other than waiting for it to collapse from the weight of its own unprecedented squandering of resources.

    Note: I am not a fetishist of Western civilization. I believe it is absolutely doomed, obviously, and am much more at home among “lower” stages of society mocked by white nationalists. A people still scraping by in straw huts in the middle of some huge national preserve have it much better than we do, in my opinion. But they’re doomed too, of course.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Note: I am not a fetishist of Western civilization. I believe it is absolutely doomed, obviously, and am much more at home among “lower” stages of society mocked by white nationalists. A people still scraping by in straw huts in the middle of some huge national preserve have it much better than we do, in my opinion.
     
    Mocked by white nationalists? White nationalists have been looking forward to the collapse of Western civilization since the early 1990's. Read some Bowery or "Yggdrasil".
  108. @Lot

    Steve, you really need to write a full length book.

     

    He did.

    http://www.lulu.com/shop/steve-sailer/americas-half-blood-prince-barack-obamas-story-of-race-and-inheritance/paperback/product-4054093.html

    PS That link was hard to find! There are a lot of dead links to the old vdare book landing page that no longer exists.

    How about one on HBD and politics for intelligent but unaware individuals?

  109. @Broski
    So Coulter's retweeted Steve twice in the past few hours. Steve, you really need to write a full length book.

    I would certainly like a Steve book in which he puts a number of his favorite themes and observations together in one place. It would be a great resource. However, it’s very difficult to make any money from a book unless you have the opportunity to be on TV a lot flogging it, like Ann Coulter, or on the radio like Rush Limbaugh. Even then, there’s no guarantee. Every time Alan Colmes appears on Fox, they mention he’s the author of Thank the Liberals for Saving America. It’s Amazon sales rank is #382,295, which is pretty bad. I have several books that rank higher on Amazon and I’m not even on TV and radio like Mr. Colmes. He can’t be making much money of his.

  110. @Calogero
    Dems talk about the Ku Klux Klan like it still has the numbers it had in the 1920s. Really, are there more than a thousand of them in the whole country?

    Counting or not counting the majority that are FBI agents?

    • Replies: @Njguy73
    There are only two types of people in the Ku Klux Klan: gas station attendants and FBI informants.

    How do you tell them apart?

    The informants pay their dues.

    http://oldbulllee.com/informant.htm
  111. @Pat Casey
    LOL. But speaking of a possible wrong impression of the alt-right, I would like to say, for the historical record's sake if nothing else, that Richard Spenser has too much ambition for his britches, is a totally defective leader of any ideological movement, and does not understand the way the United States deals with devotees of "movements" that say off the bat, "We are dangerous"---the understanding there being because that's the choice chosen, what you are aiming to be. That was a really stupid thing to say when he said it on an online video he posted shortly after starting alternative right dot com. Not because Richard Spencer is truly dangerous, except insofar as he can influence impressionable people to take that kind of jejune rhetorical bravery to heart, and see what logical conclusions can be drawn with that heady spirit. I wrote five or six pieces for him when I was a junior in college and a few of them were about the rediculous idea of initiating a very deliberate project of racial separatism that I called tribal localism. Tellingly, this supposedly brave idea of my irresponsibly idealistic mind paralleled Richard Spencer's personal life in real ways. I take it he's the kind of guy who does not move away in good standing by the community's consensus. For a very dumb reason he couldn't believe he once called Arlington, VA home, something about its dumb consumerism conformities--- he didn't respect the norm of dress when it comes to brown flip-flops as I recall. Then, according to what I read in some takimag comments, he was in NYC out and about calling himself a White Nationalist, at like bars I guess and stuff. That, we can be sure, didn't make him any friends in the big bagel, and his next home I believe was the wilderness, Montana, where I recall he said he was very happy, in sort of a fatalistic way considering he was not allowed to travel into Canada where he was wanting to be. And this is my point, he would share these adventures with readers and laugh them off, and that is the truly anti-social reaction to imperfectly getting along just as he did. That stuffs not funny, and Richard Spencer is just not smooth enough to laugh it off like the most interesting man in the world. He was learning in his thirties how to alienate yourself with a braggadocio that has no inherent virtue about it at all, it's a bunch of fuckin opinions, especially when you even admit that you can only scribble--though I understand he's dyslexic. But basically the point I would like to hammer home is that Richard Spencer is just a rich kid who thinks he can found an ideology on the fly and get away with it like he's not a fraud; that was obvious when one day he decided what the alternative right is really about is actually an aesthetic philosophy; anyways I think the only thing we can say about Richard Spencer's aesthetics is that his favorite color is black. I don't know if its worse to lose your social standing when your in college or when you're in your thirties; I just know mine never recovered, and I'm pretty positive I had more close friends than Richard Spencer ever did. Point being, this stuff about "dangerous" ideological movements that invent vile epithets, its not a game folks, at least it wasn't for me with my record, not in this country or technological day and age. I'll just say thank God for the sanity of Steve Sailer, which pretty much saved my mind from the unfun fever swamps for sure. That and the good guardian angels I know I got.

    I can’t speak to the history of Richard Spencer, but he is much more articular and philosophically grounded than any other person I’ve read on the Alt Right (excluding Steve).

    I enjoy reading/watching many of the articles on his website Radix.com.

    Let’s cut him some slack… the guy has guts – he’s been banned in over a dozen countries for publicly speaking out for the Alt Right. I wish there were more people on the Alt Right like him.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "I can’t speak to the history of Richard Spencer, but he is much more articular and philosophically grounded than any other person I’ve read on the Alt Right (excluding Steve)."

    I have never noticed Steve to be particularly philosophical. His approach is much more empirical, in the anglo-saxon tradition. Spencer is more of a continental-style intellectual, grounded in, and more comfortable with, theory. I think Spencer has done some good. And I think that Steve has done a lot of good, sticking up for facts and knowledge, and all that old fashioned stuff.

  112. @Tiny Duck
    You are an idiot. What I said was not hateful

    Tiny Duck was being sarcastic (or he’s an idiot).

  113. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Gee, Sailer… Bitter much? The post really captures the gritty lived-in resentment of feuding with disposable intellectuals for 30 years; change the title to “For Your Consideration: Citizenist Agonistes”

    I think Matthew Continental’s answer was blander than Weigel’s and frankly almost too boring to remember, but he is clearly conflating Moldbug/neo-Baudelairianism with the entire anti-P.C. otherright. This makes sense because he is a pretentious twaught who gravitates to finespun purpley prose about profound Shi’ite. Weird that he places MRA so hiegh in the hierarchy but perhaps he is simply Galahading it for the TV camera.

    There are hierarchies in Conservatism Inc as well– Beltway-Jewish cons are not at the top either. But they have grown to feel proprietary about their club they’ve worked hard to dominate by quasi-hostile takeover. This attitude is revealed by their op-ed reactions all year. They think of “conservatism” as something they own & get to rent out to various franchises.

  114. Oh but on a lighter note this post’s dose of Sailer Sarcasm did get me in stitches like I haven’t been since I was a drunken scroller. And there is nothing wrong in preserving with the hard wallops on a regular basis when it comes to JPod. Joe Sobran could be jarring but he would never really get acerbic, and I think the meanest thing he ever said about a person was when he remarked that John Podhoretz looks like a combination of Midge Decter and Norman Podhoretz. I thought that was hysterical.

  115. There’s been a lot of NR and Buckley bashing in this article, and the comments.
    Sure he set him self up as a mini pope and tried to read the birchers out of the movement in the 50′s and as Steve noted, denounced PB for running for the money of the reform party nom., but it is hard to unequivocally say that the man who said he would rather be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston phone book than the Harvard faculty was unfamiliar with populism.

    The problem the literate have with Trump is that he is all talk and no thought, it is one thing to come to a populist position from either observation or theory, but trump seems to have neither, just the salesman’s eye for a under-served market and little understanding of the issues that lead Steve or so many others to their current positions.

  116. @Lot
    I knew Weigel a bit when we were both teenagers. I liked him, he's smart and honest in a friendly aspie-awkward way. It does not surprise me he's basically the only MSM journalist who is willing to give an honest, non-shrieking description of the alt-right. How many others have even bothered once to note our opposition to all the Bush/Clinton/Obama stupid foreign wars?

    I am also not surprised that the sewer-brained Udolpho and his site decided to make a thread attacking him.

    I wonder what Weigel’s on-line handle is. His using “Invade the World, Invite the World,” marks him as a likely reader here, and as a pundit he would have a hard time keeping from commenting.

  117. @27 year old
    >Most goods are pretty cheap today, due to trade with China / automation, but at the same time, across most of the Anglosphere, property ownership and mortgages are ultra expensive and out of reach.

    >So you have this generation (Generation Rent aka The Millennials) that is actually still quite materialistic (though less hedonistic), but doesn’t really strive too much for money both because their lifestyle goods are pretty cheap and they also see no point in striving for a bigger income because it’s not going to help very much at getting that house.

    Yes.

    For the "aging millennial" set like myself, I would simplify to: money can't buy what we really want - life with dignity in a nice white community - so what good is it?

    Also, we've (re?)learned the fact that money is just one aspect of status, and have so sought out other ways to compete for status (social media followers, notch count, hipster-ism, etc).

    >the ones who are interested in getting ahead end up valuing personal connections, charm and bullshitting to get ahead, and are much more cynical about the power of qualifications and hard work.

    Many people who get ahead are cynical, but many seem to genuinely believe they came out on top in a meritocratic system. One thing is for sure, the people who are -not- getting ahead, are extremely cynical about the power of hard work relative to connections/bullshitting.

    One thing is for sure, the people who are -not- getting ahead, are extremely cynical about the power of hard work relative to connections/bullshitting.

    That’s because they are correct.

  118. @dr kill
    Is that true?

    Yes. A friend of mine recently told me the Clinton Foundation is registered in Canada! – I was shocked! You can look it up – I did. He explained to me that “what do you expect from 2 lawyers? It keeps vital info out of U.S. hands.”

  119. @Lot
    I knew Weigel a bit when we were both teenagers. I liked him, he's smart and honest in a friendly aspie-awkward way. It does not surprise me he's basically the only MSM journalist who is willing to give an honest, non-shrieking description of the alt-right. How many others have even bothered once to note our opposition to all the Bush/Clinton/Obama stupid foreign wars?

    I am also not surprised that the sewer-brained Udolpho and his site decided to make a thread attacking him.

    Agree. I like David, too, and hated what they did to him. Seems evil. Miss the old Udolpho, but only check out MPC (it’s hilarious) about twice a year cause he’s just gotten too mean in his older age.
    I know he’d say “bullycide” is legit and effective. I don’t know.

  120. Well, it’s a fairly young movement with fairly old ideas.

    Of course, some of the basic themes of the alt-right or alt-* (though henceforth I’ll just use “alt-right” as the generic) movement have been kicked around, and to a good degree implemented, in previous decades and eras. Nationalism in many forms has flourished in the past, which presents many potential models.

    But in fact the basic ideas of the alt-right have just begun to be worked through at this stage. There are indeed a great many incompatible approaches that have already been floated.

    Among the approaches:

    –Citizenism, as suggested by Steve

    –Rejection of a “proposition nation” in favor of a nation built upon a specific culture

    –Some form of “white nationalism” which recognizes the interests of whites as being appropriate to organize around and identify with

    Even a moment’s reflection on these different approaches suggests vastly different principles and policies as outcomes.

    Personally, I like the idea of citizenism. It has the most clarity, is minimally disruptive, seems most fair to all, and deals most directly with the facts on the ground in any given nation: if you’re a citizen, we all have to deal with you, and you have to deal with all of us.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Beyond the points I've already mentioned lies the issue of alt-right vs. alt-center vs alt-left itself.

    What are the proper commitments of a government and its people to the needs of the people in terms of social safety-net? Again, personally, I think that the more a government is devoted to its own citizenry, the stronger should be its commitment to the safety-net. I think that strict individualism and standard libertarianism is not really compatible with a strong focus on the goals and well being of the people of a nation.

    , @Steve Sailer
    "Personally, I like the idea of citizenism."

    You can see how it's swept all before it in the intellectual marketplace.

    Oh, wait, nobody has heard of it...
    , @Corvinus
    "Among the approaches:

    –Citizenism, as suggested by Steve

    –Rejection of a “proposition nation” in favor of a nation built upon a specific culture

    –Some form of “white nationalism” which recognizes the interests of whites as being appropriate to organize around and identify with"


    You must be a Vox Day acolyte**. Specific Europeans, most notably the Germans, the Irish, the Italians, and the Polish, according to him, lack the ability to comprehend and put into practice Anglo-Saxon ideals. Yet, those same people whose ancestors had been deemed "unfit" for American inclusion by nativists in the 1850's and 1890's claim to possess the inherent qualities required to perpetuate Western Civilization. Nativists held those groups in contempt for "alien ways of life", yet by the power of magic dirt, those groups have transformed themselves into one of the natives. The stench is indeed unbearable.

    **The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America contains an extremely important phrase that is almost always ignored by those who appeal to it, or to the men who wrote it, in defense of immigration. It states:

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    The key phrase is this: “to ourselves and our posterity.” The blessings of liberty are not to be secured to all the nations of the world, to the tired and huddled masses, or to the wretched refuse of the teeming shores of other lands. They are to be secured to our children, and their children, and their children’s children.**

    Furthermore, he states, “It’s telling, is it not, how all of these foreigners and immigrants just happened to produce a new definition of American that included them, a definition that was not held by the Founding Fathers. Nor is it a coincidence that this self-serving definition was subsequently used to justify the largest invasion to have ever taken place in human history, an invasion that has severely weakened the once-mighty American nation.”

Your ancestors were part of that invasion.

    So he and his henchmen unilaterally create this "hierarchy", as well as the socio-sexual hierarchy. It's more like an exclusive club.

    "This farmer isn’t some obscurity who is only tangentially tied to a candidate, like, say, Rev. Jeremiah Wright happened to be Obama’s “spiritual adviser” for two decades. Nobody dared run ads in 2008 mentioning that Rev. Wright was the hero of a glowing chapter in Obama’s autobiography because that would have been McCarthyite guilt by association."

    You mean how the Alt-Right embraces Milo, a raging homosexual, and the "manosphere" as their mouthpieces, even though the Christian branch of the Alt-Right espouses homosexuality and sex outside of marriage as sinful? When have we heard them regularly condemn their lifestyles? Because "my ally".

    In the future "race war" and "break-up" of the United States, will Milo and Chateau Heartiste still be one of their pets, or will they be hung out to dry?

  121. @Tiny Duck
    It sounds like that to you because of your white privilege

    What’s the point of being white if you don’t have the privilege? Mighty white of me to admit it, no?

  122. @Anonym
    Who said we were nobodies and working class? We coulda been contenders! We coulda been somebody

    would just like to avoid being sent to “re-education camps,” by thought police.

  123. @candid_observer

    Well, it’s a fairly young movement with fairly old ideas.
     
    Of course, some of the basic themes of the alt-right or alt-* (though henceforth I'll just use "alt-right" as the generic) movement have been kicked around, and to a good degree implemented, in previous decades and eras. Nationalism in many forms has flourished in the past, which presents many potential models.

    But in fact the basic ideas of the alt-right have just begun to be worked through at this stage. There are indeed a great many incompatible approaches that have already been floated.

    Among the approaches:

    --Citizenism, as suggested by Steve

    --Rejection of a "proposition nation" in favor of a nation built upon a specific culture

    --Some form of "white nationalism" which recognizes the interests of whites as being appropriate to organize around and identify with

    Even a moment's reflection on these different approaches suggests vastly different principles and policies as outcomes.

    Personally, I like the idea of citizenism. It has the most clarity, is minimally disruptive, seems most fair to all, and deals most directly with the facts on the ground in any given nation: if you're a citizen, we all have to deal with you, and you have to deal with all of us.

    Beyond the points I’ve already mentioned lies the issue of alt-right vs. alt-center vs alt-left itself.

    What are the proper commitments of a government and its people to the needs of the people in terms of social safety-net? Again, personally, I think that the more a government is devoted to its own citizenry, the stronger should be its commitment to the safety-net. I think that strict individualism and standard libertarianism is not really compatible with a strong focus on the goals and well being of the people of a nation.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Having a safety net creates a "moral hazard" (this is the insurance term for the risk that you'll burn your own building down to collect the insurance). Scandinavia is an extreme example but we see the same thing in the US. Scandinavians are hard working but have an elaborate safety net so that you can stay home if you are injured, elderly, caring for a newborn, etc. Part of the social compact of the locals is "I will work hard and contribute my share whenever I can, but if I can't then the society will take care of me." This is exactly the kind of arrangement that you speak about in your post - society as in effect a giant extended family.



    Now you introduce into that society say Somalis, who have no Calvinist tradition of hard work or loyalty to anyone beside their immediate family. And for whom life on the dole in Stockholm is far richer than they could achieve working back home. The result is that they act as parasites on their host society. They are glad to be on the receiving end of the social compact but don't buy into the giving end at all. And this is even before you take into account that due to lower levels of skill, education, IQ, etc. they are in no position to contribute much even if they wanted to, which they don't.

    So this is how you end up with Merkel's Boner - she sees a million able bodied young men who will prop up the German social welfare system as it fills with the aged, but the reality is that these young men will take whatever they can get - free gropes on New Year's Eve, free everything, but contribute little.
  124. @Lot
    I knew Weigel a bit when we were both teenagers. I liked him, he's smart and honest in a friendly aspie-awkward way. It does not surprise me he's basically the only MSM journalist who is willing to give an honest, non-shrieking description of the alt-right. How many others have even bothered once to note our opposition to all the Bush/Clinton/Obama stupid foreign wars?

    I am also not surprised that the sewer-brained Udolpho and his site decided to make a thread attacking him.

    Who is Udolpho?

  125. @27 year old
    >Most goods are pretty cheap today, due to trade with China / automation, but at the same time, across most of the Anglosphere, property ownership and mortgages are ultra expensive and out of reach.

    >So you have this generation (Generation Rent aka The Millennials) that is actually still quite materialistic (though less hedonistic), but doesn’t really strive too much for money both because their lifestyle goods are pretty cheap and they also see no point in striving for a bigger income because it’s not going to help very much at getting that house.

    Yes.

    For the "aging millennial" set like myself, I would simplify to: money can't buy what we really want - life with dignity in a nice white community - so what good is it?

    Also, we've (re?)learned the fact that money is just one aspect of status, and have so sought out other ways to compete for status (social media followers, notch count, hipster-ism, etc).

    >the ones who are interested in getting ahead end up valuing personal connections, charm and bullshitting to get ahead, and are much more cynical about the power of qualifications and hard work.

    Many people who get ahead are cynical, but many seem to genuinely believe they came out on top in a meritocratic system. One thing is for sure, the people who are -not- getting ahead, are extremely cynical about the power of hard work relative to connections/bullshitting.

    >> Many people who get ahead are cynical, but many seem to genuinely believe they came out on top in a meritocratic system. One thing is for sure, the people who are -not- getting ahead, are extremely cynical about the power of hard work relative to connections/bullshitting.

    Probably. I’m thinking for successful people in the Millennial generation relatively (compared to their older successful peers).

  126. “To key off what Matt was saying, it wasn’t like they were part of the conservative conversation, the mainstream conversation anyway. They weren’t writing for National Review. They weren’t writing for The Weekly Standard.”

    That’s funny. So Tikkuun, Commentary, and the NY Review of Books must represent true “mainstream” conservatism as well.

  127. “To key off what Matt was saying, it wasn’t like they were part of the conservative conversation, the mainstream conversation anyway. They weren’t writing for National Review. They weren’t writing for The Weekly Standard.”

    Mistakenly funny. Might as well throw in Commentary, Tikkuun, and the NY Review of Books to round out “mainstream” conservatism.

  128. @Lot

    Don’t you remember journolist? Weigel viscerally loathes the right.
     
    Some reporters on journolist do hate the right. There is not indicated from his posts on it that Weigel shares those feelings. Maybe I missed some of them, but the one at the link seems to have all the other ones mentioned elsewhere on them. Here's what appears to be the "worst" of what he said:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/an_apology_to_my_readers.html

    I don't see a "loathing" of the right, but minor personal piques against Matt Drudge and someone working for Byron York's website.

    Weigel's a secular libertarian in the Cato Institute type, and Cato staff make up many of his friends and roommates. He says who he votes for, and that includes liberal local DC Republicans, Bob Barr, and Obama.

    My guess is, he is interested in honestly representing the alt-right inasmuch as he wants to shove it in Conservatism Inc’s face and say “see, you created this fascist movement, proto-fascists”
     
    If that were the case, he could just have done another "OMG ALT RIGHT RACISTS! TRUMP RETWEETED NEONAZIS!" article. Instead, he quoted Steve Sailer's favorite phrase to sell his own views.

    I liked his campaign reporting from 2008 and 2012, there really was no fairer MSM reporter covering Paul or the various fringe evangelical-favorites.

    My suggestion would be for you to research Weigels journalists posting a little more closely. Weigel actually comes across as one of the most unhinged of the posters prone to accusing anyone to the right of Pete Stupak as a ratfuc$r. I think MC is right that some of it might have been a social insecure nerd trying to show off for the more polished kids like Ezra Klein, but his posts show a real animus to conservatism and a penchant for screaming racist at anyone who criticized Obama.

    Additionally the libertarian claims Weigel made are completed belied by the fact that journalist postings by Weigel spent quite a bit of time actively tailoring his reporting and picking the targets of his reporting based on his vehement support for Obamacare which is one of the least “libertarian” policies possible (which isn’t to say libertarians are right).

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Boomstick
    I think that's right. Some of the Journolist writing was just displaying insecurity and a need to be accepted. That's a character fault, though not the worst in the world. He's internalized the standard establishment views on race, is a reliable water carrier for the Clintons, and is in no way or shape a Libertarian. Which I think are also rooted in his insecurity and need to be accepted. I have a hard time imagining him holding any belief that crosses the line too far from the conventional wisdom of his milieu. When his friends were Libertarians he was a Libertarian; when the people he hung out with were progressives he became a progressive. Put him into the Brietbart office and a year later he'd be a gay bodybuilder with an extravagant haircut, and hanging with Milo.
  129. @candid_observer
    And virtually the entire interview quoted here is point and sputter.

    There's absolutely no engagement with the ideas. They even quote Trump saying:


    The people of this country who want their laws enforced and respected, and respected by all, and who want their border secured, are not racists.

    If you want to have strong borders, so that people come into our country, but they come in legally through a legal process, that doesn’t make you a racist. It makes you smart. It makes you an American.
     

    These people are so limited intellectually that they can't see the importance of trying to rebut those ideas. Trump makes these points, clear as day, and they ignore them.

    What do these people think thinking is about? If what Trump says is so absurd that he can be dismissed as a fool, where's the refutation of what he's saying that's so obvious only a fool wouldn't see it?

    I detest these sorts of limited poseurs. Where's the elite in the elite? Shouldn't a capacity for rational argument be part of the package?

    These people don’t run debating societies. This is about the presidential election, which is about power and patronage. The left is fighting, not thinking, to hold onto the most powerful nation on earth. For Conservatism, Inc., it’s about holding onto their little, rightwing (barely) duchy. It’s about careers and prestige and money.

    It’s not a marketplace of ideas, and may the best man win. You need to get into the who/whom mindset, because that’s how everybody else thinks.

  130. @syonredux

    DAVID WEIGEL: Well, the light at the end of the tunnel for a lot of Republicans is, they don’t think they’re going to win the election. They think Trump will lose.
     
    In other words, they are embracing defeat. The American Vichy revealed.

    After reading this……stuff, I needed a restorative. From Anne Coulter’s new book, In Trump We Trust:

    Why shouldn’t Americans fight to preserve their culture? All of us have a place that we think of as home. . . . Other people are allowed to have a home.

    Of all the places in the history of the world, this is the culture that gleams and works the best. There’s a reason the Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution happened where they happened. And that the Declaration of Independence was written in a British colony. [.....] That’s why the socialist left finally gave up on traditional Americans and pinned their hopes on immigrants, who bring their socialism with them.

    Conservationists correctly point out that once a species is gone, it’s gone. There’s no getting it back. As Western Europe is discovering, the same is true of countries. If Trump loses, at least we’ll finally know: it was too late.

    It was as if all the Republican candidates got together and agreed to never use steroids. No one would be at a competitive disadvantage, because none of them would have popular positions. Then Trump came along and said, I don’t care, I’m taking steroids. That made him much better than all the other candidates. When he didn’t back down in the face of wall-to-wall hysteria, it showed his courage and toughness.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Another choice Coulter quote:

    “Liberals compulsively demand the importation of foreigners because of their seething hatred of the historic American nation. They won’t be happy until the DAR-eligible population is a tiny minority. Any culture that replaces American culture is an improvement, as far as they are concerned.”
     
  131. @DCThrowback
    Which is why Eric Holder's/Bill Clinton's FBI buried the Iraqi terrorism angle of John Doe #2 (Hussain al-Hussani and his local support network) - the political attack narrative of right wing militias and talk radio wouldn't have stuck if the meticulous evidence put together by Jayna Davis in "The Third Terrorist" was revealed in the FBI investigation. Davis intimates that McVeigh & Nichols got material bomb making knowledge from that connection. Having control of the megaphone matters.

    The investigation was political from the beginning. It would've made the election of Bill in '96 much more problematic had it been revealed some rogue Iraqis who made it through our "Iraqi immigrant refugee program" after Gulf War 1 had snuck through and killed 180+ Americans. The other later reveals, that the FBI/SPLC had been monitoring the camp at Elohim City and likely had advance notice of the bomb, further indicts the admin and Deep State.

    Rotten to the core, but the Clintons have been protected since the days of Mena. A "retired" Mormon CIA agent running for POTUS to win Utah means the payoffs to the Clintons are still coming.

    Got that right. OKC was (and still is) concentrated with lots of radical Muslims who were familiar with crude bomb technology used in the WTC bombing in 1993. The Clinton administration did everything they could to downplay any Muslim connections in that terrorist attack. And we had plenty of Muslim terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration leading up to 9/11 that were conveniently forgotten or ignored (like TWA 800 in 1996, and if you believe that FBI explanation then you should write-in Jeb! or vote for Hillary). Steve Emerson talked about this in an incredibly prescient interview back with Daniel Pipes in 1997. http://www.danielpipes.org/6320/steven-emerson-get-ready-for-twenty-world-trade-center-bombings

    • Replies: @DCThrowback
    Excellent reply, thanks for the link. Jayna Davis notes that Terry Nichols acquired his bomb knowledge from taking 5 trips and making numerous phone calls to Yousef and his lackeys in Abu Sayyaf in the Phillippines, all funded by OBL and Al-Qaeda.

    The US Govt banned all of that evidence in the trial, instead allowing the defense to portray Nichols as a simple farmer, conned by McVeigh, when in fact it was pretty clear the guy was the at least part of the brains beyond the bomb.
  132. @syonredux
    After reading this......stuff, I needed a restorative. From Anne Coulter's new book, In Trump We Trust:

    Why shouldn’t Americans fight to preserve their culture? All of us have a place that we think of as home. . . . Other people are allowed to have a home.
     

    Of all the places in the history of the world, this is the culture that gleams and works the best. There’s a reason the Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution happened where they happened. And that the Declaration of Independence was written in a British colony. [.....] That’s why the socialist left finally gave up on traditional Americans and pinned their hopes on immigrants, who bring their socialism with them.
     

    Conservationists correctly point out that once a species is gone, it’s gone. There’s no getting it back. As Western Europe is discovering, the same is true of countries. If Trump loses, at least we’ll finally know: it was too late.
     

    It was as if all the Republican candidates got together and agreed to never use steroids. No one would be at a competitive disadvantage, because none of them would have popular positions. Then Trump came along and said, I don’t care, I’m taking steroids. That made him much better than all the other candidates. When he didn’t back down in the face of wall-to-wall hysteria, it showed his courage and toughness.
     

    Another choice Coulter quote:

    “Liberals compulsively demand the importation of foreigners because of their seething hatred of the historic American nation. They won’t be happy until the DAR-eligible population is a tiny minority. Any culture that replaces American culture is an improvement, as far as they are concerned.”

  133. @Lagertha
    last post for a while as I am "low energy":). when I re-read the original conversation in Steve's post, it was a eureka moment!

    The Millennials, the ones specifically, born in '94- 2001, they are not buying the bs of the Democratic party. They are YUUUGELY angry at the liberals and republicans ruining their future (20 Trillion $ debt and all). They are sooooooo cynical, and want all Boomers and Gen X to just effin' die and go away - I know I have talked about them before on this forum. Or, if they take a cue from Iceland: fire all the banksters, that may work to pacify this Tsunami of youngsters who will force all of us Boomers and Gen X to retire and retreat. Weird factoid: they don't care about money!!!!!? They are kinda' the ultimate Hippies that were spawned 2 generations later!

    They are very attracted to Alt-right (still, to me, like a bar in NYC like King Tut's!) because the last 2 parties they grew up hearing about through their parents, had just made things get worse. All they have heard since they were babies is: 9/11, Islam, Immigrants, Austerity, Wall Street graft and meltdown/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Egypt/Iran/Iraq...the whole middle east/ Mexicans, many lone children, coming from wherever from S.A./USA starting "War Games" (Millennials top 5 movie) with Russia...China, whatever/ fracking/floods & droughts/Katrina-Global Climate Change/Animals dying by poaching and over-fishing (never underestimate Millennials love of wildlife; never), and all the BLM stirred-pot/after the fact riots in cities.

    There are sooo many smart kids who see the world in Darwinian terms now. This is a fact. The upshot is: it's a diverse group of Millennials. But, they eschew money...listen to the songs of the artists they love.

    The dominant form of popular music is hip-hop, and if that’s about eschewing money I’ll eat my hat. But I know what you’re getting at. They’re not ambitious. They’re not career-driven. They’re not work-oriented as a rule. But that doesn’t mean they’re hippies. It’s not as if they’re sitting in drum circles instead of getting ahead.

    What are they doing instead? Immersing themselves in the electronic media bath. Playing with stuff. They’re very stuff-oriented. They’re also fat and in debt. They are mass consumer culture babies, to the core. They are also stone-ignorant and credulous. They’re both cynical and gullible, which is a weird and dangerous mixture.

    I say this as a quasi-millenial myself. I came in at the tail end of “Generation X” and the beginning of what they used to call “Generation Y.” Then generation y disappeared, and they called them millennials. So I don’t know what I am. Which makes me despise all talk about generations, unless there was some real mass event to unite one, like WWII.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    I know this is late: Don't ever wish for WW3...or even a fake WW3 that neocons and banksters will push for ('cause war is money - trust me, I really know this). Stay true to YOUR IDEALS/IDEAS. Read, (watch movies, quicker sometimes!, ha) read the classics, read all the internet stuff: left to far right extremism. You have time 'cause you're young.
  134. >> I think they will be actively ostracized after the election. <<

    Another brilliant prediction from the Kristol Klan

  135. @Sam Haysom
    My suggestion would be for you to research Weigels journalists posting a little more closely. Weigel actually comes across as one of the most unhinged of the posters prone to accusing anyone to the right of Pete Stupak as a ratfuc$r. I think MC is right that some of it might have been a social insecure nerd trying to show off for the more polished kids like Ezra Klein, but his posts show a real animus to conservatism and a penchant for screaming racist at anyone who criticized Obama.

    Additionally the libertarian claims Weigel made are completed belied by the fact that journalist postings by Weigel spent quite a bit of time actively tailoring his reporting and picking the targets of his reporting based on his vehement support for Obamacare which is one of the least "libertarian" policies possible (which isn't to say libertarians are right).

    I think that’s right. Some of the Journolist writing was just displaying insecurity and a need to be accepted. That’s a character fault, though not the worst in the world. He’s internalized the standard establishment views on race, is a reliable water carrier for the Clintons, and is in no way or shape a Libertarian. Which I think are also rooted in his insecurity and need to be accepted. I have a hard time imagining him holding any belief that crosses the line too far from the conventional wisdom of his milieu. When his friends were Libertarians he was a Libertarian; when the people he hung out with were progressives he became a progressive. Put him into the Brietbart office and a year later he’d be a gay bodybuilder with an extravagant haircut, and hanging with Milo.

  136. This is what intrigues me about Donald Trump. While I don’t see Trump identifying himself with Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis, Joe Sobran and others of the “alt-right” (I’ve always just heard them called “paleoconservatives” to distinguish them from the “neoconservatives” who made up this discussion), and certainly not Ron Paul, it is clear Trump’s opponents in the GOP identify them with him. And it is that which they object to about Donald Trump, not his overinflated ego, his narcissism, his childish name-calling, which have repulsed most of the nation. They are not afraid of Donald Trump, the TV personality, who is perfectly at home with them in the world of the Clintons, the Giulianis, the Christies, and the others of “New York values”. They are afraid of his ideological values or goals, or rather the goals with which he identifies himself in his pursuit of election, because Trump holds no ideological values.

    And while Weigel is accurate in describing the origins of today’s current “anti-intervention”, “anti-government” movement in the 2007 opening of Ron Paul’s first Presidential campaign (the December “moneybomb” timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, and hence the use of the term “Tea Party” to represent this movement), and the work of Buchanan and Sobran which laid the foundation and led people like me to Ron Paul, they are wrong to try to separate this movement from the likes of Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley. While Buckley separated himself from Sobran and Buchanan in the late 80′s and 90′s, particularly at the end of the Cold War (which he came to regret near the end of his life, in the midst of the neo-cons’ “Global War on Terror”) it was he, Reagan, and Barry Goldwater who represented everything which attracts the “alt-Right” today. It was their anti-leveling impulse, their opposition to “egalitarianism” which led all these men to oppose the Civil Rights Acts of the 60′s, not racism (and Buckley, for one, was always adamant in separating himself from the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and the like), which bound us together in what were the formative years of my political worldview. In the perpetual struggle (at least since the French and American Revolutions) between the libertarian and the egalitarian we recognized the pendulum in America had swung too far to the latter. When asked to describe myself in College Republican circles I chose not “libertarian” but “anti-egalitarian”. We were supporters of the Cold War, zealous anti-Communists, because Communism was then the most powerful form taken by egalitarianism. Most of the political left in America then, the “pinkos”, the “fellow travelers”, the socialists, the anti-anti-Communists, the Communists in everything but name only, were avowed egalitarians. We knew they were the enemy.

    Today, the Goldwater-Reagan Republican, the anti-Communist, the anti-egalitarian, knows that Russia ceased to be America’s enemy when Russia ceased to be Communist. If it is excessively authoritarian (and the U.S. government is today far more authoritarian – anti-libertarian – than it was in the 60′s), suppressive of “human rights” (many of which are egalitarian inventions), well, that is par for the course among the many anti-communist foreign governments we supported during the Cold War. If we no longer support these “right wing” regimes around the world, there is neither any reason for us to oppose them. It is not for America to reform the world to our liking (or, rather, the egalitarians’ liking). It is for Americans to perfect respect for and enforcement of Americans’ liberties in our own country, and hold our example up to the rest of the world. And then we protect ourselves from foreign incursions, invasions of spirit as well as of body. Nothing more.

    If the issue in the Fall campaign is not whether Donald Trump, for all that he is and says, will win or lose, but rather, should the political movement which has succeeded to that of Goldwater, Buckley, Reagan, Buchanan, and Ron Paul lose, then the imperative for their followers is not only that Hillary Clinton must lose, but that Trump, loathsome and inconsistent as he is, must win.

  137. @The Man From K Street
    Don't know about the Kristol family situation, but it reminds me of David Brooks' now-ex-wife. When he married her, she converted (from Baptist?) to Brooks' Judaism, and, to mix metaphors, became more papal than the Pope, as the Germans put it. The full Monty of Orthodox observance, including mikvah baths (don't know if it was the same DC synagogue where the rabbi turned out to be a peeping tom at the mikvah). Now that Brooks has kicked her to the curb, I have to wonder what her bearings are now.

    Ezra Klein is I think the only straight Journolister to have *not* married a shiksa.

    Pointed, funny comment. I met the woman only once, about 25 years ago or more, sat next to her at a dinner. She told me a story from her junior high days, she was assigned to do a joint class project with two black girls, and the teacher took her aside after class and told her she would have to do all the work, and to expect that.

    • Replies: @Mari
    If you have ever work with any blacks at any kind of job whatsoever you end up doing all the owrk
    , @Harry Baldwin
    That's good training for a government job.
    , @ben tillman

    Pointed, funny comment. I met the woman only once, about 25 years ago or more, sat next to her at a dinner. She told me a story from her junior high days, she was assigned to do a joint class project with two black girls, and the teacher took her aside after class and told her she would have to do all the work, and to expect that.
     
    Hmm, I thought the 13th Amendment was the law in all 50 states.
  138. White Nationalism used to be called “Americanism” and was as American as Teddy Roosevelt and FDR, who both espoused it. Americanism celebrates American culture as mostly Anglo-Celtic, with a minor key of Africans, Hispanics, and Amerindians; with big dose of Catholic and Jewish immigrants offering variations on Anglo-Celtic themes.

    White Identity is not a reaction to the failed Conservatives, but the increasingly stridently anti-White identity movements of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians etc. Don’t want White Identity, don’t make Whites a discriminated minority with every other racial group embracing Identity spoils politics aimed directly at Whites and White Men especially.

    Hillary, Bill, Al Sharpton, Martin Luther King, all created White Identity.

    If King wanted White support for AA he should have made sure poor Whites were in on the party. Not just Blacks/Hispanics.

    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
    Whiskey,

    You are forgetting that a very high percentage of the white/Caucasian immigrants were people from Germanic lands, not necessarily those who came from what would later become Germany proper, but also from Scandinavia,, and from speakers of German dialects scattered across Central Europe. My mother's family are Pennsylvania Deutsch, for instance; not speakers of High German, but a Low German dialect, yet recognizably Germanic in culture.

    As to the English, well, they too were largely Germanic, having mostly driven the Celtic peoples to the periphery of Britain, and then later strongly admixed with Scandinavians in the northern part of the island (the Danelaw, called that for the very good reason that it was largely under the sway of the Danes and their law whence 12 men good and true - the jury system - derived). Then came the Normans, themselves assimilated Vikings who had conquered Normandy (the land of the Northmen) some time back, overlaying the largely Germano-Scandinavian peoples of England. This was the stock from which my father's people sprang.

    So on both sides, my lineage is largely Germanic. Up until quite recently, it was indisputably the case that the largest ethnic heritage in the US was German, and if you add to that the Scandinavian and English ethnics, this lineage deserves far more note in your list of constituent ethnicities than you have accorded it. Unfortunately for those of this lineage, a couple of world wars led many (particularly during the First World War, in which German ancestry was vilified to a farethewell by the odious Wilson) to downplay this fact.

    As to MLK working toward more support for Negroes (his word for his ethnicity), well, he was moving toward a stance that was more "class" rather than strictly "race" conscious. That this might have borne fruit and subsequently led to a major erasure of the racial fault line consciously used by the elite to divide the citizens was, in my estimation, why he was assassinated.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Your remark about who created White Identity reminds me of a possible answer to the statement that there never was a Palestinian people. Maybe one (or more?) has been created by events from the 1940s - or maybe, come to think of it a decade or two earlier.
  139. @Tiny Duck
    I support Hillary because she will curtail hate speech. America needs laws like in Europe where there are consequences for saying racist and sexist things.

    I believe in free speech but within the limits of reasonableness

    Thank you, Commissar Duck. I am sure you will be hoping to supervise the purges.

  140. @syonredux

    DAVID WEIGEL: Well, the light at the end of the tunnel for a lot of Republicans is, they don’t think they’re going to win the election. They think Trump will lose.
     
    In other words, they are embracing defeat. The American Vichy revealed.

    Weigel is just mouthing the lapdog media narrative. Saw the same in 2004 when Dems were sure beyond a doubt Bush would lose. As I recall, that was the beginning of the Bush Derangement Syndrome, with reams of articles about Dems in need of psychological counseling after the election.

  141. @Anonymous

    https://mobile.twitter.com/continetti/status/720347094158954496


    Coach Finstock:
    In which Arch-Shabbos Goy @continetti pines for a leader like WF Buckley, who conserved nothing but his own vanity. commentarymagazine.com/articles/comin…
     
    Continetti:
    Fact-check: I converted to Judaism in 2011.
     

     

    I am going to assume that with an Italian name like Continetti, Matthew was born some sort of Catholic (one badly brought up most likely). If so, he didn’t “convert” to Judaism. He apostatized, which is something altogether different.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    By your definition, ALL converts are apostates from one religion or another unless they are true atheists to begin with, but convert is the usual term when people switch religions.
    , @dr kill
    I am amused by the volume of deep thinkers who have converted/reverted/apostated for marriage. I sense a lack of self. But I expect it from these people.
  142. @Anonymous
    Too bad Trump doesn't have serious reframing skills like Ron Paul.

    Every time the witch Rodham opens her mouth it's a great reframing opportunity.

    Bad news that Trump doesn't point the KKK types to their natural home which is Democrat. Why doesn't he slay La Raza as a brown Nazi movement in suits?

    Bad news that Trump is using the absurd "11 million" number on the immigration issue. That's a crap statistic that the left has used for ten years!

    Trump is kinda weak. He misses layups every damn day.

    Too bad Trump doesn’t have serious reframing skills like Ron Paul.

    Which got Ron Paul what, exactly? Debate points?

  143. Wiegel for much of the interview sounds fair and not especially hostile. I’m sure it’s no accident he used the “invade the world, invite the world” phrase. I don’t know his present views, but I do know that in recent memory–8-10 years ago –he was on friendly terms with journalists of his generation who did not run in horror from PJB and Francis. I met him then.

  144. @415 reasons
    It actually seems to be reality itself that seems to have the most disgust with egalitarianism.

    I mean I'm all for equality before the law and a reasonable attempt to provide equality of opportunity. But the Democrats' version of egalitarianism seems to be like a perfect mockery of the scientific method. No matter how much evidence accumulates to the contrary, the Central Dogma of Racism can never be questioned.

    “Equality before the law without preference or prejudice” is all that is necessary.

    But that horse left the barn half a century ago. Because it’s never sufficient–there’s always “more work to be done,” as we’re constantly hectored. The classic idea of equality became equal opportunity, which morphed into equal outcomes. Therefore, the act of noticing differences between and among peoples is per se proof of inequality which must be rectified by unequal treatment. Meanwhile, “celebrate diversity!” because we’re all the same.

    The prog-left has moved on from 1984, they now use Harrison Bergeron as their operating manual.

  145. @candid_observer
    Beyond the points I've already mentioned lies the issue of alt-right vs. alt-center vs alt-left itself.

    What are the proper commitments of a government and its people to the needs of the people in terms of social safety-net? Again, personally, I think that the more a government is devoted to its own citizenry, the stronger should be its commitment to the safety-net. I think that strict individualism and standard libertarianism is not really compatible with a strong focus on the goals and well being of the people of a nation.

    Having a safety net creates a “moral hazard” (this is the insurance term for the risk that you’ll burn your own building down to collect the insurance). Scandinavia is an extreme example but we see the same thing in the US. Scandinavians are hard working but have an elaborate safety net so that you can stay home if you are injured, elderly, caring for a newborn, etc. Part of the social compact of the locals is “I will work hard and contribute my share whenever I can, but if I can’t then the society will take care of me.” This is exactly the kind of arrangement that you speak about in your post – society as in effect a giant extended family.

    Now you introduce into that society say Somalis, who have no Calvinist tradition of hard work or loyalty to anyone beside their immediate family. And for whom life on the dole in Stockholm is far richer than they could achieve working back home. The result is that they act as parasites on their host society. They are glad to be on the receiving end of the social compact but don’t buy into the giving end at all. And this is even before you take into account that due to lower levels of skill, education, IQ, etc. they are in no position to contribute much even if they wanted to, which they don’t.

    So this is how you end up with Merkel’s Boner – she sees a million able bodied young men who will prop up the German social welfare system as it fills with the aged, but the reality is that these young men will take whatever they can get – free gropes on New Year’s Eve, free everything, but contribute little.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    I think I'm mostly in agreement with what you say, and it points to some of the deep problems the next step in reality-based political philosophy must reckon with.

    In a "multicultural" society, there will almost certainly be groups who are a net plus, and those who are a net minus, from the standpoint of need of governmental services. How do nations cope with the expectations and potential resentments these disparities create, given that the disparities are effectively intractable? Obviously, the fewer disparities and the fewer number of those caught up in them, the better.

    But nations are effectively, and at best, pretty much stuck with the demographics and disparities that already exist, even if cutting down on immigration will prevent their worsening. What kind of social system suits these situations? Is a more "socialistic" society the right solution for a homogeneous one, and a more "individualistic" society the right solution for one riddled with disparities?

    This problem becomes especially poignant when one considers nations like South Africa. How can that nation ever be made to work, given the parties and numbers involved?

    There are really deep and genuine problems here -- problems all masked by the "egalitarian" dogma of our day, which assumes that these problems will just go away when the "racism" goes away.

    If we had political and philosophical and social thinkers worthy of the name, these would be the issues they would attempt to address.

    We have, instead, of course, blind, sermonizing, preening poseurs.

    , @ben tillman

    So this is how you end up with Merkel’s Boner....
     
    You didn't actually provide an antecedent for "this".
  146. @Jason Liu
    Anti-egalitarianism was already the standard definition of the alt-right before it was overrun by white nationalists.

    Defining/arguing about a standard definition of alt-right is a silly exercise. It’s not a prescriptive ideology, it’s an attitude, a perspective that is an alternative to what’s pejoratively called Conservatism, Inc., and the GOPe. The iSteve formulation of opposition to “invade the world, invite the world” policies seems the connective tissue.

    The rest is an attempt to pigeon-hole folks into categories that are not politically correct, as beyond reputable discussion by the use of ad hominem. It is the same exclusionary tactic deployed by the prog-left to command the language.

  147. @schmenz
    I am going to assume that with an Italian name like Continetti, Matthew was born some sort of Catholic (one badly brought up most likely). If so, he didn't "convert" to Judaism. He apostatized, which is something altogether different.

    By your definition, ALL converts are apostates from one religion or another unless they are true atheists to begin with, but convert is the usual term when people switch religions.

    • Replies: @Mikey Darmody
    He is saying that the Catholic Faith is the one true faith. How is that not clear? It is a variation on Us vs. Them. See, "He's a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch"
  148. @candid_observer

    Now, is there a large constituency for these ideas? No. I mean, you can find it on the Internet, but the danger for the conservative mainstream is to say, oh, all of a sudden, since it’s on the Internet, maybe we need to incorporate it into our thinking.
     
    So, let's see, both Trump and later Cruz came out and attacked current immigration policies -- central to whatever the alt-right might be. Between them they carry maybe 75% of the Republican vote.

    But somehow those ideas are just an Internet thing, and they certainly should never be incorporated into conservative thinking?

    Sometimes I wonder, does Reality happen if nobody pays attention to it?

    If a tree falls in the wood, and the NYTimes didn’t report it, did it make a sound?

  149. “A lot of them wave the banner of the men’s rights movement.” If so, out of ignorance, or blind misogyny. The regnant majority of “MRAs” are left-liberals, cultural determinists, and sexual egalitarians who agree with feminists that men and women and boys and girls are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy -i.e., that “gender” (masculine/feminine) as opposed to sex (male/female) is an “artificial social construct”- and envisage a society in which the sexes are equal in virtually all areas and aspects of life and all forms of “sexism” and “discrimination” are abolished. “Masculists” differ from feminists in claiming that males are now more stultified and oppressed than females by traditional sex-roles,” “sexism,” and discrimination. This view of males as a “victim-class” is distinctly false and absurd if one realizes that MRAs “speak for” men and boys of all races and depict men and boys of all races as a “victim-class,” the “victims” of “misandry” and anti-male “sexism” and discrimination.

  150. @Anonym
    Who said we were nobodies and working class? We coulda been contenders! We coulda been somebody

    In the Japanese dubbed version of that scene I’m told what was translated was ” I coulda been somebody, I coulda been a bar-tender”

  151. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Did anyone else read the cover article in the new NR, by JD Vance? He attacks Trump supporters as losers who are angry that they are being confronted with their white privilege, while making a half assed effort at pretending to be sympathetic to them. To be clear, Vance is explicitly buying into white privilege ideology. He thinks WP is real and that all whites have it. It was shocking to read this kind of thinking in NR, even knowing had bad it has become in recent years.

    I have read at least two other pieces by establishment conservatives this year also endorsing white privilege ideology, but those were written by a Jew and an Indian.

    Looks like cultural marxist white privilege theory is now part of mainstream acceptable conservatism. As a long time nationalist, I believe we will see an acceleration of the collapse of conservatism in the near future. These people have just got too crazy for normal people to support.

  152. @Calogero
    Dems talk about the Ku Klux Klan like it still has the numbers it had in the 1920s. Really, are there more than a thousand of them in the whole country?

    Since former Senate Democrat Majority Leader Robert Byrd died in 2010, there’s one fewer.

  153. @Jack D

    You talk about the days of William F. Buckley, when he was sort of the one who said who was a conservative.
     
    Wer a Konservative is, bestimm i!

    So let me get this straight - in the old days conservatism was sort of like the Skull & Bones Society at Yale - it had a club leader who decided whether or not you could belong to their snooty club. He would even do it using some kind of strange affected upper class accent spoken by no one else alive. But alt.righters are the ones who believe in hierarchies.

    Because WFB purged/ostracized the John Birch Society in 1962 from the conservative movement. Which was before Weigel or Continetti were born. That’s some ancient history to fall back on…

  154. @Maj. Kong
    The main appeal will be to the purist* base's self-interest. There is a precedent for this in the UK and Canada, where the base was actively told to stuff it and outright change its positions. It worked for Cameron, but it didn't for Harper. Lots of repetition that true conservatism is about "individual freedom", "free markets" and nothing else. In the US there would be tremendous repetition of "strong national defense" as well.

    Never underestimate the ability of people who have been followers all of their life, to convince themselves and others that it is us who are the problem. Generations of Arab leaders have been able to deflect all criticism by blaming Israel, it would not surprise me that Conservatism Inc. could get 10 years of blaming the eeevil racists for its problems. Altruistic punishment.

    *Think the Ted Cruz supporter, the skids would be greased by having Cruz make a big pro-gay rights speech and announce that he supports abortion being a state issue. He could also make an appeal that criticizing any liberal Republican is wrong, appealing to Reagan. Rubio has already gone in this direction.

    The main appeal will be to the purist* base’s self-interest. There is a precedent for this in the UK and Canada, where the base was actively told to stuff it and outright change its positions. It worked for Cameron, but it didn’t for Harper. Lots of repetition that true conservatism is about “individual freedom”, “free markets” and nothing else. In the US there would be tremendous repetition of “strong national defense” as well.

    What you are describing is what the neocons did during the 70s and 80s. Relatively sane Southern and Midwestern conservatives were transformed in place into the freakshow bible-thumping libertarian cucks they are now. We exported it to the UK and Canada, not the reverse.

    Here is Irving Kristol in 2003 describing the largely completed task he had devoted his life to:

    Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.

    Today’s American conservative who self-consciously worships the vile Michael King is the product of this mind-control apparatus. Guys at NRO have already said that they are OK with gay marriage. One standard line of attack against the official boogeyman du jour, Muslims, is that they take female modesty seriously. We don’t have to dream about the day when every “conservative” is really a cultural marxist. It’s here right now.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    I will disagree here, I think you are conflating neoconservatism the intellectual movement with either a popular movement or a behind the scenes bribery scheme. If the US "exported" the strategy of "purge the base", why did this fail in Australia?

    What began as the conservative movement of Buckley did not always have some of its current characteristics. While it was always internationalist, Reagan was far more limited in use of force than Bush II. Reagan was also a lead sponsor of disarmament talks.

    I think the key though, is that people like Barry Goldwater were social liberals, and I don't see the trend against abortion as being the result of the neoconservatives.

    During that time, they were associated with Sen. Henry Jackson and Sen. Moynihan, both liberal Democrats. Their shift to the Republicans was only solidified in 1984.

    And I cannot agree at all with Muslims as the "bogeyman", while some people would rather blame (((others))) as the cause of the division, I believe that ideas (the Koran, Hadiths, etc.) have consequences.
  155. @iffen
    I mean I’m all for equality before the law and a reasonable attempt to provide equality of opportunity.

    This is the egalitarian idea that I can support. Of course the well known problem of inequality of outcomes will come to the fore. At that point it will break down because it is very difficult to divine whether the inequality of outcomes was not in some way tilted by inequality of opportunity. If you are HBD-woke then you know that we will have unequal outcomes, but that wokeness will not let you definitively understand or parse the equality of opportunity questions. The second part is that by knowing we will have unequal outcomes, regardless of whether we have starting equality, what if anything should we do to ameliorate the harsher conditions of the outcomes?

    what if anything should we do to ameliorate the harsher conditions of the outcomes?

    I know what you SHOULDN’T DO – what we are doing now, where you create perverse incentives that tend to perpetuate in the long run the very inequalities that you are supposedly trying to ameliorate. We also shouldn’t encourage those with the highest likelihood of poor outcomes to have more children and those with the lowest to have fewer, which is what we are doing now. And we shouldn’t be adding to the problem by accepting millions of immigrants with a high probability of poor outcomes now and in future generations. But we are doing all of these things – we are trying to put out the fire with gasoline.

    On the one hand, as a humane society, you can’t just let people starve to death, but on the other hand you can’t expect people to work hard in order to support others who are capable of, but not willing to, work and just want to exploit the safety net. Multiculturalism makes this harder because not only are you taking care of people who are not members of your “family” even in the broadest sense but also because some of these other cultures are based on assumptions that are quite different than our own. You might regard life on welfare as a last resort that is shameful and degrading and inadequate to your needs, but someone from a small village in Guatemala might regard the same benefits as the equivalent of having hit the lottery.

    • Replies: @melendwyr
    The issue isn't whether 'we' let people starve to death. The issue is: is it appropriate for intervention to be taken by the government with public money, or by private institutions with private funds?

    The traditional, conservative answer is: private all the way. If private citizens decide to prevent people from starving, or decide not to prevent that, it's not the business of government.
  156. @415 reasons
    It actually seems to be reality itself that seems to have the most disgust with egalitarianism.

    I mean I'm all for equality before the law and a reasonable attempt to provide equality of opportunity. But the Democrats' version of egalitarianism seems to be like a perfect mockery of the scientific method. No matter how much evidence accumulates to the contrary, the Central Dogma of Racism can never be questioned.

    “I mean I’m all for equality before the law ”

    Why? Holding people you know to be more likely to do wrong to the same standards as people you know to be less likely is utterly irrational. It violates Bayes Rule, for example. I most certainly want the police rousting blacks vastly more often than they roust whites. Standards of evidence to convict them should be lower. Their testimony should be worth less. Etc. Equality before the law is just HBD-denial in unconvincing drag.

  157. but someone from a small village in Guatemala might regard the same benefits as the equivalent of having hit the lottery.

    I will likely kick off before crunch time, but I worry that those Guatemalans might not think of me as “family” and cut my SS check. :)

  158. @Jack D

    what if anything should we do to ameliorate the harsher conditions of the outcomes?
     
    I know what you SHOULDN'T DO - what we are doing now, where you create perverse incentives that tend to perpetuate in the long run the very inequalities that you are supposedly trying to ameliorate. We also shouldn't encourage those with the highest likelihood of poor outcomes to have more children and those with the lowest to have fewer, which is what we are doing now. And we shouldn't be adding to the problem by accepting millions of immigrants with a high probability of poor outcomes now and in future generations. But we are doing all of these things - we are trying to put out the fire with gasoline.

    On the one hand, as a humane society, you can't just let people starve to death, but on the other hand you can't expect people to work hard in order to support others who are capable of, but not willing to, work and just want to exploit the safety net. Multiculturalism makes this harder because not only are you taking care of people who are not members of your "family" even in the broadest sense but also because some of these other cultures are based on assumptions that are quite different than our own. You might regard life on welfare as a last resort that is shameful and degrading and inadequate to your needs, but someone from a small village in Guatemala might regard the same benefits as the equivalent of having hit the lottery.

    The issue isn’t whether ‘we’ let people starve to death. The issue is: is it appropriate for intervention to be taken by the government with public money, or by private institutions with private funds?

    The traditional, conservative answer is: private all the way. If private citizens decide to prevent people from starving, or decide not to prevent that, it’s not the business of government.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The issue is: is it appropriate for intervention to be taken by the government with public money, or by private institutions with private funds?

    I recognize this as a defensible political position.

    I would point out that as a practical matter, many “conservative types” never resolve or answer this question. Subsequent to their failure to address and resolve this question, they muck up or obstruct the efforts of the people who have decided that the government as “we” should do the amelioration. A perfect contemporary example would be Obamacare. Most contemporary Republicans are just “bad” Democrats.
    , @dfordoom

    The traditional, conservative answer is: private all the way. If private citizens decide to prevent people from starving, or decide not to prevent that, it’s not the business of government.
     
    That's a great idea, as long as people live in small close-knit communities of no more than a few hundred people and they have extended family networks and they have a strong religious grounding. In those circumstances private charity probably would work.

    But that kind of society hasn't existed for well over a century. In a modern secular hedonistic consumer society relying on private charity would lead to people starving.

    The private option is pure fantasy.
  159. @Anonymous

    “3. John Bolton – Chief Envoy to the Hard Right”

    John Bolton is a Neocon For Trump.
     
    So is Dick Cheney.

    So, as bad as the neocons are, the gentile ones are less perfidious.

    “So is Dick Cheney.

    So, as bad as the neocons are, the gentile ones are less perfidious.”

    Better a Neocon For Trump than a Libertarian Never Trumper who drools all over Gary Johnson.

  160. @Maj. Kong
    Unsure, but Pat Buchanan's sister married a Mormon. There was also a time when he was in favor of illegal immigration and thought Muslims were the greatest thing to ever happen for conservatism.

    Bull shit. Pat Buchanan was NEVER in favor of illegal immigration and he NEVER thought Muslims were the greatest thing to ever happen for conservatism. Why are you lying?? The (((people))) who hate Pat will say anything.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    http://spectator.org/22887_reagan-and-immigration/

    But it is also worth noting that Pat Buchanan supported the 1986 amnesty.

    You have to remember that first and foremost the Reagan administration despised working Americans. Peter Brimlow over at Vdare tried to get other Reagan staffers to see the danger in looking the other way on illegal immigration and was told that illegal immigration from Mexico was good because it undermined unions.

    You have to think in terms of 1980 and what the Republican Party's view of the world was then. They viewed the amnesty as a way to break unions and their political power and assumed the Mexicans would vote for them as payback for the amnesty canceling out the black vote.

    Pat only changed when it became obvious that Mexicans were not going to vote Republican. By then the wealthy donors running the GOP had their cheap labor and weren't planning to let go it it.
  161. @Pat Casey
    LOL. But speaking of a possible wrong impression of the alt-right, I would like to say, for the historical record's sake if nothing else, that Richard Spenser has too much ambition for his britches, is a totally defective leader of any ideological movement, and does not understand the way the United States deals with devotees of "movements" that say off the bat, "We are dangerous"---the understanding there being because that's the choice chosen, what you are aiming to be. That was a really stupid thing to say when he said it on an online video he posted shortly after starting alternative right dot com. Not because Richard Spencer is truly dangerous, except insofar as he can influence impressionable people to take that kind of jejune rhetorical bravery to heart, and see what logical conclusions can be drawn with that heady spirit. I wrote five or six pieces for him when I was a junior in college and a few of them were about the rediculous idea of initiating a very deliberate project of racial separatism that I called tribal localism. Tellingly, this supposedly brave idea of my irresponsibly idealistic mind paralleled Richard Spencer's personal life in real ways. I take it he's the kind of guy who does not move away in good standing by the community's consensus. For a very dumb reason he couldn't believe he once called Arlington, VA home, something about its dumb consumerism conformities--- he didn't respect the norm of dress when it comes to brown flip-flops as I recall. Then, according to what I read in some takimag comments, he was in NYC out and about calling himself a White Nationalist, at like bars I guess and stuff. That, we can be sure, didn't make him any friends in the big bagel, and his next home I believe was the wilderness, Montana, where I recall he said he was very happy, in sort of a fatalistic way considering he was not allowed to travel into Canada where he was wanting to be. And this is my point, he would share these adventures with readers and laugh them off, and that is the truly anti-social reaction to imperfectly getting along just as he did. That stuffs not funny, and Richard Spencer is just not smooth enough to laugh it off like the most interesting man in the world. He was learning in his thirties how to alienate yourself with a braggadocio that has no inherent virtue about it at all, it's a bunch of fuckin opinions, especially when you even admit that you can only scribble--though I understand he's dyslexic. But basically the point I would like to hammer home is that Richard Spencer is just a rich kid who thinks he can found an ideology on the fly and get away with it like he's not a fraud; that was obvious when one day he decided what the alternative right is really about is actually an aesthetic philosophy; anyways I think the only thing we can say about Richard Spencer's aesthetics is that his favorite color is black. I don't know if its worse to lose your social standing when your in college or when you're in your thirties; I just know mine never recovered, and I'm pretty positive I had more close friends than Richard Spencer ever did. Point being, this stuff about "dangerous" ideological movements that invent vile epithets, its not a game folks, at least it wasn't for me with my record, not in this country or technological day and age. I'll just say thank God for the sanity of Steve Sailer, which pretty much saved my mind from the unfun fever swamps for sure. That and the good guardian angels I know I got.

    Do you know anything about his family? You say he is a rich kid. Who are his parents?

    • Replies: @Pat Casey
    This may be what we call an Irish Fact, but I think his dad worked for NASA f0r some reason. He could afford to live in Arlington or DC on what they paid him at the American Conservative, then I'm sure taki took care of him at takimag and lived, I believe in Brooklyn. Then he started altright and moved to a right nice house where he could ski in the backyard or something in Fish something Montana I think. Phil Jacksons got a place in the town I remember. Anyways I remember the Alt Right fundraiser and I don't think they got five thousand bucks. I could care less if he's rich. But he seemed to ski all day from the videos he posted of himself skiing. He had a goofey friend at one point who wrote like a prose poem about which rich American metropolis he was going to live in and it was tough decision because, well, it was whichever one he wanted. That might have been my first comment when I told him to get lost, this is not that type of site and he took my instructions loyally and did. Richard Spencer is a horrible editor it was like he had never read a magazine, and he posted some of my articles after he had misspelled words in them, amazingly. I still don't really know how he could do that.
  162. @M
    With Millennial attitudes to money, the way it is:

    Most goods are pretty cheap today, due to trade with China / automation, but at the same time, across most of the Anglosphere, property ownership and mortgages are ultra expensive and out of reach.

    So you have this generation (Generation Rent aka The Millennials) that is actually still quite materialistic (though less hedonistic), but doesn't really strive too much for money both because their lifestyle goods are pretty cheap and they also see no point in striving for a bigger income because it's not going to help very much at getting that house.

    The incentives for them to save money are pretty horrible.

    At the same time, also, unlike the Boomers, who were waaaay more educated than the generations that came before them, the Millennials are only as educated as X and the Boomers.

    They're facing this big established, highly educated workforce. They can't use education to queue jump and get ahead fast (particularly compared to Boomers), so the ones who are interested in getting ahead end up valuing personal connections, charm and bullshitting to get ahead, and are much more cynical about the power of qualifications and hard work.

    They can’t use education to queue jump and get ahead fast (particularly compared to Boomers), so the ones who are interested in getting ahead end up valuing personal connections, charm and bullshitting to get ahead, and are much more cynical about the power of qualifications and hard work.

    Like 27-year-old said, you don’t know enough of the winners. Every Ivy League school, medical school, top 14 law school, etc is chock-a-block full of people who got there by meticulous hard work and high intelligence. In perception if not entirely in reality.

    • Replies: @M
    Yeah, I'm not thinking about at the super elite level, more about the character of typical members of the generation who are successful.
  163. @Jack D
    By your definition, ALL converts are apostates from one religion or another unless they are true atheists to begin with, but convert is the usual term when people switch religions.

    He is saying that the Catholic Faith is the one true faith. How is that not clear? It is a variation on Us vs. Them. See, “He’s a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch”

  164. @Calogero
    Dems talk about the Ku Klux Klan like it still has the numbers it had in the 1920s. Really, are there more than a thousand of them in the whole country?

    The Anti-Defamation League estimates the Klan has a membership of 3,000 nationwide. As points out, that includes the undercover members of the FBI and every other law enforcement agency who feels the need to still infiltrate the Klan. In the ADL’s section on Klan violence they don’t have anything recent listed. You have to wonder if some of these people aren’t being subsidized by the left in order to make for a convenient boogeyman.

    http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/crime.html?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk

  165. @Mr. Anon
    "Dems talk about the Ku Klux Klan like it still has the numbers it had in the 1920s. Really, are there more than a thousand of them in the whole country?"

    Probably not. And most of them are likely old diabetic men riding around on rascal scooters (Night Riders!). "The Klan" are today about as real a group as "The Carthaginians".

    Half of the KKK’s members are FBI agents.

    • Replies: @Alden
    The other half are ADL AJC SPLC ACLU agents. SPLC has prepared its new hate list, the list of people SPLC hates. White Lives Matter groups are on that list which will be sent to every police department in the country along with urgent offers of continuing education seminars on how to detect a hateful person who believes the lives of Whites matters.
    , @Mr. Anon
    I assume you mean informers (rather than actual sworn agents). Yes, quite possibly.
  166. @Jack D
    Having a safety net creates a "moral hazard" (this is the insurance term for the risk that you'll burn your own building down to collect the insurance). Scandinavia is an extreme example but we see the same thing in the US. Scandinavians are hard working but have an elaborate safety net so that you can stay home if you are injured, elderly, caring for a newborn, etc. Part of the social compact of the locals is "I will work hard and contribute my share whenever I can, but if I can't then the society will take care of me." This is exactly the kind of arrangement that you speak about in your post - society as in effect a giant extended family.



    Now you introduce into that society say Somalis, who have no Calvinist tradition of hard work or loyalty to anyone beside their immediate family. And for whom life on the dole in Stockholm is far richer than they could achieve working back home. The result is that they act as parasites on their host society. They are glad to be on the receiving end of the social compact but don't buy into the giving end at all. And this is even before you take into account that due to lower levels of skill, education, IQ, etc. they are in no position to contribute much even if they wanted to, which they don't.

    So this is how you end up with Merkel's Boner - she sees a million able bodied young men who will prop up the German social welfare system as it fills with the aged, but the reality is that these young men will take whatever they can get - free gropes on New Year's Eve, free everything, but contribute little.

    I think I’m mostly in agreement with what you say, and it points to some of the deep problems the next step in reality-based political philosophy must reckon with.

    In a “multicultural” society, there will almost certainly be groups who are a net plus, and those who are a net minus, from the standpoint of need of governmental services. How do nations cope with the expectations and potential resentments these disparities create, given that the disparities are effectively intractable? Obviously, the fewer disparities and the fewer number of those caught up in them, the better.

    But nations are effectively, and at best, pretty much stuck with the demographics and disparities that already exist, even if cutting down on immigration will prevent their worsening. What kind of social system suits these situations? Is a more “socialistic” society the right solution for a homogeneous one, and a more “individualistic” society the right solution for one riddled with disparities?

    This problem becomes especially poignant when one considers nations like South Africa. How can that nation ever be made to work, given the parties and numbers involved?

    There are really deep and genuine problems here — problems all masked by the “egalitarian” dogma of our day, which assumes that these problems will just go away when the “racism” goes away.

    If we had political and philosophical and social thinkers worthy of the name, these would be the issues they would attempt to address.

    We have, instead, of course, blind, sermonizing, preening poseurs.

  167. @Anonymous
    "...but I think they will be actively ostracized after the election."

    From ostracism to persecution is how far?

    “…but I think they will be actively ostracized after the election.”

    From ostracism to persecution is how far?

    Since many of the neocon’s have openly sided with Hillary, not far, not far at all.

  168. @Pat Casey

    When the Bills said M.J. Sobran was banned, conservatives let Joe go off and die in poverty.
     
    Ouch. That one hits close to home. We had to shuffle him around; he always had a roof. I don't know if I'll ever forgive mom completely for making him move out of the basement, but, well, I'll just make you read the story Steve.

    Getting to Know Joe
    By Patrick Casey

    When I started to read for the sake of enjoying good writing, my father gave me a book, an anthology of essays, and said, “I’d give my right arm to write like him.” I’ll never forget that, because I’ll never forget enjoying for the first time the perfectly brilliant word-joinery of a literary master. The book was titled Single Issues—two hundred pages of social commentary—and it’s a real rarity to find these days, even on Amazon. My copy, the one dad gave me, is worn and tattered, but most of all it is treasured. I got to get it signed by the author, a man whom, I’m proud to say, became my friend. His name was Joe Sobran.
    *
    When Robert Taft died in 1953, his death seemed to mark the end of a political opinion, one which his allies dated back to Jefferson. The fact that that opinion had come to be called “conservatism” is enough to let one know it was considered a dying idea anyways. Taft had called The New Deal, “a revolution within the form”—and that seemed to encapsulate the program’s stability. No one was asked to do more than pay a little more in taxes, and the ones who didn’t even have to do that were just given jobs doing what Roosevelt thought ought to be done. And yet, suddenly the State had transmogrified, and no one in Congress shouted louder about it than Robert Taft. With him gone, America seemed to have simply moved on.
    Then, an urbane firebrand, unlike anything America had ever quite had before, appeared on the scene, just as television was changing the media landscape. When William F. Buckley Jr founded National Review in 1955, a conformism of political opinion in style as much as substance in that middle decade was given a jolt, rather electrified. As George Will said, “For conservatives, happy days were here again.” Suddenly, the Right had a voice that could not be called dumb or styled retrograde. Around National Review, Buckley formed a phalanx of intellectuals that grew into a movement, which began setting the agenda for the Republican Party when it gave Barry Goldwater the momentum he needed to win the nomination in 1964. Aside from making a guy named Reagan relevant, Buckley introduced Kissinger to Nixon, hosted the longest running public affairs show in TV history, wrote a thrice weekly syndicated column and over fifty books, all the while editing National Review for forty years. He is arguably the most consequential opinion journalist in American history. And in 1972, he discovered Joe Sobran.
    *
    Joe was an old friend of my father’s when I met him in 2006, and for about the next three years I hung pretty close to his side. It was an incredibly lucky relationship, more than a privilege really; and that isn’t modest speaking—it’s conscience: I owe a debt to the man.
    There is no evidence that he ever wrote an inelegant sentence in his life, and the first thing a person would say about Joe after meeting him was that he never spoke one either. In an era when our discourse is mostly sound bytes of stuttering platitudes, Joe’s spoken eloquence may have been his most impressive quality. A man who worked next to the likes of Bill Buckley and James Burnham wrote in a history of the modern conservative movement that the finest conversationalist he had ever known was Joe Sobran. When Joe died, all who wrote personal remembrances of him basically restated that point. The National Review editorial on Joe’s death aptly compared his talent in this regard to Milton’s, whose blindness made writing a matter of dictating.
    Most of us hope to speak half as well as we write, and when you’re nineteen sitting next to an idol, well, I could only hope to speak in complete sentences at all. To say the least, I was shaky the first time I met Joe. So mostly I just listened. And that night Joe wanted to talk about baseball. His favorite player was Sandy Koufax: “Short, but peerless. He had to quit pitching at age 30 in 1966, his arm destroyed by its own cruel power, and I never really followed major-league baseball after that.” And Ted Williams? “He began his autobiography by saying that when he was a kid, his only ambition was to have people say, as he walked down the street, “There goes the greatest hitter who ever lived.” My own autobiography could start the same way. It would end a little differently, though.”
    Soon after that first evening, we took Joe to a Nationals game, the first time he’d been to a baseball stadium in years. We also took along a friend of my father’s from England, to whom Joe jested, “You should stay long enough to learn our language—it’s often mistaken for English.” The Englishman’s estimation of Joe was this: “I’ve never met someone who speaks in sentences you would only expect to read.” He brought to the game some fancy camera you can’t buy in England, and snapped a picture of Joe sitting in the stands, and he looks so perfectly himself in it that it’s hard to describe. Others have called his an “impish grin,” but in this picture it is softer than that, and endearing to the point of being poignant. I look at it and see an innocent old man with secret wisdom, but I suppose I’m biased.
    *
    Bill Buckley recalled detecting “singular powers” the first time he read something by Joe, and Pat Buchanan called him “the greatest columnist of our generation.” Hugh Kenner, the preeminent critic of literary modernism, was a contributing editor at National Review when Joe came aboard, and they became fast friends. I’ve always liked Kenner’s compliment of Joe’s writing the best: “The product of a mind in exemplary action.” It makes sense that a surveyor of literature should peg Joe so perfectly, because Joe was only accidentally a political commentator; his true passion, from start to finish, was Shakespeare.
    He liked to quote Kenner’s maxim that we are always blind to the styles of our time, but because his mind was most alive when he was thrilling to Shakespeare, you might say that Joe’s mind belonged more to Shakespeare’s age than our own, and it was this that gave his writing on other topics its unique tone: bemused where others were angry; intimate yet detached and never self-righteous. Like a time-traveler who finds the future a bizarre tragic-comedy, Joe could see the styles of our time.
    *
    To know Joe was to love him, partly because to know him was to entirely understand him, which is to say, if you ever made it into his house, you immediately understood him—and felt for him. There was always, according to my dad, a touch of dysfunction in his psyche, which was only amplified with age. Not too long after I met Joe, he was evicted from the townhouse he’d been living in for a decade, as it had come to resemble the home of a hoarder who lives on books, and who never bothered to clean up the milk he spilled a decade ago. Of course, he was not insane, not even a real hoarder. His life, like his writing, contained no a hint of artifice. He was an exemplar of the dysfunctional genius: Beethoven’s home looked the same.
    Anyways, that’s how Joe came to live with me and my family. He had no place else to go at that point, and I lobbied my mom hard. Up until then, Joe had been my dad’s friend whom I tried to tag along with; living with him made him my friend. He would sit on the front porch pretty much all day—the sedentary sage—accumulating a mess of newspapers and magazines and books around him. He would chain smoke cheap cigars. And I would sit with him, and we would talk about everything under the sun. Dad always said that Joe needed a Boswell, and I regret that I lacked the confidence at the time to make a project out of our relationship. I should have been writing his talk down, because when the rivers of his mind were really flowing, Joe was just peerless.
    At that time, he was writing a commentary on some of Shakespeare for a publisher who, for reasons I’ll get to, didn’t want Joe’s name attached to it. While he was writing them, my father and I attended with Joe a Kennedy Center production of Titus Andronicus, and this story is worth telling: I was in line with Joe at the gift shop before the show behind a man buying a book of the play. Joe was never more comfortable than amidst the company perfect strangers, and he said to the man ahead of us that he would have recited the play to him for free. Now, you have to understand what a eulogizer of Joe’s called the “childlike innocence” in his desire to please other people to see that he was not in such instances being an annoying braggart. The stranger shrugged with an incredulous smile and said something polite to Joe that I can’t now remember.
    Another point to bear in mind about Joe, and which will help you appreciate the strangeness of the situation from the stranger’s perspective, is that he usually wore pieces of a sort of otherworldly wardrobe out in public. He had this bright purple pair of glasses—the color helped him keep track of them—that he would wear, say, to the drugstore or out to the theater. His shirt and pants were primarily something comfortable and sometimes colorful. His beard was spotty and his shoes were usually slippers.
    To look at him you might find such exquisite uniqueness off-putting, until, of course, Joe spoke to you. Then you would recognize that the man matched the clothes in a profound way; that his mind was as otherworldly as his wardrobe. So imagine what the stranger of this story thought when this odd-looking and oddly personable man wound up sitting behind him, where Joe softly recited the entire play.
    *
    By the mid 80s, with conservatism officially ascendant under Reagan, Joe had become the most popular writer for National Review, and had one of the most widely syndicated columns in the country, as well as a weekly program on CBS radio. And he wasn’t typically popular either, as he had engendered an incredibly loyal, even tribal I would say, base of conservative Catholic readers. All this is just to say that in the world of opinion journalism, Joe Sobran was a force to be reckoned with. So, in 1986, when Joe began criticizing Israel and America’s relationship with the Jewish State, his stature was such that he couldn’t just be shoved down the memory-hole or simply ignored.
    What ensued was a particularly nasty campaign of character assassination against Joe carried out by Jewish intellectuals who had lately become an influential faction in the conservative movement. The controversy intermittently persisted for five years, then reached a boiling point in the run-up to the first Gulf War, which Joe said he hated with a “murderous fury,” and spared no expense in attacking Israel’s role in bringing it about. The debate was so pivotal that Bill Buckley felt the need to write an entire book about it, In Search of Anti-Semitism, where he examined at painstaking lengths the opinions of Joe and Pat Buchanan, with less sympathy than either probably deserved.
    Suffice to say, all the while Joe refused to lie down, and eventually had a very public falling out with Buckley. He was fired from National Review, lost his syndicated column and his radio show, and became a pariah.
    *
    I knew all about Joe’s troubles before I met him, and because I agreed with his opinions and disagreed with the way his career was devastated due to them, I admired him even more. He had the courage of his convictions. Losing your job is one thing, being blackballed from that industry another, but losing your friends is the worst thing of all. Given his functional limitations, Joe’s life was kind of in shambles when I met him. I couldn’t help but profoundly feel that I needed to do whatever I could to help him. So after he lived with us for a time, I moved him into another place, and then another, and then another, and I think there was one more after that.
    For almost three years I was his chauffeur, his assistant, his at-large caregiver. His health was failing and he needed the help. My efforts were supplemented by donations from magnanimous men you can read around the web, like Pat Buchanan, Taki Theodorocopulous, and Lew Rockwell. Still, his income was precarious. Even then, long after he’d been beaten, he remained at the mercy of Jewish activists hell-bent on preventing him from speaking in public for a fee, hounding any one who dared invite him to do so with determined threats. The only thing worse in journalism than being associated with an anti-Semite is being labeled one yourself. As Joe said, “These days an anti-Semite is less likely to be someone who hates Jews than someone who is hated by Jews.”
    More than once, he said to me that he had no regrets, and even though the sentiment came from the wilderness while living in poverty, I actually had to believe him. He never lost his sense of humor: “Being a full-time Jew-hater is hard work, much too hard for me”; “I’m not anti-Semitic, but I admit that I’m anti-semantic”; “I said when Barry Bonds breaks the home-run record I was going to send him a racist letter even worse than the one I sent Aaron forty years ago.” That last one was pure Joe, but you had to really know him to appreciate how funny it was: “The idea of someone sitting down and writing such a letter, and then actually walking it to the mailbox…”—and the notion then drowned in his own deep laughter.
    But truth be told, by the time I had to go away to college in Williamsburg, I wasn’t entirely unhappy to leave Joe behind. It had become obvious that his troubles were worse than they needed to be, due to bad habits aside from a dysfunction. Looking after him had taken a toll on me. We talked over the phone, and slowly lost touch. I heard toward the end that he finally wound up exactly where he belonged, teaching Shakespeare at a tiny, uniquely conservative Catholic school called Christendom College in Front Royal, Va.
    Then, in late September, 2010, I got a call from dad: “You need to come home, Joe is dying.” He was laid up in a hospice—complications from diabetes—and when I entered the place I was shocked and appalled to see nodding seniors literally lining the walls of the hallway in wheelchairs. This is how poor people die, I thought to myself. My father and I met Joe’s dogged long-time publisher Fran Griffin in Joe’s room, clutching a rosary. Joe was conscious but could neither open his eyes nor speak. The greatest conversationalist in the country had lost his voice. And I was back where I was the first time we met, unable to summon the right words. My tears were too heavy. I wanted to tell him how sorry I was for losing touch, for not being able to do more. Most of all I wanted to thank him for being my friend. Fran sat bedside with me and we prayed the rosary. Afterward, I just squeezed Joe’s hand for what must have been an hour, crying. He passed the next day.
    *
    The great political philosopher Paul Gottfried wrote a remembrance of Joe, in which he called him a hero. The much-lauded Presidential speech writer Matthew Scully called him our era’s master of plain-English prose. The always eloquent Jared Taylor doubted he would ever meet a man of such gifts again. And National Review compared him to Milton. And to think I knew this man as my friend…what can I say? Only that I’ll never forget him.
     

    That was beautiful. It’s a shame what happened to him and that the low men that deprived your country of his talent never received their comeuppance.

    I have not yet read much by him. His more famous article on what happened to him and the one on the alienist and the nativist tendencies in society.

  169. @Jim Don Bob
    Half of the KKK's members are FBI agents.

    The other half are ADL AJC SPLC ACLU agents. SPLC has prepared its new hate list, the list of people SPLC hates. White Lives Matter groups are on that list which will be sent to every police department in the country along with urgent offers of continuing education seminars on how to detect a hateful person who believes the lives of Whites matters.

  170. @nglaer
    Pointed, funny comment. I met the woman only once, about 25 years ago or more, sat next to her at a dinner. She told me a story from her junior high days, she was assigned to do a joint class project with two black girls, and the teacher took her aside after class and told her she would have to do all the work, and to expect that.

    If you have ever work with any blacks at any kind of job whatsoever you end up doing all the owrk

  171. @Mr. Anon
    Spencer seems to have been fairly effective at starting something. He's been more successful at giving air to dissident (but true) ideas than any number of other young intellectuals who have gone to man the megaphone at NRO (an appropriately, taseteful and and conservatively down-sized megaphone, mind you). He's been more effective at standing up for something that might actually be called "conservative" than, for example, Matthew Continetti.

    Anything worth doing is worth doing badly I suppose. But I don’t think he’s published anything worth a tuppenpence halfpenny. What do we have up top: “Being a Machiavellian myself, here’s my best guess at [Clinton's] chain of reasoning.” That’s great, just perfect. Being a criminal myself…. What it is, for me, myself, finally, it’s a gut instinct. I think Richard Spencer likes the color black too much. I think he’d be leaning out of an alley in a trenchcoat going psssst to some promising looking white kid if he was anything else.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly I suppose. But I don’t think he’s published anything worth a tuppenpence halfpenny."

    Does anyone read anything that was written by Buckley anymore? Or remember anything he ever said, other than that line about the Boston phone book? He may as well have written in sand.

  172. Good grief. Look at all you people. “He’s a nice guy. Waaaaah.”

    Weigel would stand by while you were all stuffed into a concentration camp for bad thinkers and tell each other “Well, he wrote a nice article about us so it must be okay”.

    Lmbo.

  173. @Pete in TX
    I saw on Wikipedia that Matthew Continetti converted to Judaism before marrying Bill Kristol's daughter.

    I vaguely recall (about twenty-five years ago) that Bill Kristol's sister Elizabeth married a Catholic. Does anyone here know if I recalled that correctly? Did they divorce? Did Elizabeth convert to Catholicism or not? If she converted and then divorced, did she revert to Judaism?

    I saw on Wikipedia that Matthew Continetti converted to Judaism before marrying Bill Kristol’s daughter.

    This strikes me as exceptionally beta and pathetic.

    It’s one thing for a wife to convert to her husband’s religion, like Ivanka. That’s a wife submitting–which is what wives do–and throwing her lot in with her husbands’ family.

    It’s also fine for a guy to just take a pass–”hey you want to raise the kids Catholic, peachy”. Or make the trivial adjustment, “I was raised Methodist but my wife’s a Presbyterian so we went with that.”

    But a full on conversion to the wife’s faith? Sorta cucky.

    And double, triple, quadruple, heck an order of magnitude more for conversion to Judaism. Because it is at core an ethnic religion for the Jewish people. Continetti, no matter how you slice it, is not a Jew. So he’s not only tossing his father’s faith, but turning his back on his whole lineage and embracing some other people’s lineage of which he is distinctly *not* a part.

    Very girly. In fact, it’s what girls have to do when an invader conquers their tribe–submit and join the conquerors to survive. Perfectly understandable for a girl. But for a guy? Continetti is an invaded, occupied, half-man. A cuck. A joke.

    • Replies: @SFG
    You've forgotten the obvious--a male convert would have to be circumcised. That's about as cucky as it gets.

    I do think you're making a bit too much out of this overall though. The guy's probably not said his rosary in years. The elite isn't very religious. Continetti's an up-and-coming writer, wedding Kristol's daughter is a good career move (at least until the Trumpening). In these circles it's just a form of Episcopalianism with very early church services (and you have to become obsessed with a random middle-eastern country, but he's probably used to that already). It's not about blood and soil and your eternal soul, it's about when you go to services and who you can meet there.
    , @Jefferson
    "And double, triple, quadruple, heck an order of magnitude more for conversion to Judaism. Because it is at core an ethnic religion for the Jewish people. Continetti, no matter how you slice it, is not a Jew."

    If a Rabbi decides he wants to deem Matthew Continetti a Jew, than who the hell are you to say he is not a Jew. A Rabbi is a trillion times better authority than a WASP Goy like yourself on determining who is a Jew. Rabbis are the gatekeepers of Judaism.

    A WASP Goy getting to decide who is a Jew is like a North African Muslim getting to decide who is ethnically French.

    , @ogunsiron
    Non-muslim men who wish to marry a muslim woman have to convert.
  174. “Not letting yourself be bullied by John Podhoretz is like voting for George Washington instead of submitting to King George III.

    It’s un-American.”

    It’s target practice.

  175. @ConceptDelta
    I can't speak to the history of Richard Spencer, but he is much more articular and philosophically grounded than any other person I've read on the Alt Right (excluding Steve).

    I enjoy reading/watching many of the articles on his website Radix.com.

    Let's cut him some slack... the guy has guts - he's been banned in over a dozen countries for publicly speaking out for the Alt Right. I wish there were more people on the Alt Right like him.

    “I can’t speak to the history of Richard Spencer, but he is much more articular and philosophically grounded than any other person I’ve read on the Alt Right (excluding Steve).”

    I have never noticed Steve to be particularly philosophical. His approach is much more empirical, in the anglo-saxon tradition. Spencer is more of a continental-style intellectual, grounded in, and more comfortable with, theory. I think Spencer has done some good. And I think that Steve has done a lot of good, sticking up for facts and knowledge, and all that old fashioned stuff.

  176. @Jim Don Bob
    Half of the KKK's members are FBI agents.

    I assume you mean informers (rather than actual sworn agents). Yes, quite possibly.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    It was reported that there was an FBI informer/agent in the group that tried, and died trying, to shoot up Pamela Gellar's shindig in Dallas. What are these guys good for?
  177. @Pat Casey
    Anything worth doing is worth doing badly I suppose. But I don't think he's published anything worth a tuppenpence halfpenny. What do we have up top: "Being a Machiavellian myself, here’s my best guess at [Clinton's] chain of reasoning." That's great, just perfect. Being a criminal myself.... What it is, for me, myself, finally, it's a gut instinct. I think Richard Spencer likes the color black too much. I think he'd be leaning out of an alley in a trenchcoat going psssst to some promising looking white kid if he was anything else.

    “Anything worth doing is worth doing badly I suppose. But I don’t think he’s published anything worth a tuppenpence halfpenny.”

    Does anyone read anything that was written by Buckley anymore? Or remember anything he ever said, other than that line about the Boston phone book? He may as well have written in sand.

    • Replies: @Pat Casey
    You need to find the book that has his in memoriams. He knew everyone and outlived most of them. Two stick out in my mind. Norman Mailer's and Bill Casey's. Used to be able to read all of them for free online but, well, I suspect their CIA money dried up when Buckley died. They have to raise money in fundraisers now, which I'm pretty positive is not something they ever did before. But yeah his obits are what should matter most of his writings and they are the best. His book are not good because they are simply not thoughtful. He had a schedule that was almost a regimen to go to switzerland and right one book a year in a month or something. I understand why people don't like his columns generally nowadays, but there is, in lets say the ones he wrote in his last five years, usually a fine sentiment he gets across when you read it slowly. I remember the one he wrote about outlawing cigarettes when his wife died, and he very poignantly, delicately said of course I would absolutely outlaw smoking if I could have her back. It was well done. I've never even bothered with blackford oaks.
  178. I never even heard of this Continetti fellow before. Why should I care what he thinks? I’d rather hear what his older brother, Jeff Goldblum, has to say.

  179. @Mr. Anon
    Yeah, all of a sudden Bob Dole is Abraham Lincoln. Back when Bill Clinton was President, he used to refer to his meetings with (then Senate majority leader) Bob Dole as "Nazi time". Doubly offensive given that Dole was crippled for life by a german bullet in WWII.

    I think you misspelled

    (((crippled for life by a German bullet in WWII)))

    There. Now it has the necessary element of histrionic Echoplex.

  180. Continetti is married to Kristol’s daughter? I would have guessed he married Kristol’s son. He looks like a poof to me. Of course there is nothing wrong with that.

  181. […] Hillary on the “Alt-Right” and the concept of hierarchies, as discussed by Steve Sailer here: “They also believe in sexual […]

  182. @The Man From K Street
    Don't know about the Kristol family situation, but it reminds me of David Brooks' now-ex-wife. When he married her, she converted (from Baptist?) to Brooks' Judaism, and, to mix metaphors, became more papal than the Pope, as the Germans put it. The full Monty of Orthodox observance, including mikvah baths (don't know if it was the same DC synagogue where the rabbi turned out to be a peeping tom at the mikvah). Now that Brooks has kicked her to the curb, I have to wonder what her bearings are now.

    Ezra Klein is I think the only straight Journolister to have *not* married a shiksa.

    I am amused by the volume of deep thinkers who have converted/reverted/apostated for marriage. I sense a lack of self. But I expect it from these people.

  183. @schmenz
    I am going to assume that with an Italian name like Continetti, Matthew was born some sort of Catholic (one badly brought up most likely). If so, he didn't "convert" to Judaism. He apostatized, which is something altogether different.

    I am amused by the volume of deep thinkers who have converted/reverted/apostated for marriage. I sense a lack of self. But I expect it from these people.

  184. My Saudi friends insist that humans are naturally Muslim, and when someone declares Islam as their new chosen faith, they are said to revert, returning to their natural faith.

  185. @Harry Baldwin
    Cuck says alt-righters "believe in hierarchies." Liberals believe in hierarchies more than alt-righters do--hierarchies of victimhood. The whole society must be organized around intersectionality.

    Dave Weigel seems pretty fair-minded. Matthew Continetti is clueless. He has no idea what's going on.

    It’s highlarious how the writer goes on about how Alt-Righters “believe in hierarchy” even as he comes up with a line like, “You talk about the days of William F. Buckley, when he was sort of the one who said who was a conservative.” Buckley had so much rank he could define words for us all, but it’s we who “believe in hierarchy.” Then there’s “I think it’s bottom-up, really. So, I don’t think you had the same gatekeepers that you did in the earlier media age, when there were one or two conservative magazines that published biweekly or monthly. Now we live in the Internet, and it’s the Wild West. Anyone with an opinion, a Twitter account, a YouTube channel, they can express themselves.” *Anyone* can talk now! They’re not being reined in by “the gatekeepers”! But it’s we who are into hierarchy for the sake of hierarchy.

    It’s amazing how almost totally blind to reality and their own lack of reason these people are. Though, as a Catholic, I don’t have a 100% evolutionary take on things, most liberals have to in order to be consistent with their Godless premises. But it’s they who decry the concept of “hierarchy” when such a thing is found in any damned wolf pack around. Populations separated by continents and hundreds and hundreds of years somehow developed in exactly the same way, handing down the same genetic traits, in spite of Darwin, whose writings are accepted by all the “right” people. And then there’s “race doesn’t exist” meme coupled with the “whitey is the cause of all problems” meme. “Men and women are totally the same” and “white cis-gendered males are natural born rapists.” “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy” and “Humans have grown like a cancer. We’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” (speaking of which, can you imagine being the offspring of someone who’d say this?: “The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration,” as Michael W. Fox, Scientific Director and former Vice President of the Humane Society did? Wow!)

    Yeah, I think The Powers That Be are scared. They’re realizing their brainwashing hasn’t worked as well as they’d wanted. I could just cry thinking of their pain.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    It’s amazing how almost totally blind to reality and their own lack of reason these people are.
     
    No need to assume good faith on any of those people's part.

    As for the Internet incidence in people's beliefs, well, Internet is the hyper-developed form of mass communication, which in the early 20th century (if memory serves) made Jean Cocteau observe that age's problem was "even cretins thought", that is, even them had begun to believe they thought.

    Internet, and any other past present or future media, won't change biology, and the hierarchies biology settles.
  186. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “Well, the light at the end of the tunnel for a lot of Republicans is, they don’t think they’re going to win the election. They think Trump will lose.”

    Its more mind games from the elites. They’re the ones who have been desperately pushing this,”everyone knows Trump is going to lose” as though it were a fact, as soon as the Republican convention was over and he was soaring in popularity to try to get people to jump off supporting Trump. They know no one likes to support a losing team, and in a close election, even swaying a few pct. of the populace with a lie could make a big difference.

  187. @Tiny Duck
    It sounds like that to you because of your white privilege

    What’s funny is that 160 years ago, you would have been the one demanding that slavery be allowed to continue. You lack the sense to think for yourself and just parrot the sentiments of the elites, the zeitgeist. The current bs they are spouting is that blacks are the ones being discriminated against and whites are the privileged.

    In reality, it is blatantly obvious that it is blacks who actually receive every privilege in the book, from privileged treatment by the press, schools and society at large, to a huge thumb on the scales at college admissions, access to blacks only clubs and countless restricted opportunities, blacks only grants, special set asides for career opportunities, minority owned business privileges, etc.- the list goes on and on. Whites are scapegoated for every evil blacks commit; whites pockets are picked to pay for the special privileges of blacks, and white men are deprived of true equal opportunity at every turn.

  188. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Pete in TX
    I saw on Wikipedia that Matthew Continetti converted to Judaism before marrying Bill Kristol's daughter.

    I vaguely recall (about twenty-five years ago) that Bill Kristol's sister Elizabeth married a Catholic. Does anyone here know if I recalled that correctly? Did they divorce? Did Elizabeth convert to Catholicism or not? If she converted and then divorced, did she revert to Judaism?

    None of those people are devout, and hardly any of them isn’t an atheist.

    “Conversion” are a traditional, ageless way hegemonic power shows itself, and loyalty to hegemonic power is expressed.

  189. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Tracy
    It's highlarious how the writer goes on about how Alt-Righters "believe in hierarchy" even as he comes up with a line like, "You talk about the days of William F. Buckley, when he was sort of the one who said who was a conservative." Buckley had so much rank he could define words for us all, but it's we who "believe in hierarchy." Then there's "I think it’s bottom-up, really. So, I don’t think you had the same gatekeepers that you did in the earlier media age, when there were one or two conservative magazines that published biweekly or monthly. Now we live in the Internet, and it’s the Wild West. Anyone with an opinion, a Twitter account, a YouTube channel, they can express themselves." *Anyone* can talk now! They're not being reined in by "the gatekeepers"! But it's we who are into hierarchy for the sake of hierarchy.

    It's amazing how almost totally blind to reality and their own lack of reason these people are. Though, as a Catholic, I don't have a 100% evolutionary take on things, most liberals have to in order to be consistent with their Godless premises. But it's they who decry the concept of "hierarchy" when such a thing is found in any damned wolf pack around. Populations separated by continents and hundreds and hundreds of years somehow developed in exactly the same way, handing down the same genetic traits, in spite of Darwin, whose writings are accepted by all the "right" people. And then there's "race doesn't exist" meme coupled with the "whitey is the cause of all problems" meme. "Men and women are totally the same" and "white cis-gendered males are natural born rapists." "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" and "Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the earth." (speaking of which, can you imagine being the offspring of someone who'd say this?: "The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration," as Michael W. Fox, Scientific Director and former Vice President of the Humane Society did? Wow!)

    Yeah, I think The Powers That Be are scared. They're realizing their brainwashing hasn't worked as well as they'd wanted. I could just cry thinking of their pain.

    It’s amazing how almost totally blind to reality and their own lack of reason these people are.

    No need to assume good faith on any of those people’s part.

    As for the Internet incidence in people’s beliefs, well, Internet is the hyper-developed form of mass communication, which in the early 20th century (if memory serves) made Jean Cocteau observe that age’s problem was “even cretins thought”, that is, even them had begun to believe they thought.

    Internet, and any other past present or future media, won’t change biology, and the hierarchies biology settles.

  190. @Pat Casey

    When the Bills said M.J. Sobran was banned, conservatives let Joe go off and die in poverty.
     
    Ouch. That one hits close to home. We had to shuffle him around; he always had a roof. I don't know if I'll ever forgive mom completely for making him move out of the basement, but, well, I'll just make you read the story Steve.

    Getting to Know Joe
    By Patrick Casey

    When I started to read for the sake of enjoying good writing, my father gave me a book, an anthology of essays, and said, “I’d give my right arm to write like him.” I’ll never forget that, because I’ll never forget enjoying for the first time the perfectly brilliant word-joinery of a literary master. The book was titled Single Issues—two hundred pages of social commentary—and it’s a real rarity to find these days, even on Amazon. My copy, the one dad gave me, is worn and tattered, but most of all it is treasured. I got to get it signed by the author, a man whom, I’m proud to say, became my friend. His name was Joe Sobran.
    *
    When Robert Taft died in 1953, his death seemed to mark the end of a political opinion, one which his allies dated back to Jefferson. The fact that that opinion had come to be called “conservatism” is enough to let one know it was considered a dying idea anyways. Taft had called The New Deal, “a revolution within the form”—and that seemed to encapsulate the program’s stability. No one was asked to do more than pay a little more in taxes, and the ones who didn’t even have to do that were just given jobs doing what Roosevelt thought ought to be done. And yet, suddenly the State had transmogrified, and no one in Congress shouted louder about it than Robert Taft. With him gone, America seemed to have simply moved on.
    Then, an urbane firebrand, unlike anything America had ever quite had before, appeared on the scene, just as television was changing the media landscape. When William F. Buckley Jr founded National Review in 1955, a conformism of political opinion in style as much as substance in that middle decade was given a jolt, rather electrified. As George Will said, “For conservatives, happy days were here again.” Suddenly, the Right had a voice that could not be called dumb or styled retrograde. Around National Review, Buckley formed a phalanx of intellectuals that grew into a movement, which began setting the agenda for the Republican Party when it gave Barry Goldwater the momentum he needed to win the nomination in 1964. Aside from making a guy named Reagan relevant, Buckley introduced Kissinger to Nixon, hosted the longest running public affairs show in TV history, wrote a thrice weekly syndicated column and over fifty books, all the while editing National Review for forty years. He is arguably the most consequential opinion journalist in American history. And in 1972, he discovered Joe Sobran.
    *
    Joe was an old friend of my father’s when I met him in 2006, and for about the next three years I hung pretty close to his side. It was an incredibly lucky relationship, more than a privilege really; and that isn’t modest speaking—it’s conscience: I owe a debt to the man.
    There is no evidence that he ever wrote an inelegant sentence in his life, and the first thing a person would say about Joe after meeting him was that he never spoke one either. In an era when our discourse is mostly sound bytes of stuttering platitudes, Joe’s spoken eloquence may have been his most impressive quality. A man who worked next to the likes of Bill Buckley and James Burnham wrote in a history of the modern conservative movement that the finest conversationalist he had ever known was Joe Sobran. When Joe died, all who wrote personal remembrances of him basically restated that point. The National Review editorial on Joe’s death aptly compared his talent in this regard to Milton’s, whose blindness made writing a matter of dictating.
    Most of us hope to speak half as well as we write, and when you’re nineteen sitting next to an idol, well, I could only hope to speak in complete sentences at all. To say the least, I was shaky the first time I met Joe. So mostly I just listened. And that night Joe wanted to talk about baseball. His favorite player was Sandy Koufax: “Short, but peerless. He had to quit pitching at age 30 in 1966, his arm destroyed by its own cruel power, and I never really followed major-league baseball after that.” And Ted Williams? “He began his autobiography by saying that when he was a kid, his only ambition was to have people say, as he walked down the street, “There goes the greatest hitter who ever lived.” My own autobiography could start the same way. It would end a little differently, though.”
    Soon after that first evening, we took Joe to a Nationals game, the first time he’d been to a baseball stadium in years. We also took along a friend of my father’s from England, to whom Joe jested, “You should stay long enough to learn our language—it’s often mistaken for English.” The Englishman’s estimation of Joe was this: “I’ve never met someone who speaks in sentences you would only expect to read.” He brought to the game some fancy camera you can’t buy in England, and snapped a picture of Joe sitting in the stands, and he looks so perfectly himself in it that it’s hard to describe. Others have called his an “impish grin,” but in this picture it is softer than that, and endearing to the point of being poignant. I look at it and see an innocent old man with secret wisdom, but I suppose I’m biased.
    *
    Bill Buckley recalled detecting “singular powers” the first time he read something by Joe, and Pat Buchanan called him “the greatest columnist of our generation.” Hugh Kenner, the preeminent critic of literary modernism, was a contributing editor at National Review when Joe came aboard, and they became fast friends. I’ve always liked Kenner’s compliment of Joe’s writing the best: “The product of a mind in exemplary action.” It makes sense that a surveyor of literature should peg Joe so perfectly, because Joe was only accidentally a political commentator; his true passion, from start to finish, was Shakespeare.
    He liked to quote Kenner’s maxim that we are always blind to the styles of our time, but because his mind was most alive when he was thrilling to Shakespeare, you might say that Joe’s mind belonged more to Shakespeare’s age than our own, and it was this that gave his writing on other topics its unique tone: bemused where others were angry; intimate yet detached and never self-righteous. Like a time-traveler who finds the future a bizarre tragic-comedy, Joe could see the styles of our time.
    *
    To know Joe was to love him, partly because to know him was to entirely understand him, which is to say, if you ever made it into his house, you immediately understood him—and felt for him. There was always, according to my dad, a touch of dysfunction in his psyche, which was only amplified with age. Not too long after I met Joe, he was evicted from the townhouse he’d been living in for a decade, as it had come to resemble the home of a hoarder who lives on books, and who never bothered to clean up the milk he spilled a decade ago. Of course, he was not insane, not even a real hoarder. His life, like his writing, contained no a hint of artifice. He was an exemplar of the dysfunctional genius: Beethoven’s home looked the same.
    Anyways, that’s how Joe came to live with me and my family. He had no place else to go at that point, and I lobbied my mom hard. Up until then, Joe had been my dad’s friend whom I tried to tag along with; living with him made him my friend. He would sit on the front porch pretty much all day—the sedentary sage—accumulating a mess of newspapers and magazines and books around him. He would chain smoke cheap cigars. And I would sit with him, and we would talk about everything under the sun. Dad always said that Joe needed a Boswell, and I regret that I lacked the confidence at the time to make a project out of our relationship. I should have been writing his talk down, because when the rivers of his mind were really flowing, Joe was just peerless.
    At that time, he was writing a commentary on some of Shakespeare for a publisher who, for reasons I’ll get to, didn’t want Joe’s name attached to it. While he was writing them, my father and I attended with Joe a Kennedy Center production of Titus Andronicus, and this story is worth telling: I was in line with Joe at the gift shop before the show behind a man buying a book of the play. Joe was never more comfortable than amidst the company perfect strangers, and he said to the man ahead of us that he would have recited the play to him for free. Now, you have to understand what a eulogizer of Joe’s called the “childlike innocence” in his desire to please other people to see that he was not in such instances being an annoying braggart. The stranger shrugged with an incredulous smile and said something polite to Joe that I can’t now remember.
    Another point to bear in mind about Joe, and which will help you appreciate the strangeness of the situation from the stranger’s perspective, is that he usually wore pieces of a sort of otherworldly wardrobe out in public. He had this bright purple pair of glasses—the color helped him keep track of them—that he would wear, say, to the drugstore or out to the theater. His shirt and pants were primarily something comfortable and sometimes colorful. His beard was spotty and his shoes were usually slippers.
    To look at him you might find such exquisite uniqueness off-putting, until, of course, Joe spoke to you. Then you would recognize that the man matched the clothes in a profound way; that his mind was as otherworldly as his wardrobe. So imagine what the stranger of this story thought when this odd-looking and oddly personable man wound up sitting behind him, where Joe softly recited the entire play.
    *
    By the mid 80s, with conservatism officially ascendant under Reagan, Joe had become the most popular writer for National Review, and had one of the most widely syndicated columns in the country, as well as a weekly program on CBS radio. And he wasn’t typically popular either, as he had engendered an incredibly loyal, even tribal I would say, base of conservative Catholic readers. All this is just to say that in the world of opinion journalism, Joe Sobran was a force to be reckoned with. So, in 1986, when Joe began criticizing Israel and America’s relationship with the Jewish State, his stature was such that he couldn’t just be shoved down the memory-hole or simply ignored.
    What ensued was a particularly nasty campaign of character assassination against Joe carried out by Jewish intellectuals who had lately become an influential faction in the conservative movement. The controversy intermittently persisted for five years, then reached a boiling point in the run-up to the first Gulf War, which Joe said he hated with a “murderous fury,” and spared no expense in attacking Israel’s role in bringing it about. The debate was so pivotal that Bill Buckley felt the need to write an entire book about it, In Search of Anti-Semitism, where he examined at painstaking lengths the opinions of Joe and Pat Buchanan, with less sympathy than either probably deserved.
    Suffice to say, all the while Joe refused to lie down, and eventually had a very public falling out with Buckley. He was fired from National Review, lost his syndicated column and his radio show, and became a pariah.
    *
    I knew all about Joe’s troubles before I met him, and because I agreed with his opinions and disagreed with the way his career was devastated due to them, I admired him even more. He had the courage of his convictions. Losing your job is one thing, being blackballed from that industry another, but losing your friends is the worst thing of all. Given his functional limitations, Joe’s life was kind of in shambles when I met him. I couldn’t help but profoundly feel that I needed to do whatever I could to help him. So after he lived with us for a time, I moved him into another place, and then another, and then another, and I think there was one more after that.
    For almost three years I was his chauffeur, his assistant, his at-large caregiver. His health was failing and he needed the help. My efforts were supplemented by donations from magnanimous men you can read around the web, like Pat Buchanan, Taki Theodorocopulous, and Lew Rockwell. Still, his income was precarious. Even then, long after he’d been beaten, he remained at the mercy of Jewish activists hell-bent on preventing him from speaking in public for a fee, hounding any one who dared invite him to do so with determined threats. The only thing worse in journalism than being associated with an anti-Semite is being labeled one yourself. As Joe said, “These days an anti-Semite is less likely to be someone who hates Jews than someone who is hated by Jews.”
    More than once, he said to me that he had no regrets, and even though the sentiment came from the wilderness while living in poverty, I actually had to believe him. He never lost his sense of humor: “Being a full-time Jew-hater is hard work, much too hard for me”; “I’m not anti-Semitic, but I admit that I’m anti-semantic”; “I said when Barry Bonds breaks the home-run record I was going to send him a racist letter even worse than the one I sent Aaron forty years ago.” That last one was pure Joe, but you had to really know him to appreciate how funny it was: “The idea of someone sitting down and writing such a letter, and then actually walking it to the mailbox…”—and the notion then drowned in his own deep laughter.
    But truth be told, by the time I had to go away to college in Williamsburg, I wasn’t entirely unhappy to leave Joe behind. It had become obvious that his troubles were worse than they needed to be, due to bad habits aside from a dysfunction. Looking after him had taken a toll on me. We talked over the phone, and slowly lost touch. I heard toward the end that he finally wound up exactly where he belonged, teaching Shakespeare at a tiny, uniquely conservative Catholic school called Christendom College in Front Royal, Va.
    Then, in late September, 2010, I got a call from dad: “You need to come home, Joe is dying.” He was laid up in a hospice—complications from diabetes—and when I entered the place I was shocked and appalled to see nodding seniors literally lining the walls of the hallway in wheelchairs. This is how poor people die, I thought to myself. My father and I met Joe’s dogged long-time publisher Fran Griffin in Joe’s room, clutching a rosary. Joe was conscious but could neither open his eyes nor speak. The greatest conversationalist in the country had lost his voice. And I was back where I was the first time we met, unable to summon the right words. My tears were too heavy. I wanted to tell him how sorry I was for losing touch, for not being able to do more. Most of all I wanted to thank him for being my friend. Fran sat bedside with me and we prayed the rosary. Afterward, I just squeezed Joe’s hand for what must have been an hour, crying. He passed the next day.
    *
    The great political philosopher Paul Gottfried wrote a remembrance of Joe, in which he called him a hero. The much-lauded Presidential speech writer Matthew Scully called him our era’s master of plain-English prose. The always eloquent Jared Taylor doubted he would ever meet a man of such gifts again. And National Review compared him to Milton. And to think I knew this man as my friend…what can I say? Only that I’ll never forget him.
     

    Pat,

    Thanks for that. Testament to your own character as well as Joe’s.

    There is indeed a great deal of ruin in a country. It consists of such travesties/tragedies.

  191. @AnotherDad

    I saw on Wikipedia that Matthew Continetti converted to Judaism before marrying Bill Kristol’s daughter.
     
    This strikes me as exceptionally beta and pathetic.

    It's one thing for a wife to convert to her husband's religion, like Ivanka. That's a wife submitting--which is what wives do--and throwing her lot in with her husbands' family.

    It's also fine for a guy to just take a pass--"hey you want to raise the kids Catholic, peachy". Or make the trivial adjustment, "I was raised Methodist but my wife's a Presbyterian so we went with that."

    But a full on conversion to the wife's faith? Sorta cucky.

    And double, triple, quadruple, heck an order of magnitude more for conversion to Judaism. Because it is at core an ethnic religion for the Jewish people. Continetti, no matter how you slice it, is not a Jew. So he's not only tossing his father's faith, but turning his back on his whole lineage and embracing some other people's lineage of which he is distinctly *not* a part.

    Very girly. In fact, it's what girls have to do when an invader conquers their tribe--submit and join the conquerors to survive. Perfectly understandable for a girl. But for a guy? Continetti is an invaded, occupied, half-man. A cuck. A joke.

    You’ve forgotten the obvious–a male convert would have to be circumcised. That’s about as cucky as it gets.

    I do think you’re making a bit too much out of this overall though. The guy’s probably not said his rosary in years. The elite isn’t very religious. Continetti’s an up-and-coming writer, wedding Kristol’s daughter is a good career move (at least until the Trumpening). In these circles it’s just a form of Episcopalianism with very early church services (and you have to become obsessed with a random middle-eastern country, but he’s probably used to that already). It’s not about blood and soil and your eternal soul, it’s about when you go to services and who you can meet there.

    • Replies: @Bill
    Most American goyim are circumcised. OBGYN actually condescended to me when I told him he wasn't allowed to cut my son.
  192. @Pat Casey

    When the Bills said M.J. Sobran was banned, conservatives let Joe go off and die in poverty.
     
    Ouch. That one hits close to home. We had to shuffle him around; he always had a roof. I don't know if I'll ever forgive mom completely for making him move out of the basement, but, well, I'll just make you read the story Steve.

    Getting to Know Joe
    By Patrick Casey

    When I started to read for the sake of enjoying good writing, my father gave me a book, an anthology of essays, and said, “I’d give my right arm to write like him.” I’ll never forget that, because I’ll never forget enjoying for the first time the perfectly brilliant word-joinery of a literary master. The book was titled Single Issues—two hundred pages of social commentary—and it’s a real rarity to find these days, even on Amazon. My copy, the one dad gave me, is worn and tattered, but most of all it is treasured. I got to get it signed by the author, a man whom, I’m proud to say, became my friend. His name was Joe Sobran.
    *
    When Robert Taft died in 1953, his death seemed to mark the end of a political opinion, one which his allies dated back to Jefferson. The fact that that opinion had come to be called “conservatism” is enough to let one know it was considered a dying idea anyways. Taft had called The New Deal, “a revolution within the form”—and that seemed to encapsulate the program’s stability. No one was asked to do more than pay a little more in taxes, and the ones who didn’t even have to do that were just given jobs doing what Roosevelt thought ought to be done. And yet, suddenly the State had transmogrified, and no one in Congress shouted louder about it than Robert Taft. With him gone, America seemed to have simply moved on.
    Then, an urbane firebrand, unlike anything America had ever quite had before, appeared on the scene, just as television was changing the media landscape. When William F. Buckley Jr founded National Review in 1955, a conformism of political opinion in style as much as substance in that middle decade was given a jolt, rather electrified. As George Will said, “For conservatives, happy days were here again.” Suddenly, the Right had a voice that could not be called dumb or styled retrograde. Around National Review, Buckley formed a phalanx of intellectuals that grew into a movement, which began setting the agenda for the Republican Party when it gave Barry Goldwater the momentum he needed to win the nomination in 1964. Aside from making a guy named Reagan relevant, Buckley introduced Kissinger to Nixon, hosted the longest running public affairs show in TV history, wrote a thrice weekly syndicated column and over fifty books, all the while editing National Review for forty years. He is arguably the most consequential opinion journalist in American history. And in 1972, he discovered Joe Sobran.
    *
    Joe was an old friend of my father’s when I met him in 2006, and for about the next three years I hung pretty close to his side. It was an incredibly lucky relationship, more than a privilege really; and that isn’t modest speaking—it’s conscience: I owe a debt to the man.
    There is no evidence that he ever wrote an inelegant sentence in his life, and the first thing a person would say about Joe after meeting him was that he never spoke one either. In an era when our discourse is mostly sound bytes of stuttering platitudes, Joe’s spoken eloquence may have been his most impressive quality. A man who worked next to the likes of Bill Buckley and James Burnham wrote in a history of the modern conservative movement that the finest conversationalist he had ever known was Joe Sobran. When Joe died, all who wrote personal remembrances of him basically restated that point. The National Review editorial on Joe’s death aptly compared his talent in this regard to Milton’s, whose blindness made writing a matter of dictating.
    Most of us hope to speak half as well as we write, and when you’re nineteen sitting next to an idol, well, I could only hope to speak in complete sentences at all. To say the least, I was shaky the first time I met Joe. So mostly I just listened. And that night Joe wanted to talk about baseball. His favorite player was Sandy Koufax: “Short, but peerless. He had to quit pitching at age 30 in 1966, his arm destroyed by its own cruel power, and I never really followed major-league baseball after that.” And Ted Williams? “He began his autobiography by saying that when he was a kid, his only ambition was to have people say, as he walked down the street, “There goes the greatest hitter who ever lived.” My own autobiography could start the same way. It would end a little differently, though.”
    Soon after that first evening, we took Joe to a Nationals game, the first time he’d been to a baseball stadium in years. We also took along a friend of my father’s from England, to whom Joe jested, “You should stay long enough to learn our language—it’s often mistaken for English.” The Englishman’s estimation of Joe was this: “I’ve never met someone who speaks in sentences you would only expect to read.” He brought to the game some fancy camera you can’t buy in England, and snapped a picture of Joe sitting in the stands, and he looks so perfectly himself in it that it’s hard to describe. Others have called his an “impish grin,” but in this picture it is softer than that, and endearing to the point of being poignant. I look at it and see an innocent old man with secret wisdom, but I suppose I’m biased.
    *
    Bill Buckley recalled detecting “singular powers” the first time he read something by Joe, and Pat Buchanan called him “the greatest columnist of our generation.” Hugh Kenner, the preeminent critic of literary modernism, was a contributing editor at National Review when Joe came aboard, and they became fast friends. I’ve always liked Kenner’s compliment of Joe’s writing the best: “The product of a mind in exemplary action.” It makes sense that a surveyor of literature should peg Joe so perfectly, because Joe was only accidentally a political commentator; his true passion, from start to finish, was Shakespeare.
    He liked to quote Kenner’s maxim that we are always blind to the styles of our time, but because his mind was most alive when he was thrilling to Shakespeare, you might say that Joe’s mind belonged more to Shakespeare’s age than our own, and it was this that gave his writing on other topics its unique tone: bemused where others were angry; intimate yet detached and never self-righteous. Like a time-traveler who finds the future a bizarre tragic-comedy, Joe could see the styles of our time.
    *
    To know Joe was to love him, partly because to know him was to entirely understand him, which is to say, if you ever made it into his house, you immediately understood him—and felt for him. There was always, according to my dad, a touch of dysfunction in his psyche, which was only amplified with age. Not too long after I met Joe, he was evicted from the townhouse he’d been living in for a decade, as it had come to resemble the home of a hoarder who lives on books, and who never bothered to clean up the milk he spilled a decade ago. Of course, he was not insane, not even a real hoarder. His life, like his writing, contained no a hint of artifice. He was an exemplar of the dysfunctional genius: Beethoven’s home looked the same.
    Anyways, that’s how Joe came to live with me and my family. He had no place else to go at that point, and I lobbied my mom hard. Up until then, Joe had been my dad’s friend whom I tried to tag along with; living with him made him my friend. He would sit on the front porch pretty much all day—the sedentary sage—accumulating a mess of newspapers and magazines and books around him. He would chain smoke cheap cigars. And I would sit with him, and we would talk about everything under the sun. Dad always said that Joe needed a Boswell, and I regret that I lacked the confidence at the time to make a project out of our relationship. I should have been writing his talk down, because when the rivers of his mind were really flowing, Joe was just peerless.
    At that time, he was writing a commentary on some of Shakespeare for a publisher who, for reasons I’ll get to, didn’t want Joe’s name attached to it. While he was writing them, my father and I attended with Joe a Kennedy Center production of Titus Andronicus, and this story is worth telling: I was in line with Joe at the gift shop before the show behind a man buying a book of the play. Joe was never more comfortable than amidst the company perfect strangers, and he said to the man ahead of us that he would have recited the play to him for free. Now, you have to understand what a eulogizer of Joe’s called the “childlike innocence” in his desire to please other people to see that he was not in such instances being an annoying braggart. The stranger shrugged with an incredulous smile and said something polite to Joe that I can’t now remember.
    Another point to bear in mind about Joe, and which will help you appreciate the strangeness of the situation from the stranger’s perspective, is that he usually wore pieces of a sort of otherworldly wardrobe out in public. He had this bright purple pair of glasses—the color helped him keep track of them—that he would wear, say, to the drugstore or out to the theater. His shirt and pants were primarily something comfortable and sometimes colorful. His beard was spotty and his shoes were usually slippers.
    To look at him you might find such exquisite uniqueness off-putting, until, of course, Joe spoke to you. Then you would recognize that the man matched the clothes in a profound way; that his mind was as otherworldly as his wardrobe. So imagine what the stranger of this story thought when this odd-looking and oddly personable man wound up sitting behind him, where Joe softly recited the entire play.
    *
    By the mid 80s, with conservatism officially ascendant under Reagan, Joe had become the most popular writer for National Review, and had one of the most widely syndicated columns in the country, as well as a weekly program on CBS radio. And he wasn’t typically popular either, as he had engendered an incredibly loyal, even tribal I would say, base of conservative Catholic readers. All this is just to say that in the world of opinion journalism, Joe Sobran was a force to be reckoned with. So, in 1986, when Joe began criticizing Israel and America’s relationship with the Jewish State, his stature was such that he couldn’t just be shoved down the memory-hole or simply ignored.
    What ensued was a particularly nasty campaign of character assassination against Joe carried out by Jewish intellectuals who had lately become an influential faction in the conservative movement. The controversy intermittently persisted for five years, then reached a boiling point in the run-up to the first Gulf War, which Joe said he hated with a “murderous fury,” and spared no expense in attacking Israel’s role in bringing it about. The debate was so pivotal that Bill Buckley felt the need to write an entire book about it, In Search of Anti-Semitism, where he examined at painstaking lengths the opinions of Joe and Pat Buchanan, with less sympathy than either probably deserved.
    Suffice to say, all the while Joe refused to lie down, and eventually had a very public falling out with Buckley. He was fired from National Review, lost his syndicated column and his radio show, and became a pariah.
    *
    I knew all about Joe’s troubles before I met him, and because I agreed with his opinions and disagreed with the way his career was devastated due to them, I admired him even more. He had the courage of his convictions. Losing your job is one thing, being blackballed from that industry another, but losing your friends is the worst thing of all. Given his functional limitations, Joe’s life was kind of in shambles when I met him. I couldn’t help but profoundly feel that I needed to do whatever I could to help him. So after he lived with us for a time, I moved him into another place, and then another, and then another, and I think there was one more after that.
    For almost three years I was his chauffeur, his assistant, his at-large caregiver. His health was failing and he needed the help. My efforts were supplemented by donations from magnanimous men you can read around the web, like Pat Buchanan, Taki Theodorocopulous, and Lew Rockwell. Still, his income was precarious. Even then, long after he’d been beaten, he remained at the mercy of Jewish activists hell-bent on preventing him from speaking in public for a fee, hounding any one who dared invite him to do so with determined threats. The only thing worse in journalism than being associated with an anti-Semite is being labeled one yourself. As Joe said, “These days an anti-Semite is less likely to be someone who hates Jews than someone who is hated by Jews.”
    More than once, he said to me that he had no regrets, and even though the sentiment came from the wilderness while living in poverty, I actually had to believe him. He never lost his sense of humor: “Being a full-time Jew-hater is hard work, much too hard for me”; “I’m not anti-Semitic, but I admit that I’m anti-semantic”; “I said when Barry Bonds breaks the home-run record I was going to send him a racist letter even worse than the one I sent Aaron forty years ago.” That last one was pure Joe, but you had to really know him to appreciate how funny it was: “The idea of someone sitting down and writing such a letter, and then actually walking it to the mailbox…”—and the notion then drowned in his own deep laughter.
    But truth be told, by the time I had to go away to college in Williamsburg, I wasn’t entirely unhappy to leave Joe behind. It had become obvious that his troubles were worse than they needed to be, due to bad habits aside from a dysfunction. Looking after him had taken a toll on me. We talked over the phone, and slowly lost touch. I heard toward the end that he finally wound up exactly where he belonged, teaching Shakespeare at a tiny, uniquely conservative Catholic school called Christendom College in Front Royal, Va.
    Then, in late September, 2010, I got a call from dad: “You need to come home, Joe is dying.” He was laid up in a hospice—complications from diabetes—and when I entered the place I was shocked and appalled to see nodding seniors literally lining the walls of the hallway in wheelchairs. This is how poor people die, I thought to myself. My father and I met Joe’s dogged long-time publisher Fran Griffin in Joe’s room, clutching a rosary. Joe was conscious but could neither open his eyes nor speak. The greatest conversationalist in the country had lost his voice. And I was back where I was the first time we met, unable to summon the right words. My tears were too heavy. I wanted to tell him how sorry I was for losing touch, for not being able to do more. Most of all I wanted to thank him for being my friend. Fran sat bedside with me and we prayed the rosary. Afterward, I just squeezed Joe’s hand for what must have been an hour, crying. He passed the next day.
    *
    The great political philosopher Paul Gottfried wrote a remembrance of Joe, in which he called him a hero. The much-lauded Presidential speech writer Matthew Scully called him our era’s master of plain-English prose. The always eloquent Jared Taylor doubted he would ever meet a man of such gifts again. And National Review compared him to Milton. And to think I knew this man as my friend…what can I say? Only that I’ll never forget him.
     

    That was a very sad story, and beautiful in a sad way. I wish I could have met him.

    Hopefully he’s up there with the angels.

  193. @The Man From K Street
    Don't know about the Kristol family situation, but it reminds me of David Brooks' now-ex-wife. When he married her, she converted (from Baptist?) to Brooks' Judaism, and, to mix metaphors, became more papal than the Pope, as the Germans put it. The full Monty of Orthodox observance, including mikvah baths (don't know if it was the same DC synagogue where the rabbi turned out to be a peeping tom at the mikvah). Now that Brooks has kicked her to the curb, I have to wonder what her bearings are now.

    Ezra Klein is I think the only straight Journolister to have *not* married a shiksa.

    This is from Isaac Asimov’s jokebook, so it probably is set in the 50s or so.

    Guy marries a shiksa, dad says, “I told you not to marry a shiksa!”

    “No, Dad, she’ll convert, it’s all good.”

    Lady converts, learns all the kosher rituals, etc.

    Saturday morning comes by, the guy gets a call from Dad. “Davey, we have to go over the receipts for the store!”

    “I can’t dad, I have to go to temple!”

    Dad immediately says, “I told you not to marry a shiksa!”

  194. @candid_observer

    Well, it’s a fairly young movement with fairly old ideas.
     
    Of course, some of the basic themes of the alt-right or alt-* (though henceforth I'll just use "alt-right" as the generic) movement have been kicked around, and to a good degree implemented, in previous decades and eras. Nationalism in many forms has flourished in the past, which presents many potential models.

    But in fact the basic ideas of the alt-right have just begun to be worked through at this stage. There are indeed a great many incompatible approaches that have already been floated.

    Among the approaches:

    --Citizenism, as suggested by Steve

    --Rejection of a "proposition nation" in favor of a nation built upon a specific culture

    --Some form of "white nationalism" which recognizes the interests of whites as being appropriate to organize around and identify with

    Even a moment's reflection on these different approaches suggests vastly different principles and policies as outcomes.

    Personally, I like the idea of citizenism. It has the most clarity, is minimally disruptive, seems most fair to all, and deals most directly with the facts on the ground in any given nation: if you're a citizen, we all have to deal with you, and you have to deal with all of us.

    “Personally, I like the idea of citizenism.”

    You can see how it’s swept all before it in the intellectual marketplace.

    Oh, wait, nobody has heard of it…

  195. @27 year old
    >Most goods are pretty cheap today, due to trade with China / automation, but at the same time, across most of the Anglosphere, property ownership and mortgages are ultra expensive and out of reach.

    >So you have this generation (Generation Rent aka The Millennials) that is actually still quite materialistic (though less hedonistic), but doesn’t really strive too much for money both because their lifestyle goods are pretty cheap and they also see no point in striving for a bigger income because it’s not going to help very much at getting that house.

    Yes.

    For the "aging millennial" set like myself, I would simplify to: money can't buy what we really want - life with dignity in a nice white community - so what good is it?

    Also, we've (re?)learned the fact that money is just one aspect of status, and have so sought out other ways to compete for status (social media followers, notch count, hipster-ism, etc).

    >the ones who are interested in getting ahead end up valuing personal connections, charm and bullshitting to get ahead, and are much more cynical about the power of qualifications and hard work.

    Many people who get ahead are cynical, but many seem to genuinely believe they came out on top in a meritocratic system. One thing is for sure, the people who are -not- getting ahead, are extremely cynical about the power of hard work relative to connections/bullshitting.

    Having had some success, but much less than I could have had with better networking, I will share my thoughts.

    Hard work and networking are both necessary conditions for big-time success. You can get by with one but it is not as good.

    Naturally people with one tend to overrate the other, since everyone notices what is missing.

    The catch is that networking becomes more important when openings are fewer. You may remember during the Internet boom computer nerds were getting jobs despite a lack of social skills because their skills were needed. Came the downturn, and their jobs went to India.

    We’re in an extended downturn as far as jobs go (even if there are jobs most of them stink), so networking becomes more important. It also increases the salience of identity politics (white or black or brown or kosher or what-have-you), since it makes it more important to set aside some jobs for your group–it’s not like you’re going to start your own successful private-sector business anymore.

  196. Good grief Steve. When you wake up from your fainting couch approve my comments regarding the Weigel not giving a shit the day we’re all kulaked.

  197. @Lot
    I knew Weigel a bit when we were both teenagers. I liked him, he's smart and honest in a friendly aspie-awkward way. It does not surprise me he's basically the only MSM journalist who is willing to give an honest, non-shrieking description of the alt-right. How many others have even bothered once to note our opposition to all the Bush/Clinton/Obama stupid foreign wars?

    I am also not surprised that the sewer-brained Udolpho and his site decided to make a thread attacking him.

    I am also not surprised that the sewer-brained Udolpho and his site decided to make a thread attacking him.

    He attacked us first. He deserves to reap what he’s sown.

  198. @Maj. Kong
    The main appeal will be to the purist* base's self-interest. There is a precedent for this in the UK and Canada, where the base was actively told to stuff it and outright change its positions. It worked for Cameron, but it didn't for Harper. Lots of repetition that true conservatism is about "individual freedom", "free markets" and nothing else. In the US there would be tremendous repetition of "strong national defense" as well.

    Never underestimate the ability of people who have been followers all of their life, to convince themselves and others that it is us who are the problem. Generations of Arab leaders have been able to deflect all criticism by blaming Israel, it would not surprise me that Conservatism Inc. could get 10 years of blaming the eeevil racists for its problems. Altruistic punishment.

    *Think the Ted Cruz supporter, the skids would be greased by having Cruz make a big pro-gay rights speech and announce that he supports abortion being a state issue. He could also make an appeal that criticizing any liberal Republican is wrong, appealing to Reagan. Rubio has already gone in this direction.

    The main appeal will be to the purist* base’s self-interest. There is a precedent for this in the UK and Canada, where the base was actively told to stuff it and outright change its positions. It worked for Cameron, but it didn’t for Harper. Lots of repetition that true conservatism is about “individual freedom”, “free markets” and nothing else. In the US there would be tremendous repetition of “strong national defense” as well.

    Just curious about your claim about the base being actively told to stuff it and change its positions and such a move worked for Cameron in the UK but not Harper in Canada.

    By any measurement, Harper was a far more successful politician than Cameron — what’d he win? Four terms in office? Also, on what points did Harper tell his base to “stuff it”?

    Cameron did only to an extent. He had two governments — one, a coalition with the left-wing Lib Dems which restricted his room for maneuver. His telling the base to “stuff it” seems to have been limited to gay marriage and despite winning a majority government, by stuffing his base on Europe (see his cast iron guarantee on Lisbon) he lost the referendum and his job.

    I’d actually argue that between Harper and Cameron, Cameron was not only more inclined to tell his base to stuff it, but was far less successful — as a consequence.

    That said, I’m not an expert on Canada, so there may be something about Harper I’m unaware of…

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    From my observations, the Cameron government achieved far better economic results, and did it without a surge of oil revenue. Harper had only one term of majority government, and it took him three elections to get there. Cameron got it in two. The personal popularity of the two men is also telling.

    When Harper was running minority governments, he was essentially passing Liberal Party budgets under something called "confidence and supply". There was no ability to demonstrate any kind of fiscal prudence. While its correct to note that Harper himself did not criticize his base, his lieutenants often did, and social cons are a dead letter. The worst thing Harper did was to purge all potential leadership challengers, which is why the CPC is rudderless. For now, the right has no where to go in Canada, unless it chooses Western independence or some kind of alliance with Quebec.

    For the best example, search "Harper abortion debate"
  199. @middle aged vet
    The many effective ads that rich John McCain and rich Mitt Romney ran featuring rich Jeremiah Wright, are legendary. As the lawyer-trained Clintons must know, it is a risk to open up the defendant (on direct examination) to impeachment (character) evidence. Well, Jeremiah Wright as character evidence is out of date - good thing for the Clintons that there are no possible ways that they can be associated with people who are considered despicable!

    The many effective ads that rich John McCain and rich Mitt Romney ran featuring rich Jeremiah Wright, are legendary. As the lawyer-trained Clintons must know, it is a risk to open up the defendant (on direct examination) to impeachment (character) evidence. Well, Jeremiah Wright as character evidence is out of date – good thing for the Clintons that there are no possible ways that they can be associated with people who are considered despicable!

    Ha ha – you are right! They can even be tied to the ultimate evil — Donald Trump!

  200. @nglaer
    Pointed, funny comment. I met the woman only once, about 25 years ago or more, sat next to her at a dinner. She told me a story from her junior high days, she was assigned to do a joint class project with two black girls, and the teacher took her aside after class and told her she would have to do all the work, and to expect that.

    That’s good training for a government job.

  201. @AnotherDad

    I saw on Wikipedia that Matthew Continetti converted to Judaism before marrying Bill Kristol’s daughter.
     
    This strikes me as exceptionally beta and pathetic.

    It's one thing for a wife to convert to her husband's religion, like Ivanka. That's a wife submitting--which is what wives do--and throwing her lot in with her husbands' family.

    It's also fine for a guy to just take a pass--"hey you want to raise the kids Catholic, peachy". Or make the trivial adjustment, "I was raised Methodist but my wife's a Presbyterian so we went with that."

    But a full on conversion to the wife's faith? Sorta cucky.

    And double, triple, quadruple, heck an order of magnitude more for conversion to Judaism. Because it is at core an ethnic religion for the Jewish people. Continetti, no matter how you slice it, is not a Jew. So he's not only tossing his father's faith, but turning his back on his whole lineage and embracing some other people's lineage of which he is distinctly *not* a part.

    Very girly. In fact, it's what girls have to do when an invader conquers their tribe--submit and join the conquerors to survive. Perfectly understandable for a girl. But for a guy? Continetti is an invaded, occupied, half-man. A cuck. A joke.

    “And double, triple, quadruple, heck an order of magnitude more for conversion to Judaism. Because it is at core an ethnic religion for the Jewish people. Continetti, no matter how you slice it, is not a Jew.”

    If a Rabbi decides he wants to deem Matthew Continetti a Jew, than who the hell are you to say he is not a Jew. A Rabbi is a trillion times better authority than a WASP Goy like yourself on determining who is a Jew. Rabbis are the gatekeepers of Judaism.

    A WASP Goy getting to decide who is a Jew is like a North African Muslim getting to decide who is ethnically French.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "A WASP Goy getting to decide who is a Jew is like a North African Muslim getting to decide who is ethnically French."

    Or like the grandchild of an Ellis Island immigrant getting to decide "what it means to be american".
  202. @Anonymous
    "what if anything should we do to ameliorate the harsher conditions of the outcomes?"

    Exactly what is already being done: handouts.

    The bottom line is that a people who had not risen to a certain stage of civilization, dependent on selection pressures and technological momentum encountered only on the Eurasian landmass, were dragged into that stage by merchants. They cannot be brought up to speed for the simple fact that they have not been selected for the drives which eventuated in that civilization. They are absolute dead-weight by necessity.

    Natural selection obtains or it doesn't. If one is "HBD-woke", one should bear well in mind that different groups means different drives, impulses, instincts, or whatever you wish to call it, from which a certain threshold of society proceeds given local conditions. The error isn't Democratic policies; it's assuming that there is a solution at all to the Völkerchaos other than waiting for it to collapse from the weight of its own unprecedented squandering of resources.

    Note: I am not a fetishist of Western civilization. I believe it is absolutely doomed, obviously, and am much more at home among "lower" stages of society mocked by white nationalists. A people still scraping by in straw huts in the middle of some huge national preserve have it much better than we do, in my opinion. But they're doomed too, of course.

    Note: I am not a fetishist of Western civilization. I believe it is absolutely doomed, obviously, and am much more at home among “lower” stages of society mocked by white nationalists. A people still scraping by in straw huts in the middle of some huge national preserve have it much better than we do, in my opinion.

    Mocked by white nationalists? White nationalists have been looking forward to the collapse of Western civilization since the early 1990′s. Read some Bowery or “Yggdrasil”.

  203. @nglaer
    Pointed, funny comment. I met the woman only once, about 25 years ago or more, sat next to her at a dinner. She told me a story from her junior high days, she was assigned to do a joint class project with two black girls, and the teacher took her aside after class and told her she would have to do all the work, and to expect that.

    Pointed, funny comment. I met the woman only once, about 25 years ago or more, sat next to her at a dinner. She told me a story from her junior high days, she was assigned to do a joint class project with two black girls, and the teacher took her aside after class and told her she would have to do all the work, and to expect that.

    Hmm, I thought the 13th Amendment was the law in all 50 states.

  204. @Jack D
    Having a safety net creates a "moral hazard" (this is the insurance term for the risk that you'll burn your own building down to collect the insurance). Scandinavia is an extreme example but we see the same thing in the US. Scandinavians are hard working but have an elaborate safety net so that you can stay home if you are injured, elderly, caring for a newborn, etc. Part of the social compact of the locals is "I will work hard and contribute my share whenever I can, but if I can't then the society will take care of me." This is exactly the kind of arrangement that you speak about in your post - society as in effect a giant extended family.



    Now you introduce into that society say Somalis, who have no Calvinist tradition of hard work or loyalty to anyone beside their immediate family. And for whom life on the dole in Stockholm is far richer than they could achieve working back home. The result is that they act as parasites on their host society. They are glad to be on the receiving end of the social compact but don't buy into the giving end at all. And this is even before you take into account that due to lower levels of skill, education, IQ, etc. they are in no position to contribute much even if they wanted to, which they don't.

    So this is how you end up with Merkel's Boner - she sees a million able bodied young men who will prop up the German social welfare system as it fills with the aged, but the reality is that these young men will take whatever they can get - free gropes on New Year's Eve, free everything, but contribute little.

    So this is how you end up with Merkel’s Boner….

    You didn’t actually provide an antecedent for “this”.

  205. @Mr. Anon
    "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly I suppose. But I don’t think he’s published anything worth a tuppenpence halfpenny."

    Does anyone read anything that was written by Buckley anymore? Or remember anything he ever said, other than that line about the Boston phone book? He may as well have written in sand.

    You need to find the book that has his in memoriams. He knew everyone and outlived most of them. Two stick out in my mind. Norman Mailer’s and Bill Casey’s. Used to be able to read all of them for free online but, well, I suspect their CIA money dried up when Buckley died. They have to raise money in fundraisers now, which I’m pretty positive is not something they ever did before. But yeah his obits are what should matter most of his writings and they are the best. His book are not good because they are simply not thoughtful. He had a schedule that was almost a regimen to go to switzerland and right one book a year in a month or something. I understand why people don’t like his columns generally nowadays, but there is, in lets say the ones he wrote in his last five years, usually a fine sentiment he gets across when you read it slowly. I remember the one he wrote about outlawing cigarettes when his wife died, and he very poignantly, delicately said of course I would absolutely outlaw smoking if I could have her back. It was well done. I’ve never even bothered with blackford oaks.

  206. @celt darnell

    The main appeal will be to the purist* base’s self-interest. There is a precedent for this in the UK and Canada, where the base was actively told to stuff it and outright change its positions. It worked for Cameron, but it didn’t for Harper. Lots of repetition that true conservatism is about “individual freedom”, “free markets” and nothing else. In the US there would be tremendous repetition of “strong national defense” as well.
     
    Just curious about your claim about the base being actively told to stuff it and change its positions and such a move worked for Cameron in the UK but not Harper in Canada.

    By any measurement, Harper was a far more successful politician than Cameron -- what'd he win? Four terms in office? Also, on what points did Harper tell his base to "stuff it"?

    Cameron did only to an extent. He had two governments -- one, a coalition with the left-wing Lib Dems which restricted his room for maneuver. His telling the base to "stuff it" seems to have been limited to gay marriage and despite winning a majority government, by stuffing his base on Europe (see his cast iron guarantee on Lisbon) he lost the referendum and his job.

    I'd actually argue that between Harper and Cameron, Cameron was not only more inclined to tell his base to stuff it, but was far less successful -- as a consequence.

    That said, I'm not an expert on Canada, so there may be something about Harper I'm unaware of...

    From my observations, the Cameron government achieved far better economic results, and did it without a surge of oil revenue. Harper had only one term of majority government, and it took him three elections to get there. Cameron got it in two. The personal popularity of the two men is also telling.

    When Harper was running minority governments, he was essentially passing Liberal Party budgets under something called “confidence and supply”. There was no ability to demonstrate any kind of fiscal prudence. While its correct to note that Harper himself did not criticize his base, his lieutenants often did, and social cons are a dead letter. The worst thing Harper did was to purge all potential leadership challengers, which is why the CPC is rudderless. For now, the right has no where to go in Canada, unless it chooses Western independence or some kind of alliance with Quebec.

    For the best example, search “Harper abortion debate”

  207. @Bill

    The main appeal will be to the purist* base’s self-interest. There is a precedent for this in the UK and Canada, where the base was actively told to stuff it and outright change its positions. It worked for Cameron, but it didn’t for Harper. Lots of repetition that true conservatism is about “individual freedom”, “free markets” and nothing else. In the US there would be tremendous repetition of “strong national defense” as well.
     
    What you are describing is what the neocons did during the 70s and 80s. Relatively sane Southern and Midwestern conservatives were transformed in place into the freakshow bible-thumping libertarian cucks they are now. We exported it to the UK and Canada, not the reverse.

    Here is Irving Kristol in 2003 describing the largely completed task he had devoted his life to:


    Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.
     
    Today's American conservative who self-consciously worships the vile Michael King is the product of this mind-control apparatus. Guys at NRO have already said that they are OK with gay marriage. One standard line of attack against the official boogeyman du jour, Muslims, is that they take female modesty seriously. We don't have to dream about the day when every "conservative" is really a cultural marxist. It's here right now.

    I will disagree here, I think you are conflating neoconservatism the intellectual movement with either a popular movement or a behind the scenes bribery scheme. If the US “exported” the strategy of “purge the base”, why did this fail in Australia?

    What began as the conservative movement of Buckley did not always have some of its current characteristics. While it was always internationalist, Reagan was far more limited in use of force than Bush II. Reagan was also a lead sponsor of disarmament talks.

    I think the key though, is that people like Barry Goldwater were social liberals, and I don’t see the trend against abortion as being the result of the neoconservatives.

    During that time, they were associated with Sen. Henry Jackson and Sen. Moynihan, both liberal Democrats. Their shift to the Republicans was only solidified in 1984.

    And I cannot agree at all with Muslims as the “bogeyman”, while some people would rather blame (((others))) as the cause of the division, I believe that ideas (the Koran, Hadiths, etc.) have consequences.

    • Replies: @Bill
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Southern and Midwestern conservatives were not free market cucks, Michael King worshipers, Ellis Island romantics, bathhouse enthusiasts, or defenders of a woman's right to be a camwhore in the 50s and 60s, let alone before that. "Economic conservatism" and "proposition nationism" and defense of decadence were alien ideas foisted on them by the GOP establishment, not least by Buckley. So, in fact, America's conservatives were ordered to adopt positions, on both social and economic matters, which were alien and opposed to their interests and values. And, for the most part, they did. And that is what you said was going to happen in the future.

    Abortion has been the bait. First, you convince SoCons that abortion is the only real issue of importance. Then you play Lucy and keep pulling that ball away from Charlie Brown at the last second. They get so distracted by this game and by the need to work even harder for the GOP so that they can get the "right candidates" elected that they let all the other collapses slide.

    You're right of course that the GOP will collapse (further) on gay rights, on the age of consent, on polygamy, on bestiality, on incest, and on anything else they are asked to collapse on. Whether random Hoosiers and Volunteers are going to continue going along with it is another question. But this is just the continuation of a long-established program.

    It would be great if Australia brought back the White Australia Policy. But that would be unthinkable, would it not?

    And I cannot agree at all with Muslims as the “bogeyman”, while some people would rather blame (((others))) as the cause of the division, I believe that ideas (the Koran, Hadiths, etc.) have consequences.
     
    Indeed they do. The consequences of the Muslims' bad ideas are that they are poor, backward, and powerless and therefore constitute not the tiniest hint of a threat to anyone but themselves. And they are definitely the boogeyman. Don't you know that they hate us for our freedoms?
  208. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Has anyone noticed how the mainstream media always follows a certain standard operating procedure whenever the subject of “white supremacism” or the “Alt-Right” comes up?
    While they certainly talk about “white supremacists”, they never, under any circumstances, actually talk to a “white supremacist.”
    Why do you think that is?

  209. @Bill
    Do you know anything about his family? You say he is a rich kid. Who are his parents?

    This may be what we call an Irish Fact, but I think his dad worked for NASA f0r some reason. He could afford to live in Arlington or DC on what they paid him at the American Conservative, then I’m sure taki took care of him at takimag and lived, I believe in Brooklyn. Then he started altright and moved to a right nice house where he could ski in the backyard or something in Fish something Montana I think. Phil Jacksons got a place in the town I remember. Anyways I remember the Alt Right fundraiser and I don’t think they got five thousand bucks. I could care less if he’s rich. But he seemed to ski all day from the videos he posted of himself skiing. He had a goofey friend at one point who wrote like a prose poem about which rich American metropolis he was going to live in and it was tough decision because, well, it was whichever one he wanted. That might have been my first comment when I told him to get lost, this is not that type of site and he took my instructions loyally and did. Richard Spencer is a horrible editor it was like he had never read a magazine, and he posted some of my articles after he had misspelled words in them, amazingly. I still don’t really know how he could do that.

    • Replies: @Bill
    Well, I ask because I find him kind of odd and suspect. How is it that he has led this charmed life, where he gets to go around being explicitly racist for a living and, like, makes a living. How is it, now, that he is the leader of the alt right even though nobody in the alt right actually likes him, follows him, looks up to him, etc? How does he have a think tank and a place in the media's Rolodex? It's bizarre.

    Like, what if it turned out his dad was a C suite guy for a defense contractor? Or an executive for one of those firms that does international development contracting. Or in some other way obviously hooked up with the defense and/or intelligence communities?
  210. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Maj. Kong
    The main appeal will be to the purist* base's self-interest. There is a precedent for this in the UK and Canada, where the base was actively told to stuff it and outright change its positions. It worked for Cameron, but it didn't for Harper. Lots of repetition that true conservatism is about "individual freedom", "free markets" and nothing else. In the US there would be tremendous repetition of "strong national defense" as well.

    Never underestimate the ability of people who have been followers all of their life, to convince themselves and others that it is us who are the problem. Generations of Arab leaders have been able to deflect all criticism by blaming Israel, it would not surprise me that Conservatism Inc. could get 10 years of blaming the eeevil racists for its problems. Altruistic punishment.

    *Think the Ted Cruz supporter, the skids would be greased by having Cruz make a big pro-gay rights speech and announce that he supports abortion being a state issue. He could also make an appeal that criticizing any liberal Republican is wrong, appealing to Reagan. Rubio has already gone in this direction.

    How did it work for Camoron–who was himself told to stuff it at Brexit and made a humiliating departure.

  211. @Bill

    They can’t use education to queue jump and get ahead fast (particularly compared to Boomers), so the ones who are interested in getting ahead end up valuing personal connections, charm and bullshitting to get ahead, and are much more cynical about the power of qualifications and hard work.
     
    Like 27-year-old said, you don't know enough of the winners. Every Ivy League school, medical school, top 14 law school, etc is chock-a-block full of people who got there by meticulous hard work and high intelligence. In perception if not entirely in reality.

    Yeah, I’m not thinking about at the super elite level, more about the character of typical members of the generation who are successful.