The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Paul Gottfried ArchiveBlogview
An Open Letter to Conservativism, Inc.
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Since the neoconservatives took over the American conservative movement, in alliance with GOP operatives, I’ve been looking for a no-nonsense defense of academic and intellectual freedom issuing from the establishment Right. And I am still waiting for such a defense and may go on waiting until the end of my life. It’s not that Republican talking heads and scribblers don’t complain about “intolerance.” But as the moderate wing of the PC Left, they do nothing significant to counter the problem they pretend to be addressing. Nor am I impressed that conservatism, inc. rushes to the honor of “moderate feminist” Christine Hoff Somers or our socially leftist black former secretary-of-state Condoleezza Rice or Republican centrist George Will, when one of their own is banned from speaking on an American campus. These speakers are not likely to say anything different from what one reads on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal or hears on Fox-news. They belong to the institutionalized opposition and faithfully communicate the talking points of one of our two national parties.

I am equally unimpressed that neoconservatives have encouraged insulting depictions of Mohammed or sponsor websites that engage in Muslim-bashing. As anyone but a fool must know, neoconservatives are fervent, obsessive devotees of the Israeli Right, and the Israelis are forced to deal with hostile Muslim population and governments. Why should anyone be surprised that neoconservatives and the Republican Party, over whose foreign policy they exercise considerable influence, are keen on magazines, like Charlie Hebdo, or exhibitionists like Pam Geller in Texas, who whack away at Islamic objects of veneration? I would not expect anything else from political players driven by certain policy objectives.

I’m also not exactly astonished, as I have said before, that Fox-news keeps contrasting its exuberant willingness to see Christ blasphemed as a fundamental “civil liberty” to the deep anger shown by Muslims when their Prophet is ridiculed. Unlike Muslims, most Americans don’t get worked up over their supposed faith. It’s not that Americans don’t take anything seriously. There is a whole bunch of things they’re supposed to take seriously, e.g., Martin Luther King, Stonewall, feminism, anti-Semitism, insensitivity to blacks, and the adoration of whatever is “foreign.” It’s just that Christianity and Hebraic social morality are no longer things about which most Americans seem to give a damn. And they’re just not important for the “conservative agenda,” unlike defending unswervingly W’s war of choice in Iraq or keeping close surveillance on the phone calls of American citizens.

I should also note, as documented in a booklet I helped bring out with Richard Spencer, and with contributors John Derbyshire, Bill Regnery, Peter Brimelow, Jim Kalb, and Lee Congdon, The Great Purges, that conservatism, inc. has been working for several decades to suppress “insensitive” views and punish those on the right who dare to utter them. It’s not that the “Right” has stayed on the sidelines in this struggle. It has out-hustled the official Left in going after heretics who have questioned the sacred doctrine (of Heritage and Human Events) that Martin Luther King was a “conservative Christian theologian,” those indiscreet few who have dared to notice IQ disparities between ethnic groups, and those alleged hate-mongers who have not been sufficiently supportive of whatever side in in Israeli politics the neocons back.

Other views that I would warn anyone hoping to make a career in conservatism, inc. from presenting would include: both sides, including the Allies, had something to do with starting World War One, Lincoln and Churchill were flawed statesmen, and the 1924 Immigration Act was beneficial for the US. I haven’t quite figured out whether an employee of conservatism, inc. is permitted to hold unorthodox views on the Peloponnesian War. Note that neoconservative journalists referring to that struggle have compared “democratic” Athens to England and “autocratic” Sparta to imperial Germany. But it’s still not clear that divergent historical interpretations about ancient Greek wars are unacceptable “on the right,” in the same way, for example, as bringing up IQ differences or criticizing Lincoln or Martin Luther King. Taking those positions could derail one’s career as a lackey of conservatism, inc.

But hope springs eternal even at my age, and when I saw a commentary on the Republican website Townhall by Liz Harrison, defending the author’s right “to offend you,” I was thinking this could be the real thing. Unfortunately a rude awakening was in store for me. Liz is going after all our maniacal religionists who are interfering with her presumed right to offend them. She therefore warns this presumably dangerously powerful group: “Keep your religion to yourself. I reserve the right to offend you by demanding that everyone keep his faith out of politics.” Liz’s hero is professional pornographer Larry Flint, who helped protect her “freedoms.” Now there’s a blow for intellectual tolerance being struck by Townhall and Liz. It’s a good thing we have Larry Flint and conservatism, inc. to push back at the Christian bullies. Last week I heard another fearless “conservative” luminary, Bernie Goldberg, explain on the O’Reilly Talkathon that presidential candidate Ted Cruz has been forced to oppose gay marriage, which Bernie believes is a “good thing, because Ted is being “terrorized.” The terrorist for Goldberg are the Religious Right, who keep Republican politicians from thinking clearly on things that are clear to Bernie (although not in the same way as they are clear to me).

ORDER IT NOW

Anyhow for conservatism, inc. the extreme limits of tolerance are reached wherever they decide to place them, which is several centimeters away from where the rest of the political establishment has fixed them. Brit Hume has described those on the right who express concern about government surveillance as “paranoid elements.” To these misfits we may add the presumed bigots and antidemocrats whom neocons used to insist “inhabit the fever swamps.” It seems that conservatism, inc. cannot be tolerant of anyone on the right who sound like hardcore “right-wingers” or who engage in non-prescribed thinking. Two points I continue to hear from the fans of the Republican media are: my friends and I are complaining because respectable conservatives banned us from their premises; and by purging us weirdos, the “movement” has made itself more credible.

But, as I point out in my contributions to the study of the cluttered history of “conservative purges,” we are truly speaking here about “blaming the victims.” There is no reason to assume that purge victims, some of whom write for this website, did anything wrong other than offend particularly influential donors and powerbrokers. Moreover, the purges have been usually followed by campaigns of character assassination engaged in by the movement, in a way that is fully reminiscent of the American Communist Party in the past. Finally there is no evidence that purges as a form of self-censorship has made the “Right” more credible. This behavior has brought “conservative” climbers more closely into line with the American center-left. And as conservatism, inc. has played down or retired certain “controversial” issues, the Left has been able to move more speedily in its own direction or to call for more of what George Will proposes as “conservatism with a kindly face.” As with gay marriage, the civil rights and immigration revolutions of the 1960s and the IQ controversy, conservatism, inc. has redefined the other side’s positions as “conservative.” Accordingly it has purged the old believers with longer memories.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. It has out-hustled the official Left in going after heretics who have questioned the sacred doctrine (of Heritage and Human Events) that Martin Luther King was a “conservative Christian theologian,” those indiscreet few who have dared to notice IQ disparities between ethnic groups, and those alleged hate-mongers who have not been sufficiently supportive of whatever side in in Israeli politics the neocons back.

    The mainstream right includes Charles Murray, who is published in the WSJ and even cited by Jeb Bush as an intellectual hero. Fox News also has Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter on, both IQ realists, and their articles are published at sites like Townhall. Walter Williams is another one, and I saw Michael Barone write an article accepting race differences in intelligence a few years ago.

    So it’s at least an exaggeration to say that conservatives match the PC left in their desire to suppress this knowledge.

    You’re right on Israel though, there really is a scary uniformity. Pat has been grandfathered in, but does anyone have an example of any other mainstream conservative voicing the slightest criticism of Israel in the last 5 years? I can’t think of one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong

    You’re right on Israel though, there really is a scary uniformity. Pat has been grandfathered in, but does anyone have an example of any other mainstream conservative voicing the slightest criticism of Israel in the last 5 years? I can’t think of one.
     
    Perhaps if Clinton wins in 2016, she will likely get along better with Netanyahu. That means there will be breathing room on the right, to criticize Israel as too liberal.

    There's little to gain votes-wise from being a right-wing BDSer.
    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/pgottfried/an-open-letter-to-conservativism-inc/#comment-968237
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. It is Jew conservatism Vs. American conservatism. The Republican Party today is Jewish conservative – not traditional forefather conservative. Who with an once of honesty can say differently?

    Clearly Jew conservatism is: pro foreign wars, pro empire, pro domestic spying, pro big government prosecution, pro too big to fail banking and international corporations, pro Federal Reserve, and pro big government Washington solution to problems.

    Clearly traditional American conservatism is: leery of big government, war, and domestic spying, it is pro free speech, pro gun, pro states rights, pro small business, and pro two parent families.

    Today’s Republican Party is all of the first and little of the second – end of story.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong

    Clearly traditional American conservatism is: leery of big government, war, and domestic spying, it is pro free speech, pro gun, pro states rights, pro small business, and pro two parent families.
     
    Alexander Hamilton would disagree, conservatism didn't begin with John C. Calhoun's midlife crisis.
    , @Anonymous
    Well Paul Gottfried is a Jewish conservative. A paleoconservative Jewish conservative. The only one in America, so far as I can tell. God bless him.
  3. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Let the Republican Party die a horrible death. We should be celebrating this….long overdue.

    The IQ test score issue is not relevant. The fundamental issue is race-replacement immigration policy. IQ test scores are used to justify the H1-L1 B asian scab labor program. Nonwhite legal immigration at the most fundamental level should be opposed because they are not our racial kind….and they are also competitors for the scarce resouces of America.

    The legalization of homo marriage…homo Boy Scout Leaders…persecution of White Christian Bakers…its all because of:Greedy Cheating White Male Mega-CEO demigod power. And this comes from their control of US labor markets.

    If the 1965 Immigration Reform Act had not been passed…The Kenyan Foriegner would never have been elected POTUS…neither would violent psychopathic serial rapist Billy Clinton from Hot Springs Arkansas.

    Read More
  4. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    THE NEO-CONS ARE JEWISH.
    JUDAISTS CONTROL BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES; REPUBLICANS AS CONTROLLED OPPOSITION. MODUS OPERANDI EXPOSED.

    Sir, both political parties and the media are controlled by the Judaists.

    The Jewish agenda is simple—to destroy white nations with:

    a. Liberalism (feminism, multi-culturalism, miscegenation, homopathy).
    b. Flood them with 3rd world aliens.
    c. Demand unflinching support for Israel.

    Joe Biden admitted this here:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349155/joe-biden-attributes-social-liberalism-jewish-control-hollywood-and-social-media

    Give the goyim a little freedom to argue about other petty issues (financial matters, school choice, labor laws, etc.) but as long as they obey their owners and operators on these 3 things, it is okay.

    Judaists like Saban and Soros own and operate the Democratic party; Adelson the Republican party. This is done through massive campaign contributions.

    The Jewish Oligarchs also pay them billions under the table.

    Israel is the world leader in money laundering. Not only is the Jewish lobby the biggest campaign contributor (legal amounts), it also pays billions under the table. Most of our politicians and others have secret bank accounts in Israel where millions are deposited in their secret bank accounts once they do the Lobby’s bidding—support Israel and destroy USA with the alien invasion and liberalism. These secret bank accounts are in their Jewish names. For example, Senator John McCain’s Israeli ID and bank account name could be something like Jonah Ben McKenstein.

    The politicians then pay their masters back with billions in phoney bailouts and other gov. grants and contracts.

    And they probably have something on the politicians too, to be brought out and to criminally prosecute them if they stray or becomes moral and refuses to be bribed any more or dares to question the Jewish lobby.

    It is like a criminal town where you run to the police for help, only to find that the police are owned and operated by the same criminal gang!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Surely you are trying to discredit the Unz Review as a place for cranks by such fantastic assertions as yours that "most" politicians have Israeli bank accounts. (You underestimate their creation of safe electorates for incumbents and the equally corrupt influence of Disney, big Pharma and eg. Biofuels).

    And how do you account for Rumsfeld and Chaney being the most influential of neo-cons in leading George the Less into inglorious wars. Crypto-Jews perhaps?
    , @Wally
    Indeed, that's an easy one.

    Jews demand massive 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe while preventing non-Jews from entering "that shitty little country" of theirs.

    The dangers of Jewish supremacism is well known. Although they wish no one would talk openly about it.

    Who runs the Federal Reserve?
    Who runs Wall Street?
    Who owns the US Congress?
    Who owns the White House?
    Who forces acceptance of the fictitious & impossible '6M & gas chambers'?
    Who runs the media / entertainment?
    Who dominates 'academia'?
    Why is AIPAC the most powerful, dominant lobby, which regularly writes the text of Congressional bills and resolutions?
    Who is it that wants to censor free speech via the "hate speech" canard?
    Who is it that demands we shed the blood of US troops for their interests?

  5. @Hepp

    It has out-hustled the official Left in going after heretics who have questioned the sacred doctrine (of Heritage and Human Events) that Martin Luther King was a “conservative Christian theologian,” those indiscreet few who have dared to notice IQ disparities between ethnic groups, and those alleged hate-mongers who have not been sufficiently supportive of whatever side in in Israeli politics the neocons back.
     
    The mainstream right includes Charles Murray, who is published in the WSJ and even cited by Jeb Bush as an intellectual hero. Fox News also has Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter on, both IQ realists, and their articles are published at sites like Townhall. Walter Williams is another one, and I saw Michael Barone write an article accepting race differences in intelligence a few years ago.

    So it's at least an exaggeration to say that conservatives match the PC left in their desire to suppress this knowledge.

    You're right on Israel though, there really is a scary uniformity. Pat has been grandfathered in, but does anyone have an example of any other mainstream conservative voicing the slightest criticism of Israel in the last 5 years? I can't think of one.

    You’re right on Israel though, there really is a scary uniformity. Pat has been grandfathered in, but does anyone have an example of any other mainstream conservative voicing the slightest criticism of Israel in the last 5 years? I can’t think of one.

    Perhaps if Clinton wins in 2016, she will likely get along better with Netanyahu. That means there will be breathing room on the right, to criticize Israel as too liberal.

    There’s little to gain votes-wise from being a right-wing BDSer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob Arctor

    There’s little to gain votes-wise from being a right-wing BDSer.
     
    It's not so much about gaining support as it is about not losing support. The 2003 Iraq War was a complete disaster for the GOP (and conservatism as well) and it would behoove the Republican Party to move away from its sick obsession with Israel if it wants to repeat that horror show with a similar debacle in Iran or Syria.

    Decoupling conservatism from its current, bizarre Zionomania is an utter necessity at this point, should it want to survive.

    , @Jacobite

    There’s little to gain votes-wise from being a right-wing BDSer.
     
    Many of us "right-wingers" don't believe in voting to begin with.
  6. @Art
    It is Jew conservatism Vs. American conservatism. The Republican Party today is Jewish conservative – not traditional forefather conservative. Who with an once of honesty can say differently?

    Clearly Jew conservatism is: pro foreign wars, pro empire, pro domestic spying, pro big government prosecution, pro too big to fail banking and international corporations, pro Federal Reserve, and pro big government Washington solution to problems.

    Clearly traditional American conservatism is: leery of big government, war, and domestic spying, it is pro free speech, pro gun, pro states rights, pro small business, and pro two parent families.

    Today’s Republican Party is all of the first and little of the second – end of story.

    Clearly traditional American conservatism is: leery of big government, war, and domestic spying, it is pro free speech, pro gun, pro states rights, pro small business, and pro two parent families.

    Alexander Hamilton would disagree, conservatism didn’t begin with John C. Calhoun’s midlife crisis.

    Read More
  7. my friends and I are complaining because respectable conservatives banned us from their premises; and by purging us weirdos, the “movement” has made itself more credible

    What’s funny is, this is somehow true. Neo-conservatives expelling morons who embarrass them, even as the neo-conservatives go on to do immense damage with a (Koch brothers funded) corporate Christian right that’ll never do the right thing .. c’est la vie, recalling the conservatives I’d know as a young man resembled neither the bigoted morons defended in this article or the ‘tea party’ fruitcakes bankrolled by the Koch brothers. They were simple, straightforward, honest people with no compelling drive to legislate other peoples’ morality or immerse themselves in the politics of claiming racial superiority. Paul Gottfried & Co more resemble what in those days were a fringe and to claim these sort of people were ever somehow in the conservative politic mainstream is self delusion

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    If you believe what you are writing, you are seriously ,misinformed. Prior to the 21st century, the overwhelming majority of conservatives, both Republican and Democrat, opposed homosexual rights, opposed integration, opposed most immigration and believed firmly in the superiority of their race. It might be that you are very young and your familiarity with what used to be called "conservative" is based on Fox news and the present day Republican party, but this is far from the truth. Reagan Democrats voted for him based on their belief he was a social conservative, they were wrong, but that was the reasoning at the time, not deregulation and firing PATCO employees.
    , @Anonymous
    LOL You're a delusional moron, Ronny. Please close up that sorry excuse for writing (your "blog") but by all means please come here to entertain us with your retarded quips and quotes.

    Also, if this is really you:

    https://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-thomas-west/31/350/697

    Then LOL, just fucking LOL!

    , @Ace
    ‘Tea party’ fruitcakes = simple, straightforward, honest people.

    FYI.

    Tough concept, I know, but think it through.
  8. @Anonymous
    THE NEO-CONS ARE JEWISH.
    JUDAISTS CONTROL BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES; REPUBLICANS AS CONTROLLED OPPOSITION. MODUS OPERANDI EXPOSED.

    Sir, both political parties and the media are controlled by the Judaists.

    The Jewish agenda is simple—to destroy white nations with:

    a. Liberalism (feminism, multi-culturalism, miscegenation, homopathy).
    b. Flood them with 3rd world aliens.
    c. Demand unflinching support for Israel.

    Joe Biden admitted this here:


    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349155/joe-biden-attributes-social-liberalism-jewish-control-hollywood-and-social-media

    Give the goyim a little freedom to argue about other petty issues (financial matters, school choice, labor laws, etc.) but as long as they obey their owners and operators on these 3 things, it is okay.

    Judaists like Saban and Soros own and operate the Democratic party; Adelson the Republican party. This is done through massive campaign contributions.

    The Jewish Oligarchs also pay them billions under the table.

    Israel is the world leader in money laundering. Not only is the Jewish lobby the biggest campaign contributor (legal amounts), it also pays billions under the table. Most of our politicians and others have secret bank accounts in Israel where millions are deposited in their secret bank accounts once they do the Lobby’s bidding—support Israel and destroy USA with the alien invasion and liberalism. These secret bank accounts are in their Jewish names. For example, Senator John McCain’s Israeli ID and bank account name could be something like Jonah Ben McKenstein.

    The politicians then pay their masters back with billions in phoney bailouts and other gov. grants and contracts.

    And they probably have something on the politicians too, to be brought out and to criminally prosecute them if they stray or becomes moral and refuses to be bribed any more or dares to question the Jewish lobby.

    It is like a criminal town where you run to the police for help, only to find that the police are owned and operated by the same criminal gang!

    Surely you are trying to discredit the Unz Review as a place for cranks by such fantastic assertions as yours that “most” politicians have Israeli bank accounts. (You underestimate their creation of safe electorates for incumbents and the equally corrupt influence of Disney, big Pharma and eg. Biofuels).

    And how do you account for Rumsfeld and Chaney being the most influential of neo-cons in leading George the Less into inglorious wars. Crypto-Jews perhaps?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @William It may be true that there is a high proportion of ethnic Jews in both the Left and in the neocon Left-Right but for every such contributor there are probably twenty ethnic Gentile supporters and enablers. And the enablers share virtually the same values and policy views as their Jewish brethren. This group as a whole requires opposition but not on ethnic grounds -- especially since religious ethnic Jews and some anti-imperialist ethnic Jews hate the Gentile or Jewish Neocons with as much fervor as the traditional American right.

    Neocon then is as much a misnomer as Judaic, rather they should be described more inclusively referring to their co-conspirators as well. What we are talking about are talking heads, word smiths, shysters, lenders, shylocks, white mans welfare, pentagon pimps, ie social parasites, of every ethnicity.
  9. While I don’t necessarily disagree on the Jewish component, I think it’s overshadowed the fundamentals of neoconservatisim. Where did this group get it’s start? THEY WERE DEMOCRATS.

    The neoconservatives are nothing more than the Kennedy era democrats, who thought the 60′s social changes went too far. The republicans, eager for votes, invited them in to the “big tent.” By 2000, they’d gained complete control of the party. We don’t have a republican party anymore. We have the liberal democrats, and the less liberal democrats. The original republicans have been forced out. The old Eisenhower era republicans are now best represented by the Constitution party. But we don’t have a system that allows for new parties. Perot saw this change, which is why he ran. He was the last gasp of any old guard republican power. But even a multi-billionire couldn’t get around our 2 party at any cost system. So we just go on pretending that the 2 different names actually represent 2 different philosophies.

    Can anyone tell me the difference, politically, between Jonh Kennedy and Bush Jr.? Seriously. Anyone. I’ve yet to find someone who could. The old left IS the supposed right.

    Read More
  10. “They were simple, straightforward, honest people with no compelling drive to legislate other peoples’ morality or immerse themselves in the politics of claiming racial superiority.”

    What, all four of them? Finish the sentence, though. These everyday ordinary conservatives, or the sheeple, were basically get along, go along and without either agenda nor political power. So they really didn’t count for much, from a voting wise perspective. They still don’t wield any political influence over….anything in DC, government policy or even popular culture at large. They’re irrelevant and do not count for much of anything from a national policy point of view.

    The Neo-Cons, however, do matter and do count because they tend to control both parties’ apparatus (from individual policies on how to vote, act, behave in public while espousing the public view to be taken etc).

    “Paul Gottfried & Co more resemble what in those days were a fringe and to claim these sort of people were ever somehow in the conservative politic mainstream is self delusion”

    This may be accurate some decades ago. But, thanks to the internet, they are more numerous than thought and are slowly becoming a legitimate dissident voice to counteract the established neo-con racket that is currently known as Conservative Inc. If only the Alt-Right were as well funded.

    Or rather, what direct problems would you have with seeing the likes of: Richard Spencer, John Derbyshire, Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailer, etc. being allowed a seat at the table of mainstream conservatism? In other words, aren’t they allowed to publicly express their viewpoints the way that some of them once did in mainstream conservatism? If not, why not? And if you have some problems with these thinkers stating their opinions in mainstream public forums such as Fox News, etc. do express what they are.

    One thing that can definitely be said about the Left. It tends not to expel its “fringe” groups, namely because there aren’t any “fringes” on the left. It’s only a matter of time when the sub-section of leftist opinions and theories are given access to the mainstream. Example: 20yrs ago very few heterosexuals (whether in everyday life or in the popular political culture at large) directly advocated for gay marriage. In fact, such an idea was ridiculed and laughed at by both Left and Right. Only the “fringes” or a subsection of leftism (gay rights movement) directly advocated for such a thing at that time. What a difference a few decades make.

    And, unlike the mainstream Right, the Left doesn’t tend to expel out of their movement any “fringe” element. After all, what is ridiculed today is useful down the road to push as public policy especially if it achieves the aim of increased government.

    Bottom line: Often what starts out as a ridiculous idea on the Left will over time tend to gain respectable mainstream opinion especially because the Left will gradually promote it until it is given mainstream cred. It is very hard to find this on the other side, namely, an idea that started within the subsection of HBD, alternative-right etc and over a few decades you find the idea has gained mainstream acceptance or at least mainstream discussion.

    Lately, as Gottfried and others have well pointed out, the Con. Inc. has basically attempted to morph into Leftist Lite as in “me too, me too” [e.g. MLK was really a conservative; GOP is for Gay Marriage too and really, always has been; Open Borders are a swell and good benefit; etc.] Everyday conservatives some yrs ago were not of this ilk of “me too, get along to go along” if they were then they weren’t conservatives but libertarians and that’s a totally different ideological stream.

    How come you seldom see the Left morphing or at least turning in the direction of the Right on various issues? It simply does not happen in any substantial way while over time the mainstream Right has been changing into Leftism Lite.

    Again, why is that the case?

    Unless, at heart, the mainstream Con. Inc/mainstream right/neo-con etc. are really ignorant of historical conservative ideology or they don’t really feel comfortable and actually despise what they view as conservatism and wish that they were playing on the other team.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    And, unlike the mainstream Right, the Left doesn’t tend to expel out of their movement any “fringe” element.
     
    Sure they do, when it serves their purposes. Ask your local library the last time NAMBLA reserved one of their meeting rooms.

    It was totally hypocritical and insincere for the gay lobby to expel them, but expel them they did. Because it was the one battlefield middle American parents were willing to fight on.

    How come you seldom see the Left morphing or at least turning in the direction of the Right on various issues?
     
    Other than a few single-payer zealots, I haven't heard any calls for the nationalization of industry in decades. Even the Humphrey-Hawkins Act was allowed to expire quietly.
    , @Ace
    >> while over time the mainstream Right has been changing into Leftism Lite.

    Again, why is that the case? <<

    Multiculturalism (displacement of the white majority by non-European immigrants) and vote fraud.
  11. @Maj. Kong

    You’re right on Israel though, there really is a scary uniformity. Pat has been grandfathered in, but does anyone have an example of any other mainstream conservative voicing the slightest criticism of Israel in the last 5 years? I can’t think of one.
     
    Perhaps if Clinton wins in 2016, she will likely get along better with Netanyahu. That means there will be breathing room on the right, to criticize Israel as too liberal.

    There's little to gain votes-wise from being a right-wing BDSer.

    There’s little to gain votes-wise from being a right-wing BDSer.

    It’s not so much about gaining support as it is about not losing support. The 2003 Iraq War was a complete disaster for the GOP (and conservatism as well) and it would behoove the Republican Party to move away from its sick obsession with Israel if it wants to repeat that horror show with a similar debacle in Iran or Syria.

    Decoupling conservatism from its current, bizarre Zionomania is an utter necessity at this point, should it want to survive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    GOP is the hawkish party, even when it comes to China, where Adelson has many investments.

    Seeing that we are already bombing something in Syria, and fighting alongside the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Iraq, rash moves may be unlikely even if the GOP wins in 2016.

    It will be difficult if not impossible to make an anti-Israel GOP, unless the Pallywood claims were actually true.
  12. @Bob Arctor

    There’s little to gain votes-wise from being a right-wing BDSer.
     
    It's not so much about gaining support as it is about not losing support. The 2003 Iraq War was a complete disaster for the GOP (and conservatism as well) and it would behoove the Republican Party to move away from its sick obsession with Israel if it wants to repeat that horror show with a similar debacle in Iran or Syria.

    Decoupling conservatism from its current, bizarre Zionomania is an utter necessity at this point, should it want to survive.

    GOP is the hawkish party, even when it comes to China, where Adelson has many investments.

    Seeing that we are already bombing something in Syria, and fighting alongside the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Iraq, rash moves may be unlikely even if the GOP wins in 2016.

    It will be difficult if not impossible to make an anti-Israel GOP, unless the Pallywood claims were actually true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    And this is what the United States have been supporting for decades:
    The Big Lie at the Heart of the Myth of the Creation of Israel
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/05/the-big-lie-at-the-heart-of-the-myth-of-the-creation-of-israel/
  13. @Maj. Kong
    GOP is the hawkish party, even when it comes to China, where Adelson has many investments.

    Seeing that we are already bombing something in Syria, and fighting alongside the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Iraq, rash moves may be unlikely even if the GOP wins in 2016.

    It will be difficult if not impossible to make an anti-Israel GOP, unless the Pallywood claims were actually true.

    And this is what the United States have been supporting for decades:
    The Big Lie at the Heart of the Myth of the Creation of Israel

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/05/the-big-lie-at-the-heart-of-the-myth-of-the-creation-of-israel/

    Read More
  14. @Anonymous
    THE NEO-CONS ARE JEWISH.
    JUDAISTS CONTROL BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES; REPUBLICANS AS CONTROLLED OPPOSITION. MODUS OPERANDI EXPOSED.

    Sir, both political parties and the media are controlled by the Judaists.

    The Jewish agenda is simple—to destroy white nations with:

    a. Liberalism (feminism, multi-culturalism, miscegenation, homopathy).
    b. Flood them with 3rd world aliens.
    c. Demand unflinching support for Israel.

    Joe Biden admitted this here:


    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349155/joe-biden-attributes-social-liberalism-jewish-control-hollywood-and-social-media

    Give the goyim a little freedom to argue about other petty issues (financial matters, school choice, labor laws, etc.) but as long as they obey their owners and operators on these 3 things, it is okay.

    Judaists like Saban and Soros own and operate the Democratic party; Adelson the Republican party. This is done through massive campaign contributions.

    The Jewish Oligarchs also pay them billions under the table.

    Israel is the world leader in money laundering. Not only is the Jewish lobby the biggest campaign contributor (legal amounts), it also pays billions under the table. Most of our politicians and others have secret bank accounts in Israel where millions are deposited in their secret bank accounts once they do the Lobby’s bidding—support Israel and destroy USA with the alien invasion and liberalism. These secret bank accounts are in their Jewish names. For example, Senator John McCain’s Israeli ID and bank account name could be something like Jonah Ben McKenstein.

    The politicians then pay their masters back with billions in phoney bailouts and other gov. grants and contracts.

    And they probably have something on the politicians too, to be brought out and to criminally prosecute them if they stray or becomes moral and refuses to be bribed any more or dares to question the Jewish lobby.

    It is like a criminal town where you run to the police for help, only to find that the police are owned and operated by the same criminal gang!

    Indeed, that’s an easy one.

    Jews demand massive 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe while preventing non-Jews from entering “that shitty little country” of theirs.

    The dangers of Jewish supremacism is well known. Although they wish no one would talk openly about it.

    Who runs the Federal Reserve?
    Who runs Wall Street?
    Who owns the US Congress?
    Who owns the White House?
    Who forces acceptance of the fictitious & impossible ’6M & gas chambers’?
    Who runs the media / entertainment?
    Who dominates ‘academia’?
    Why is AIPAC the most powerful, dominant lobby, which regularly writes the text of Congressional bills and resolutions?
    Who is it that wants to censor free speech via the “hate speech” canard?
    Who is it that demands we shed the blood of US troops for their interests?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom_R
    AMEN, BoobyBeGood. You hit the nail on the head.
  15. America second.
    Pink Slips at Disney. But First, Training Foreign Replacements:
    “Former employees said many immigrants who arrived were younger technicians with limited data skills who did not speak English fluently and had to be instructed in the basics of the work…
    The chairman of the Walt Disney Company, Robert A. Iger, is a co-chairman with Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, and Rupert Murdoch, the executive chairman of News Corporation, in the Partnership for a New American Economy, which pushes for an overhaul of immigration laws, including an increase in H-1B visas.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?_r=0

    Read More
  16. @Wally
    Indeed, that's an easy one.

    Jews demand massive 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe while preventing non-Jews from entering "that shitty little country" of theirs.

    The dangers of Jewish supremacism is well known. Although they wish no one would talk openly about it.

    Who runs the Federal Reserve?
    Who runs Wall Street?
    Who owns the US Congress?
    Who owns the White House?
    Who forces acceptance of the fictitious & impossible '6M & gas chambers'?
    Who runs the media / entertainment?
    Who dominates 'academia'?
    Why is AIPAC the most powerful, dominant lobby, which regularly writes the text of Congressional bills and resolutions?
    Who is it that wants to censor free speech via the "hate speech" canard?
    Who is it that demands we shed the blood of US troops for their interests?

    AMEN, BoobyBeGood. You hit the nail on the head.

    Read More
  17. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "They were simple, straightforward, honest people with no compelling drive to legislate other peoples’ morality or immerse themselves in the politics of claiming racial superiority."

    What, all four of them? Finish the sentence, though. These everyday ordinary conservatives, or the sheeple, were basically get along, go along and without either agenda nor political power. So they really didn't count for much, from a voting wise perspective. They still don't wield any political influence over….anything in DC, government policy or even popular culture at large. They're irrelevant and do not count for much of anything from a national policy point of view.

    The Neo-Cons, however, do matter and do count because they tend to control both parties' apparatus (from individual policies on how to vote, act, behave in public while espousing the public view to be taken etc).




    "Paul Gottfried & Co more resemble what in those days were a fringe and to claim these sort of people were ever somehow in the conservative politic mainstream is self delusion"

    This may be accurate some decades ago. But, thanks to the internet, they are more numerous than thought and are slowly becoming a legitimate dissident voice to counteract the established neo-con racket that is currently known as Conservative Inc. If only the Alt-Right were as well funded.

    Or rather, what direct problems would you have with seeing the likes of: Richard Spencer, John Derbyshire, Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailer, etc. being allowed a seat at the table of mainstream conservatism? In other words, aren't they allowed to publicly express their viewpoints the way that some of them once did in mainstream conservatism? If not, why not? And if you have some problems with these thinkers stating their opinions in mainstream public forums such as Fox News, etc. do express what they are.

    One thing that can definitely be said about the Left. It tends not to expel its "fringe" groups, namely because there aren't any "fringes" on the left. It's only a matter of time when the sub-section of leftist opinions and theories are given access to the mainstream. Example: 20yrs ago very few heterosexuals (whether in everyday life or in the popular political culture at large) directly advocated for gay marriage. In fact, such an idea was ridiculed and laughed at by both Left and Right. Only the "fringes" or a subsection of leftism (gay rights movement) directly advocated for such a thing at that time. What a difference a few decades make.

    And, unlike the mainstream Right, the Left doesn't tend to expel out of their movement any "fringe" element. After all, what is ridiculed today is useful down the road to push as public policy especially if it achieves the aim of increased government.

    Bottom line: Often what starts out as a ridiculous idea on the Left will over time tend to gain respectable mainstream opinion especially because the Left will gradually promote it until it is given mainstream cred. It is very hard to find this on the other side, namely, an idea that started within the subsection of HBD, alternative-right etc and over a few decades you find the idea has gained mainstream acceptance or at least mainstream discussion.

    Lately, as Gottfried and others have well pointed out, the Con. Inc. has basically attempted to morph into Leftist Lite as in "me too, me too" [e.g. MLK was really a conservative; GOP is for Gay Marriage too and really, always has been; Open Borders are a swell and good benefit; etc.] Everyday conservatives some yrs ago were not of this ilk of "me too, get along to go along" if they were then they weren't conservatives but libertarians and that's a totally different ideological stream.

    How come you seldom see the Left morphing or at least turning in the direction of the Right on various issues? It simply does not happen in any substantial way while over time the mainstream Right has been changing into Leftism Lite.

    Again, why is that the case?

    Unless, at heart, the mainstream Con. Inc/mainstream right/neo-con etc. are really ignorant of historical conservative ideology or they don't really feel comfortable and actually despise what they view as conservatism and wish that they were playing on the other team.

    And, unlike the mainstream Right, the Left doesn’t tend to expel out of their movement any “fringe” element.

    Sure they do, when it serves their purposes. Ask your local library the last time NAMBLA reserved one of their meeting rooms.

    It was totally hypocritical and insincere for the gay lobby to expel them, but expel them they did. Because it was the one battlefield middle American parents were willing to fight on.

    How come you seldom see the Left morphing or at least turning in the direction of the Right on various issues?

    Other than a few single-payer zealots, I haven’t heard any calls for the nationalization of industry in decades. Even the Humphrey-Hawkins Act was allowed to expire quietly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    That's not what was stated. The Left has not morphed in any kind of substantial way into or toward the Right.

    NAMBLA is out of the Left.....for the time being. Give it a few decades for the waters to be tested. After all, gay marriage is "only" about less than a decade old as far as mainstream respectability. Have to crawl first, walk later on. Give it time, say, by the years ca.2035-45 and then see where the issue lies.

    Again: There is no example of the US Left morphing into or turning in the direction of the Right on any public policy while there is amble abundance of evidence of the Right turning 180 on various issues that they once supported or were vs.

    Currently, the vast majority of various pundits on the respectable Right, would they support the question of Gay Marriage or not? The answer is clear. They sold out yrs ago and now willingly side with the Left on nearly all social issues. And Open Borders. And outsourcing. And H-1B visas. And higher taxes (in some cases).

    Give a few examples of National Review, Fox, Breitbart, etc. on the mainstream Right who will debate that idea that poverty primarily causes crime, for example. Do they even allow another opinion to be given in the mainstream?

    NO!

    Give a few examples of the mainstream Right not caving in on social issues, on economic issues, etc. You can't, because they do not exist for the most part.

    Only in 2015 could a center-leftist like Conor Freidersdorf be considered part of the mainstream Conservative movement. And he is well represented among the Right, particularly among the younger generations. Again, why is this? Where are the voices on the mainstream right who will take on these issues and debate him and others by saying "We're not part of the Left, we have our own heritage, historical stances on various issues and we're not caving in."

    Fact is, most of the Respectable Right caved in decades ago on nearly every issue and victory that the Left has pushed for, gotten, and won.

  18. @Ronald Thomas West

    my friends and I are complaining because respectable conservatives banned us from their premises; and by purging us weirdos, the “movement” has made itself more credible
     
    What's funny is, this is somehow true. Neo-conservatives expelling morons who embarrass them, even as the neo-conservatives go on to do immense damage with a (Koch brothers funded) corporate Christian right that'll never do the right thing .. c'est la vie, recalling the conservatives I'd know as a young man resembled neither the bigoted morons defended in this article or the 'tea party' fruitcakes bankrolled by the Koch brothers. They were simple, straightforward, honest people with no compelling drive to legislate other peoples' morality or immerse themselves in the politics of claiming racial superiority. Paul Gottfried & Co more resemble what in those days were a fringe and to claim these sort of people were ever somehow in the conservative politic mainstream is self delusion

    If you believe what you are writing, you are seriously ,misinformed. Prior to the 21st century, the overwhelming majority of conservatives, both Republican and Democrat, opposed homosexual rights, opposed integration, opposed most immigration and believed firmly in the superiority of their race. It might be that you are very young and your familiarity with what used to be called “conservative” is based on Fox news and the present day Republican party, but this is far from the truth. Reagan Democrats voted for him based on their belief he was a social conservative, they were wrong, but that was the reasoning at the time, not deregulation and firing PATCO employees.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hare Krishna
    Almost all Republicans, and all Republicans outside the South, voted for the 1965 immigration act. The only Senators and Congressmen who voted against it were Southerners.

    Most conservatives were not racists, although there was always a minority who were. The colorblind society appealed to conservatives as well as liberals (at that time). In the South, however, things were different.
  19. @Maj. Kong

    You’re right on Israel though, there really is a scary uniformity. Pat has been grandfathered in, but does anyone have an example of any other mainstream conservative voicing the slightest criticism of Israel in the last 5 years? I can’t think of one.
     
    Perhaps if Clinton wins in 2016, she will likely get along better with Netanyahu. That means there will be breathing room on the right, to criticize Israel as too liberal.

    There's little to gain votes-wise from being a right-wing BDSer.

    There’s little to gain votes-wise from being a right-wing BDSer.

    Many of us “right-wingers” don’t believe in voting to begin with.

    Read More
  20. @Reg Cæsar

    And, unlike the mainstream Right, the Left doesn’t tend to expel out of their movement any “fringe” element.
     
    Sure they do, when it serves their purposes. Ask your local library the last time NAMBLA reserved one of their meeting rooms.

    It was totally hypocritical and insincere for the gay lobby to expel them, but expel them they did. Because it was the one battlefield middle American parents were willing to fight on.

    How come you seldom see the Left morphing or at least turning in the direction of the Right on various issues?
     
    Other than a few single-payer zealots, I haven't heard any calls for the nationalization of industry in decades. Even the Humphrey-Hawkins Act was allowed to expire quietly.

    That’s not what was stated. The Left has not morphed in any kind of substantial way into or toward the Right.

    NAMBLA is out of the Left…..for the time being. Give it a few decades for the waters to be tested. After all, gay marriage is “only” about less than a decade old as far as mainstream respectability. Have to crawl first, walk later on. Give it time, say, by the years ca.2035-45 and then see where the issue lies.

    Again: There is no example of the US Left morphing into or turning in the direction of the Right on any public policy while there is amble abundance of evidence of the Right turning 180 on various issues that they once supported or were vs.

    Currently, the vast majority of various pundits on the respectable Right, would they support the question of Gay Marriage or not? The answer is clear. They sold out yrs ago and now willingly side with the Left on nearly all social issues. And Open Borders. And outsourcing. And H-1B visas. And higher taxes (in some cases).

    Give a few examples of National Review, Fox, Breitbart, etc. on the mainstream Right who will debate that idea that poverty primarily causes crime, for example. Do they even allow another opinion to be given in the mainstream?

    NO!

    Give a few examples of the mainstream Right not caving in on social issues, on economic issues, etc. You can’t, because they do not exist for the most part.

    Only in 2015 could a center-leftist like Conor Freidersdorf be considered part of the mainstream Conservative movement. And he is well represented among the Right, particularly among the younger generations. Again, why is this? Where are the voices on the mainstream right who will take on these issues and debate him and others by saying “We’re not part of the Left, we have our own heritage, historical stances on various issues and we’re not caving in.”

    Fact is, most of the Respectable Right caved in decades ago on nearly every issue and victory that the Left has pushed for, gotten, and won.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    Gun rights and homeschooling. I think that's it.

    I'm not religious, but this is kind of inspiring:
    http://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org/homeschooling-101/a-brief-history-of-homeschooling/

    During the 1980s the tenor of homeschooling changed as a new wave of individuals entered the movement. These were evangelical and fundamentalist Christians engaged in culture wars rhetoric about public schools as “Satanic hothouses.” Given credibility by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and initial support by Moore, these newer homeschoolers took an antagonistic outlook toward public school administrators and were unwilling to cooperate with public schools they saw as evil. It was at this point that the legal battles began in earnest as homeschoolers found themselves faced with newly uncooperative local public school officials and the negative feedback cycle that ensued as officials responded even more negatively when faced with litigation. Also in play was the fact that some school officials felt threatened by the growing number of homeschoolers. For all these reasons, the head of one secular homeschooling group call the mid-1980s “the look over your shoulder time.”
     
    , @Art
    "Give a few examples of National Review, Fox, Breitbart, etc. on the mainstream "

    These entities are not American conservative – they are Jew conservative.

    It is amazing to see how far people will go to duck the Jew connection to our problems.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    Are the gun rights of whites right wing or left? How about the gun rights of blacks?

    Who should be charged with the task of disarming all blacks? The state, as in Chicago and DC, or private actors such as the Klan in the 1860s? (The latter is outsourcing. Don't confuse that with offshoring.)

    Which is the proper approach for the Right?
  21. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    That's not what was stated. The Left has not morphed in any kind of substantial way into or toward the Right.

    NAMBLA is out of the Left.....for the time being. Give it a few decades for the waters to be tested. After all, gay marriage is "only" about less than a decade old as far as mainstream respectability. Have to crawl first, walk later on. Give it time, say, by the years ca.2035-45 and then see where the issue lies.

    Again: There is no example of the US Left morphing into or turning in the direction of the Right on any public policy while there is amble abundance of evidence of the Right turning 180 on various issues that they once supported or were vs.

    Currently, the vast majority of various pundits on the respectable Right, would they support the question of Gay Marriage or not? The answer is clear. They sold out yrs ago and now willingly side with the Left on nearly all social issues. And Open Borders. And outsourcing. And H-1B visas. And higher taxes (in some cases).

    Give a few examples of National Review, Fox, Breitbart, etc. on the mainstream Right who will debate that idea that poverty primarily causes crime, for example. Do they even allow another opinion to be given in the mainstream?

    NO!

    Give a few examples of the mainstream Right not caving in on social issues, on economic issues, etc. You can't, because they do not exist for the most part.

    Only in 2015 could a center-leftist like Conor Freidersdorf be considered part of the mainstream Conservative movement. And he is well represented among the Right, particularly among the younger generations. Again, why is this? Where are the voices on the mainstream right who will take on these issues and debate him and others by saying "We're not part of the Left, we have our own heritage, historical stances on various issues and we're not caving in."

    Fact is, most of the Respectable Right caved in decades ago on nearly every issue and victory that the Left has pushed for, gotten, and won.

    Gun rights and homeschooling. I think that’s it.

    I’m not religious, but this is kind of inspiring:

    http://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org/homeschooling-101/a-brief-history-of-homeschooling/

    During the 1980s the tenor of homeschooling changed as a new wave of individuals entered the movement. These were evangelical and fundamentalist Christians engaged in culture wars rhetoric about public schools as “Satanic hothouses.” Given credibility by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and initial support by Moore, these newer homeschoolers took an antagonistic outlook toward public school administrators and were unwilling to cooperate with public schools they saw as evil. It was at this point that the legal battles began in earnest as homeschoolers found themselves faced with newly uncooperative local public school officials and the negative feedback cycle that ensued as officials responded even more negatively when faced with litigation. Also in play was the fact that some school officials felt threatened by the growing number of homeschoolers. For all these reasons, the head of one secular homeschooling group call the mid-1980s “the look over your shoulder time.”

    Read More
  22. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    That's not what was stated. The Left has not morphed in any kind of substantial way into or toward the Right.

    NAMBLA is out of the Left.....for the time being. Give it a few decades for the waters to be tested. After all, gay marriage is "only" about less than a decade old as far as mainstream respectability. Have to crawl first, walk later on. Give it time, say, by the years ca.2035-45 and then see where the issue lies.

    Again: There is no example of the US Left morphing into or turning in the direction of the Right on any public policy while there is amble abundance of evidence of the Right turning 180 on various issues that they once supported or were vs.

    Currently, the vast majority of various pundits on the respectable Right, would they support the question of Gay Marriage or not? The answer is clear. They sold out yrs ago and now willingly side with the Left on nearly all social issues. And Open Borders. And outsourcing. And H-1B visas. And higher taxes (in some cases).

    Give a few examples of National Review, Fox, Breitbart, etc. on the mainstream Right who will debate that idea that poverty primarily causes crime, for example. Do they even allow another opinion to be given in the mainstream?

    NO!

    Give a few examples of the mainstream Right not caving in on social issues, on economic issues, etc. You can't, because they do not exist for the most part.

    Only in 2015 could a center-leftist like Conor Freidersdorf be considered part of the mainstream Conservative movement. And he is well represented among the Right, particularly among the younger generations. Again, why is this? Where are the voices on the mainstream right who will take on these issues and debate him and others by saying "We're not part of the Left, we have our own heritage, historical stances on various issues and we're not caving in."

    Fact is, most of the Respectable Right caved in decades ago on nearly every issue and victory that the Left has pushed for, gotten, and won.

    “Give a few examples of National Review, Fox, Breitbart, etc. on the mainstream “

    These entities are not American conservative – they are Jew conservative.

    It is amazing to see how far people will go to duck the Jew connection to our problems.

    Read More
  23. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Art
    It is Jew conservatism Vs. American conservatism. The Republican Party today is Jewish conservative – not traditional forefather conservative. Who with an once of honesty can say differently?

    Clearly Jew conservatism is: pro foreign wars, pro empire, pro domestic spying, pro big government prosecution, pro too big to fail banking and international corporations, pro Federal Reserve, and pro big government Washington solution to problems.

    Clearly traditional American conservatism is: leery of big government, war, and domestic spying, it is pro free speech, pro gun, pro states rights, pro small business, and pro two parent families.

    Today’s Republican Party is all of the first and little of the second – end of story.

    Well Paul Gottfried is a Jewish conservative. A paleoconservative Jewish conservative. The only one in America, so far as I can tell. God bless him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seek
    Marcus Epstein, Stephen Steinlight, Lawrence Auster and Murray Rothbard don't qualify?
  24. @Rich
    If you believe what you are writing, you are seriously ,misinformed. Prior to the 21st century, the overwhelming majority of conservatives, both Republican and Democrat, opposed homosexual rights, opposed integration, opposed most immigration and believed firmly in the superiority of their race. It might be that you are very young and your familiarity with what used to be called "conservative" is based on Fox news and the present day Republican party, but this is far from the truth. Reagan Democrats voted for him based on their belief he was a social conservative, they were wrong, but that was the reasoning at the time, not deregulation and firing PATCO employees.

    Almost all Republicans, and all Republicans outside the South, voted for the 1965 immigration act. The only Senators and Congressmen who voted against it were Southerners.

    Most conservatives were not racists, although there was always a minority who were. The colorblind society appealed to conservatives as well as liberals (at that time). In the South, however, things were different.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    I lived in the North at the time, coming from a blue-collar, conservative Democrat family, and I can assure you, all conservatives and most moderates were opposed to integration. At the time, opposing integration was not considered "racist", nowadays noticing someone's race, unless it's their paleness, is a mortal sin. As examples, see the Boston anti-busing movement and the nationwide restrictive covenant rules. These were supported by both the left and the right but a small band of judges and elitists defeated them.
  25. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wizard of Oz
    Surely you are trying to discredit the Unz Review as a place for cranks by such fantastic assertions as yours that "most" politicians have Israeli bank accounts. (You underestimate their creation of safe electorates for incumbents and the equally corrupt influence of Disney, big Pharma and eg. Biofuels).

    And how do you account for Rumsfeld and Chaney being the most influential of neo-cons in leading George the Less into inglorious wars. Crypto-Jews perhaps?

    @William It may be true that there is a high proportion of ethnic Jews in both the Left and in the neocon Left-Right but for every such contributor there are probably twenty ethnic Gentile supporters and enablers. And the enablers share virtually the same values and policy views as their Jewish brethren. This group as a whole requires opposition but not on ethnic grounds — especially since religious ethnic Jews and some anti-imperialist ethnic Jews hate the Gentile or Jewish Neocons with as much fervor as the traditional American right.

    Neocon then is as much a misnomer as Judaic, rather they should be described more inclusively referring to their co-conspirators as well. What we are talking about are talking heads, word smiths, shysters, lenders, shylocks, white mans welfare, pentagon pimps, ie social parasites, of every ethnicity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    That's a point always to be kept in mind. I remember how Republican voters made a bee line to Bush '41 in the primaries. There were other sterner types as I recall but the voters stampeded straight into the arms of that nice but empty man. (See Podhoretz's Helluva a Ride for why I say that.)

    LBJ's famous ad of the little girl and the mushroom cloud was a filthy lie but the voters couldn't get enough of LBJ.

    Two hours per voter of independent reading would negate $500 M worth of Adelson and co's money but the reading never takes place.
  26. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    That's not what was stated. The Left has not morphed in any kind of substantial way into or toward the Right.

    NAMBLA is out of the Left.....for the time being. Give it a few decades for the waters to be tested. After all, gay marriage is "only" about less than a decade old as far as mainstream respectability. Have to crawl first, walk later on. Give it time, say, by the years ca.2035-45 and then see where the issue lies.

    Again: There is no example of the US Left morphing into or turning in the direction of the Right on any public policy while there is amble abundance of evidence of the Right turning 180 on various issues that they once supported or were vs.

    Currently, the vast majority of various pundits on the respectable Right, would they support the question of Gay Marriage or not? The answer is clear. They sold out yrs ago and now willingly side with the Left on nearly all social issues. And Open Borders. And outsourcing. And H-1B visas. And higher taxes (in some cases).

    Give a few examples of National Review, Fox, Breitbart, etc. on the mainstream Right who will debate that idea that poverty primarily causes crime, for example. Do they even allow another opinion to be given in the mainstream?

    NO!

    Give a few examples of the mainstream Right not caving in on social issues, on economic issues, etc. You can't, because they do not exist for the most part.

    Only in 2015 could a center-leftist like Conor Freidersdorf be considered part of the mainstream Conservative movement. And he is well represented among the Right, particularly among the younger generations. Again, why is this? Where are the voices on the mainstream right who will take on these issues and debate him and others by saying "We're not part of the Left, we have our own heritage, historical stances on various issues and we're not caving in."

    Fact is, most of the Respectable Right caved in decades ago on nearly every issue and victory that the Left has pushed for, gotten, and won.

    Are the gun rights of whites right wing or left? How about the gun rights of blacks?

    Who should be charged with the task of disarming all blacks? The state, as in Chicago and DC, or private actors such as the Klan in the 1860s? (The latter is outsourcing. Don’t confuse that with offshoring.)

    Which is the proper approach for the Right?

    Read More
  27. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Ronald Thomas West

    my friends and I are complaining because respectable conservatives banned us from their premises; and by purging us weirdos, the “movement” has made itself more credible
     
    What's funny is, this is somehow true. Neo-conservatives expelling morons who embarrass them, even as the neo-conservatives go on to do immense damage with a (Koch brothers funded) corporate Christian right that'll never do the right thing .. c'est la vie, recalling the conservatives I'd know as a young man resembled neither the bigoted morons defended in this article or the 'tea party' fruitcakes bankrolled by the Koch brothers. They were simple, straightforward, honest people with no compelling drive to legislate other peoples' morality or immerse themselves in the politics of claiming racial superiority. Paul Gottfried & Co more resemble what in those days were a fringe and to claim these sort of people were ever somehow in the conservative politic mainstream is self delusion

    LOL You’re a delusional moron, Ronny. Please close up that sorry excuse for writing (your “blog”) but by all means please come here to entertain us with your retarded quips and quotes.

    Also, if this is really you:

    https://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-thomas-west/31/350/697

    Then LOL, just fucking LOL!

    Read More
  28. Excellent Column. National Review has been panting after MSM “respectability” for 25 years and no matter how far let they went last year, they’ll have to go even further left this year. Its a moving target and NR now seems to be indistinguishable from the New Republic of 10 years ago and the Nation of 20 years ago.

    No doubt after embracing Gay Marriage and open borders the next step for National Review will be an article yearning for the return of the 1990s and “Conservative” Bill & Hillary to the Oval Office.

    Read More
  29. @Hare Krishna
    Almost all Republicans, and all Republicans outside the South, voted for the 1965 immigration act. The only Senators and Congressmen who voted against it were Southerners.

    Most conservatives were not racists, although there was always a minority who were. The colorblind society appealed to conservatives as well as liberals (at that time). In the South, however, things were different.

    I lived in the North at the time, coming from a blue-collar, conservative Democrat family, and I can assure you, all conservatives and most moderates were opposed to integration. At the time, opposing integration was not considered “racist”, nowadays noticing someone’s race, unless it’s their paleness, is a mortal sin. As examples, see the Boston anti-busing movement and the nationwide restrictive covenant rules. These were supported by both the left and the right but a small band of judges and elitists defeated them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hare Krishna
    Most people, regardless of political orientation, were opposed to forced busing.
    I was referring to Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights acts, not forced busing.
  30. @Rich
    I lived in the North at the time, coming from a blue-collar, conservative Democrat family, and I can assure you, all conservatives and most moderates were opposed to integration. At the time, opposing integration was not considered "racist", nowadays noticing someone's race, unless it's their paleness, is a mortal sin. As examples, see the Boston anti-busing movement and the nationwide restrictive covenant rules. These were supported by both the left and the right but a small band of judges and elitists defeated them.

    Most people, regardless of political orientation, were opposed to forced busing.
    I was referring to Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights acts, not forced busing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    I'm pretty sure most Americans, conservative and liberal, were also opposed to Brown v Board of Ed. As evidence I offer the massive amount of "white flight" that took place after the schools began to integrate. To this day, liberals and conservatives, use the code words "good school district" to indicate a White school district.
  31. @Hare Krishna
    Most people, regardless of political orientation, were opposed to forced busing.
    I was referring to Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights acts, not forced busing.

    I’m pretty sure most Americans, conservative and liberal, were also opposed to Brown v Board of Ed. As evidence I offer the massive amount of “white flight” that took place after the schools began to integrate. To this day, liberals and conservatives, use the code words “good school district” to indicate a White school district.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hare Krishna
    Only in the South and border states. It was accepted elsewhere in the country. Unlike forced busing, which was highly unpopular and highly destructive, but which didn't exist in the North and West until the 1970s.

    The North and West did not have de jure segregation, so they were unaffected by Brown.
  32. @Rich
    I'm pretty sure most Americans, conservative and liberal, were also opposed to Brown v Board of Ed. As evidence I offer the massive amount of "white flight" that took place after the schools began to integrate. To this day, liberals and conservatives, use the code words "good school district" to indicate a White school district.

    Only in the South and border states. It was accepted elsewhere in the country. Unlike forced busing, which was highly unpopular and highly destructive, but which didn’t exist in the North and West until the 1970s.

    The North and West did not have de jure segregation, so they were unaffected by Brown.

    Read More
  33. @Ronald Thomas West

    my friends and I are complaining because respectable conservatives banned us from their premises; and by purging us weirdos, the “movement” has made itself more credible
     
    What's funny is, this is somehow true. Neo-conservatives expelling morons who embarrass them, even as the neo-conservatives go on to do immense damage with a (Koch brothers funded) corporate Christian right that'll never do the right thing .. c'est la vie, recalling the conservatives I'd know as a young man resembled neither the bigoted morons defended in this article or the 'tea party' fruitcakes bankrolled by the Koch brothers. They were simple, straightforward, honest people with no compelling drive to legislate other peoples' morality or immerse themselves in the politics of claiming racial superiority. Paul Gottfried & Co more resemble what in those days were a fringe and to claim these sort of people were ever somehow in the conservative politic mainstream is self delusion

    ‘Tea party’ fruitcakes = simple, straightforward, honest people.

    FYI.

    Tough concept, I know, but think it through.

    Read More
  34. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "They were simple, straightforward, honest people with no compelling drive to legislate other peoples’ morality or immerse themselves in the politics of claiming racial superiority."

    What, all four of them? Finish the sentence, though. These everyday ordinary conservatives, or the sheeple, were basically get along, go along and without either agenda nor political power. So they really didn't count for much, from a voting wise perspective. They still don't wield any political influence over….anything in DC, government policy or even popular culture at large. They're irrelevant and do not count for much of anything from a national policy point of view.

    The Neo-Cons, however, do matter and do count because they tend to control both parties' apparatus (from individual policies on how to vote, act, behave in public while espousing the public view to be taken etc).




    "Paul Gottfried & Co more resemble what in those days were a fringe and to claim these sort of people were ever somehow in the conservative politic mainstream is self delusion"

    This may be accurate some decades ago. But, thanks to the internet, they are more numerous than thought and are slowly becoming a legitimate dissident voice to counteract the established neo-con racket that is currently known as Conservative Inc. If only the Alt-Right were as well funded.

    Or rather, what direct problems would you have with seeing the likes of: Richard Spencer, John Derbyshire, Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailer, etc. being allowed a seat at the table of mainstream conservatism? In other words, aren't they allowed to publicly express their viewpoints the way that some of them once did in mainstream conservatism? If not, why not? And if you have some problems with these thinkers stating their opinions in mainstream public forums such as Fox News, etc. do express what they are.

    One thing that can definitely be said about the Left. It tends not to expel its "fringe" groups, namely because there aren't any "fringes" on the left. It's only a matter of time when the sub-section of leftist opinions and theories are given access to the mainstream. Example: 20yrs ago very few heterosexuals (whether in everyday life or in the popular political culture at large) directly advocated for gay marriage. In fact, such an idea was ridiculed and laughed at by both Left and Right. Only the "fringes" or a subsection of leftism (gay rights movement) directly advocated for such a thing at that time. What a difference a few decades make.

    And, unlike the mainstream Right, the Left doesn't tend to expel out of their movement any "fringe" element. After all, what is ridiculed today is useful down the road to push as public policy especially if it achieves the aim of increased government.

    Bottom line: Often what starts out as a ridiculous idea on the Left will over time tend to gain respectable mainstream opinion especially because the Left will gradually promote it until it is given mainstream cred. It is very hard to find this on the other side, namely, an idea that started within the subsection of HBD, alternative-right etc and over a few decades you find the idea has gained mainstream acceptance or at least mainstream discussion.

    Lately, as Gottfried and others have well pointed out, the Con. Inc. has basically attempted to morph into Leftist Lite as in "me too, me too" [e.g. MLK was really a conservative; GOP is for Gay Marriage too and really, always has been; Open Borders are a swell and good benefit; etc.] Everyday conservatives some yrs ago were not of this ilk of "me too, get along to go along" if they were then they weren't conservatives but libertarians and that's a totally different ideological stream.

    How come you seldom see the Left morphing or at least turning in the direction of the Right on various issues? It simply does not happen in any substantial way while over time the mainstream Right has been changing into Leftism Lite.

    Again, why is that the case?

    Unless, at heart, the mainstream Con. Inc/mainstream right/neo-con etc. are really ignorant of historical conservative ideology or they don't really feel comfortable and actually despise what they view as conservatism and wish that they were playing on the other team.

    >> while over time the mainstream Right has been changing into Leftism Lite.

    Again, why is that the case? <<

    Multiculturalism (displacement of the white majority by non-European immigrants) and vote fraud.

    Read More
  35. @Anonymous
    @William It may be true that there is a high proportion of ethnic Jews in both the Left and in the neocon Left-Right but for every such contributor there are probably twenty ethnic Gentile supporters and enablers. And the enablers share virtually the same values and policy views as their Jewish brethren. This group as a whole requires opposition but not on ethnic grounds -- especially since religious ethnic Jews and some anti-imperialist ethnic Jews hate the Gentile or Jewish Neocons with as much fervor as the traditional American right.

    Neocon then is as much a misnomer as Judaic, rather they should be described more inclusively referring to their co-conspirators as well. What we are talking about are talking heads, word smiths, shysters, lenders, shylocks, white mans welfare, pentagon pimps, ie social parasites, of every ethnicity.

    That’s a point always to be kept in mind. I remember how Republican voters made a bee line to Bush ’41 in the primaries. There were other sterner types as I recall but the voters stampeded straight into the arms of that nice but empty man. (See Podhoretz’s Helluva a Ride for why I say that.)

    LBJ’s famous ad of the little girl and the mushroom cloud was a filthy lie but the voters couldn’t get enough of LBJ.

    Two hours per voter of independent reading would negate $500 M worth of Adelson and co’s money but the reading never takes place.

    Read More
  36. @Anonymous
    Well Paul Gottfried is a Jewish conservative. A paleoconservative Jewish conservative. The only one in America, so far as I can tell. God bless him.

    Marcus Epstein, Stephen Steinlight, Lawrence Auster and Murray Rothbard don’t qualify?

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS