The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Paul Gottfried ArchiveBlogview
Waposervativism
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Although I can’t think of a single social issue on which the predictably soporific Washington Post-columnist Jennifer Rubin sounds different from Barack Obama, Rubin, who welcomes gay marriage as a sign of the “inexorable course of greater inclusiveness” and favors amnesty for illegals, is now a certified voice for “serious conservatives.” Indeed she writes a column for the Postbearing the ideologically significant title “Right Turn.” Jennifer flaunts her assigned credentials as the purveyor of “the conservative perspective” in her columns and in her appearances on Fox-news, and while railing obsessively against the “xenophobia” of Donald Trump. Not at all surprisingly, she calls on her fellow-“serious conservatives” and “sensible Republicans” to treat this billionaire who is in her crosshairs as a “pariah.” It seems that the very outspoken Trump is dishonoring “serious conservatism.”

Jennifer’s claim to speak for the “Right” is truly outrageous and I can’t think of anything of hers that I’ve read that didn’t give her away as a conventional Jewish liberal. But her denunciations of Trump provide food for thought. Although no one but a fool would imagine that Trump throughout his career has been consistently on the right, none of the Donald’s competitors, as Jack Kerwick has shown on (believe it or not!) townhall, can boast of a consistently right-wing record on immigration, resisting the temptation to kowtow to minorities allied with the Democrats, and opposing the expansion of the welfare state. Trump is far from the only GOP presidential hopeful who has jumped to the right during primary season. To her credit, however, to get back to my main point, Jennifer does make one reflect about the meaning of “conservative” at the present time

As best I can tell, a “conservative” is someone who supports the GOP establishment and talks incessantly about our special relation with Bibi and the inexpressible awfulness of the treaty that the American government has signed with Iran. By this standard I am not a “conservative,” but Jonah Goldberg and Jennifer Rubin fit the job description, and given his opposition to the Iran deal, Senator Chuck Schumer, like Joe Lieberman, is a “conservative” fellow-traveler who is celebrated in the “conservative” press. (Sorry for the scare quotations around the term “conservative”!)

ORDER IT NOW

Although I’ve written on this theme many times before, litmus test-conservatism seems topical enough to be expanded on again. It seems to me that we no longer have in our media-driven political conversation anything like a “Right.” By this I mean either a traditional Right that accepts social differences and a traditional order of the family and community, together with the right of historic nations to preserve themselves, or a libertarian Right that seeks to shove a leftist administrative state off our backs. I shall gladly accept either definition of the Right, since both are now identified with inadmissibly reactionary politics. When the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban announces that the horde of Muslim migrants coming into his country have no right to be there, he is immediately denounced as a fascist or worse in both the Murdoch press and the regular liberal media. Both sides are equally committed to fluid national borders, the export of their human rights agenda, and the imposition of our changing way of life on the rest of humanity. Both sides in the US, moreover, accept a highly centralized welfare state and the right of public administration to inflict on us “social policy,” particularly in the name of combating prejudice and inequality.

Given this broad area of agreement about what look like historically leftist positions, the question then becomes: “How do we distinguish the two sides in the electoral contests that are necessary to make a regime look democratic?” The media and our two institutionalized parties have provided the answer by creating differences that have no ideological basis but which make the sides appear distinguishable. The parties or sides agglutinate different interest groups, e.g., the arms industry, Christian Zionists, public sector unions, the Chamber of Commerce, and racial minorities, and then promise these constituencies various programs, which can only be implemented by expanding the reach of government even more. Where these parties and the ideological labels attached to them are located reflect mostly the goals of the interest groups that fund them or pay for their media outlets. One limiting condition is that both sides represent a consistently leftist world view and trade mostly in the same leftist slogans. These shared slogans are usually about protecting humankind, being a global country, promoting the crusade for equality against ‘bigotry,” and bringing human rights to the entire solar system.

Yes, there are slight variations between the sides and I noted one this week. Whereas the Democrats favor affirmative action for every minority that votes for their party, the “conservative” black presidential candidate Ben Carson wants “compassionate action” by government on behalf of those rising out of meager circumstances. This was also the position favored by Carson’s fellow-“conservative” Jeb Bush, when he was reaching out to minorities as Governor of Florida. Carson, who seems to be the latest darling of Republican Evangelicals, wants to deal “compassionately” with those who are here illegally. From what I can figure out, his position may be indistinguishable from that of Jeb—and perhaps the latest sound bite of Hillary. But unlike them, Carson expresses his views with a doctor’s bedside manner while talking about his journey of faith.

ORDER IT NOW

Not only have the differences between the two sides on social positions become less than minimal. The sides define themselves by bringing up differences that have nothing to do with ideological distinctions, but which are are allowed to define differentness. I have no idea why siding with the Israeli Right and categorically denying that Palestinians were expelled, indeed by the hundreds of thousands, from their homes should be a mark of being on the American Right. Someone may choose to believe what is counterfactual in this matter but why should that be an indispensable criterion for determining who is on the right in the US? Why are “conservatives” supposed to believe that Woodrow Wilson was justified in pushing this country into World War One or that the Central Powers were alone responsible for that disaster? Or why is it “conservative” to wage a moral crusade against President Putin for not recognizing “gay rights” in his country? What on earth does this crusade have to do with any conceivable Right? I’m still puzzling over why the GOP rhetorical staple of providing school vouchers to inner city residents is a “conservative” position? It may be an attempt to woo black votes away from the Democrats but I can’t figure out what is “conservative” about bringing social engineering government administrators more deeply into private and parochial education. The only non-leftist position that I can recognize on this issue would be to push the government as far as possible out of the educational system.

I could multiply these examples ad infinitum to illustrate my argument, that what now distinguishes Right and Left is increasingly arbitrary. Theoretical distinctions have been invented to make the accommodation of interest group fit the need of our two institutionalized, government-financed “democratic” parties. Although there are differences between these sides, the ones that exist do not distinguish Right and Left. They are mostly about who pays off parties in return for favors. But once these interests become attached to different sides, the policies become litmus tests for who is on the Right and who is on the Left. Thus we have the case of Jennifer Rubin, in whom it is impossible to discern the slightest “conservative” substance but who in this wacky political world gets to tell us who is a “serious conservative.”

Paul Gottfried [send him mail] is Horace Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College and author of Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt, The Strange Death of Marxism, and Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right. His latest book is Encounters: My Life with Nixon, Marcuse, and Other Friends and Teachers.

The eighth annual meeting of the H.L.Mencken Club will take place Nov. 6th and 7th. To find out more about the conference and to register, click on this link: http://hlmenckenclub.org/2015-conference/

(Republished from LewRockwell.com by permission of author or representative)
 
44 Comments to "Waposervativism"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Tom_R says:

    RUBIN–ANOTHER LYING SCAMMING JEWISH ALIENIST POSING AS A CONSERVATIVE!!

    Thanks for the interesting article, Sir. And thanks for exposing this Jewish left-winger, Rubin, masquerading as a conservative. Alienism is a true give-away of a left-winger.

    Lying, scamming, alienism, and other low moral behavior are highly prevalent among the Judaists. This is because many Judaists believes they are a “special race” called “Jews” (in reliance on the Torah, (Old Testament, OT 1-5) and derivative works), though they are mostly whites whose ancestors converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages. (See the book: “Invention of the Jewish People” by Sholomo Sand). They believe they are children of Abraham, who was a pimp who sold his wife/sister to an African (therefore black) Pharaoh. They worship a mass murderer Moshe (who was so black, the black Pharaoh assumed he was his grandson) as a prophet.

    Also, the biggest Jewish “prayer”, Kol Nidre, recited on the High Holy days of Yom Kippur, promotes lying and scamming:

    “All vows we are likely to make, all oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our vows, pledges and oaths be considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths.”

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kol_Nidre

    These things explain the high prevalence of white hate (blancophobia), and lying and scamming and low morals prevalent among many Judaists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hanoi Paris Hilton
    Yo Mr_R...

    Don't hold back! Tell us what you really think of the Joos... And I compliment your brilliant deconstruction of the Kol Nidre as worthy of the deepest talmudist scholar.

    But before letting it all hang out, try to wrap your head around the concept that Prof. Gottfried is admittedly and unabashedly a Jooooo himself. Will you still call him "Sir"?
    , @Reg Cæsar
    It's leukophobia, not "blancophobia". Who taught you Greek? Have his license revoked.
    , @Sherman
    I wonder if your psychiatrist is Jewish.
    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
    /pgottfried/waposervativism/#comment-1140528
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Actually, there is a difference between Republican and Democrat, but the difference is only one of emphasis.

    Democrats desire to implement or impose a Jewish-style national victim cult onto all white nations in the world, to make the entire world safe for Jews from Naziism. Democrat ideology is closest to secular or reformed or messianic Judaism.

    Republicans desire to maintain the survival and success of a Jewish-style national victim cult in both the US and Israel. The rest of the world is just manipulated fodder. Republican ideology is closest to conservative Judaism.

    Voting either way, Democrat or Republican, Americans will always get a Jewish-style national victim cult.

    Read More
  3. What is it that the majority of white, black, brown, red and yellow people have in common? The majority of all of them are working class. We have been and are being intentionally set against each other for the preservation of the ruling class. The working class is the left. The ruling class is the right. Which side are you on?

    Read More
    • Disagree: Romanian, Ozymandias
    • Replies: @Joe Franklin
    The ruling class in Israel is obviously the government recognized victim class, the Holocaust believers.

    It's not a stretch of the imagination to understand that the ruling class in the US is also the government recognized victim class, also labeled the protected class.

    The leaders of the protected class are people that incessantly advertise themselves as professional victims.

    Like any other class supremacy scheme, its internal structure is that of a pyramid, where the people at the top of the pyramid are those who understand and implement the mechanics of the scheme.

    The rank and file of the victim class supremacy pyramid is the idiocracy of people who mindlessly trade their votes for more undue and marginal government privileges.

    The rank and file victim cultists are the super-majority of voters, by design.

    Communism is also a class supremacy scheme, and it was abandoned by Chekist when the Soviet Union turned against the mechanics of the scheme.

    Like the communist cult Cheka leaders, victim cult leaders are the super privileged.

    Being super privileged is better than being rich, especially when there's unlimited law making power, unlimited taxation power, and a super power military machine that can be readily exploited.
    , @Curle

    The working class is the left. The ruling class is the right. Which side are you on?
     
    Bad formulation. The Left is a coalition of the fringes including the lowest classes and the elites and the Right a coalition of the bourgeoisie middle. The Left are the elites with the power and the Right aren't willing to take them on. If you want to help the average worker you need to support populist candidates. Generally, the Left and the Right do everything in their power to marginalize populist candidates.
    , @anonymous
    "..The working class is the left. The ruling class is the right. Which side are you on?..."

    Clearly you need to get out more. Among whites, it's the other way around. The powerful elites who f*** everything up, are pure left. The normal guys who drag themselves through 14 hour workdays, are conservatives almost to a man.
  4. @WorkingClass
    What is it that the majority of white, black, brown, red and yellow people have in common? The majority of all of them are working class. We have been and are being intentionally set against each other for the preservation of the ruling class. The working class is the left. The ruling class is the right. Which side are you on?

    The ruling class in Israel is obviously the government recognized victim class, the Holocaust believers.

    It’s not a stretch of the imagination to understand that the ruling class in the US is also the government recognized victim class, also labeled the protected class.

    The leaders of the protected class are people that incessantly advertise themselves as professional victims.

    Like any other class supremacy scheme, its internal structure is that of a pyramid, where the people at the top of the pyramid are those who understand and implement the mechanics of the scheme.

    The rank and file of the victim class supremacy pyramid is the idiocracy of people who mindlessly trade their votes for more undue and marginal government privileges.

    The rank and file victim cultists are the super-majority of voters, by design.

    Communism is also a class supremacy scheme, and it was abandoned by Chekist when the Soviet Union turned against the mechanics of the scheme.

    Like the communist cult Cheka leaders, victim cult leaders are the super privileged.

    Being super privileged is better than being rich, especially when there’s unlimited law making power, unlimited taxation power, and a super power military machine that can be readily exploited.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass

    It’s not a stretch of the imagination to understand that the ruling class in the US is also the government recognized victim class, also labeled the protected class.
     
    Does the victim class include Wall Street, Sheldon Adelson, the Cock Brothers, the U.S Chamber of Commerce, the CEO's of international corporations? I would certainly agree they are the protected class.

    I will ask again. Which side are you on?

  5. @Joe Franklin
    The ruling class in Israel is obviously the government recognized victim class, the Holocaust believers.

    It's not a stretch of the imagination to understand that the ruling class in the US is also the government recognized victim class, also labeled the protected class.

    The leaders of the protected class are people that incessantly advertise themselves as professional victims.

    Like any other class supremacy scheme, its internal structure is that of a pyramid, where the people at the top of the pyramid are those who understand and implement the mechanics of the scheme.

    The rank and file of the victim class supremacy pyramid is the idiocracy of people who mindlessly trade their votes for more undue and marginal government privileges.

    The rank and file victim cultists are the super-majority of voters, by design.

    Communism is also a class supremacy scheme, and it was abandoned by Chekist when the Soviet Union turned against the mechanics of the scheme.

    Like the communist cult Cheka leaders, victim cult leaders are the super privileged.

    Being super privileged is better than being rich, especially when there's unlimited law making power, unlimited taxation power, and a super power military machine that can be readily exploited.

    It’s not a stretch of the imagination to understand that the ruling class in the US is also the government recognized victim class, also labeled the protected class.

    Does the victim class include Wall Street, Sheldon Adelson, the Cock Brothers, the U.S Chamber of Commerce, the CEO’s of international corporations? I would certainly agree they are the protected class.

    I will ask again. Which side are you on?

    Read More
  6. Svigor says:

    Jennifer’s claim to speak for the “Right” is truly outrageous and I can’t think of anything of hers that I’ve read that didn’t give her away as a conventional Jewish liberal. But her denunciations of Trump provide food for thought. Although no one but a fool would imagine that Trump throughout his career has been consistently on the right, none of the Donald’s competitors, as Jack Kerwick has shown on (believe it or not!) townhall, can boast of a consistently right-wing record on immigration, resisting the temptation to kowtow to minorities allied with the Democrats, and opposing the expansion of the welfare state. Trump is far from the only GOP presidential hopeful who has jumped to the right during primary season. To her credit, however, to get back to my main point, Jennifer does make one reflect about the meaning of “conservative” at the present time

    As best I can tell, a “conservative” is someone who supports the GOP establishment and talks incessantly about our special relation with Bibi and the inexpressible awfulness of the treaty that the American government has signed with Iran.

    For some reason, I thought I was reading a Derbyshire column. After the preceding, I stopped and wondered, “when did Derb grow such a big set of balls?”

    Then I scrolled up and saw that I was reading Gottfried. Sorry about that, Paul.

    Immigration Restriction (and rollback) is the first litmus test of any Conservatism I’d care to be associated with (I don’t call myself a Conservative). That wipes out pretty much all of the phony conservatives like Rubin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    How do you get to have a say about the tests for a group of which you are not a member? That doesn't make any sense.
    , @Trumped
    Gottfried writes in a Bane from the Dark Knight Rises style - he is fearless. It is always fun to see his latest frontal assault.
  7. iffen says:
    @Svigor

    Jennifer’s claim to speak for the “Right” is truly outrageous and I can’t think of anything of hers that I’ve read that didn’t give her away as a conventional Jewish liberal. But her denunciations of Trump provide food for thought. Although no one but a fool would imagine that Trump throughout his career has been consistently on the right, none of the Donald’s competitors, as Jack Kerwick has shown on (believe it or not!) townhall, can boast of a consistently right-wing record on immigration, resisting the temptation to kowtow to minorities allied with the Democrats, and opposing the expansion of the welfare state. Trump is far from the only GOP presidential hopeful who has jumped to the right during primary season. To her credit, however, to get back to my main point, Jennifer does make one reflect about the meaning of “conservative” at the present time

    As best I can tell, a “conservative” is someone who supports the GOP establishment and talks incessantly about our special relation with Bibi and the inexpressible awfulness of the treaty that the American government has signed with Iran.
     
    For some reason, I thought I was reading a Derbyshire column. After the preceding, I stopped and wondered, "when did Derb grow such a big set of balls?"

    Then I scrolled up and saw that I was reading Gottfried. Sorry about that, Paul.

    Immigration Restriction (and rollback) is the first litmus test of any Conservatism I'd care to be associated with (I don't call myself a Conservative). That wipes out pretty much all of the phony conservatives like Rubin.

    How do you get to have a say about the tests for a group of which you are not a member? That doesn’t make any sense.

    Read More
  8. J1234 says:

    I heard David Brooks laughing, joking and chumming it up with a columnist from the New York Times a couple of years ago on NPR (I think.) It was a radio takeoff of the “conservative vs. liberal” shtick Brooks does/did with Mark Shields on the News Hour. It’s very obvious (to me) that these are the people that he enjoys being around…the people he feels most comfortable with…and that’s why he’s hired by them. And seeks to be hired by them.

    Any “conservative” hired by the Washington Post or Newsweek is almost certainly to be of this flavor. They will satisfy the left’s diversity fix (or more correctly stated, obligation) with regards to political ideology without the having to deal directly with those horrible people from flyover America. And that, my friends, is what neocons are all about.

    I’ll say it again, though. Trump isn’t going to be president. The importance of his candidacy is symbolic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    I’ll say it again, though. Trump isn’t going to be president. The importance of his candidacy is symbolic.
     
    Trump's "symbolic" candidacy has already claimed one Speaker of the House. That's quite an accomplishment for a man who hasn't even won a primary yet.
    , @JSM
    Maybe. Yes, I can see how that would come about...On Jan 21 he is inaugurated President. On Jan. 22 he is Vince Fostered...
  9. Curle says:
    @WorkingClass
    What is it that the majority of white, black, brown, red and yellow people have in common? The majority of all of them are working class. We have been and are being intentionally set against each other for the preservation of the ruling class. The working class is the left. The ruling class is the right. Which side are you on?

    The working class is the left. The ruling class is the right. Which side are you on?

    Bad formulation. The Left is a coalition of the fringes including the lowest classes and the elites and the Right a coalition of the bourgeoisie middle. The Left are the elites with the power and the Right aren’t willing to take them on. If you want to help the average worker you need to support populist candidates. Generally, the Left and the Right do everything in their power to marginalize populist candidates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    It's more complicated. Both sides have an elite-nonelite split, largely (IMHO) due to the fact that due to campaign laws, a party has to get money from one source and voters from another.

    The Democrats have an elite composed of wealthy gays, wealthy feminists, and wealthy Jewish liberals. They have a rank and file composed of poor non-whites, the remaining union members, and upper middle class professionals in coastal cities and college towns.

    The Republicans have an elite composed of wealthy people in extraction industries (oil, gas, coal, etc.), a few (mostly Jewish) neocons (but enough to shape foreign policy), and a nonelite composed of working-class whites and white suburban middle-class red-staters.

    Unsurprisingly, both halves of the Democratic party want more immigration. But the Republicans have an elite that supports it and a base that strongly opposes it. They are thus prone to periodic populist eruptions--see Dobbs, Trump, etc. Still, the elite controls the party, so it never really gets restricted.

    I'd be really curious to hear Prof. Gottfried's opinions on this--he is a lot smarter than me!

    , @WorkingClass
    You may be confusing left and right with Democrats and Republicans. D's and R's are neither left nor right. They are imperialists and corporatists. D's and R's have ruined the country. It is astonishing that Americans still legitimize them at election time. I totally agree with you regarding populist candidates. But I don't put much hope in electoral politics.
  10. Trumped says:
    @Svigor

    Jennifer’s claim to speak for the “Right” is truly outrageous and I can’t think of anything of hers that I’ve read that didn’t give her away as a conventional Jewish liberal. But her denunciations of Trump provide food for thought. Although no one but a fool would imagine that Trump throughout his career has been consistently on the right, none of the Donald’s competitors, as Jack Kerwick has shown on (believe it or not!) townhall, can boast of a consistently right-wing record on immigration, resisting the temptation to kowtow to minorities allied with the Democrats, and opposing the expansion of the welfare state. Trump is far from the only GOP presidential hopeful who has jumped to the right during primary season. To her credit, however, to get back to my main point, Jennifer does make one reflect about the meaning of “conservative” at the present time

    As best I can tell, a “conservative” is someone who supports the GOP establishment and talks incessantly about our special relation with Bibi and the inexpressible awfulness of the treaty that the American government has signed with Iran.
     
    For some reason, I thought I was reading a Derbyshire column. After the preceding, I stopped and wondered, "when did Derb grow such a big set of balls?"

    Then I scrolled up and saw that I was reading Gottfried. Sorry about that, Paul.

    Immigration Restriction (and rollback) is the first litmus test of any Conservatism I'd care to be associated with (I don't call myself a Conservative). That wipes out pretty much all of the phony conservatives like Rubin.

    Gottfried writes in a Bane from the Dark Knight Rises style – he is fearless. It is always fun to see his latest frontal assault.

    Read More
  11. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    OT, but: Why do people who profess to hate the mass media feel compelled to give money to their enemies? I notice that many here (and on every site I frequent) claim to hate the NYT/WAPO mafia, but nonetheless “must” consume the garbage they produce.

    People, nobody ever died from missing a George Will column.

    TV is the same–throw it out the damned window and get yourself a library card.

    The simple fact is that these people will go away if they’re not financially rewarded.

    Other than an occasional baseball game or NFL playoff game, no tv for this redneck since 1976. Honest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    OT, but: Why do people who profess to hate the mass media feel compelled to give money to their enemies? I notice that many here (and on every site I frequent) claim to hate the NYT/WAPO mafia, but nonetheless “must” consume the garbage they produce.
     
    I've recently had similar thoughts cross my mind, and in the process I realized why I'll never have a career as a critic. When I know that I'm not getting truth or value from a particular source, I just tune it out. I anathematize it and drop it off my radar screen; I don't hang around to have an argument with it.

    I suppose there are deep and only partially analyzable issues of class and temperament at work here. Some people are compelled to be writers, scholars, and journalists. They naturally gravitate towards those fields as though finding their true and salubrious habitat. Their hatred of the MSM is not a hatred of its theoretical social role. On the contrary, they rather like the idea of a newspaper that actually does the job of reporting facts and cultivating enlightened opinions. Their rancor stems from the fact that they have been personally disinherited by an MSM that is nothing but the propaganda arm of transnational leftism. Yet, unable to change their nature, they continue in their destined path outside the corridors of respectable opinion. They must write!--so they establish small enclaves for themselves on the internet. They become "the alternative media."

    On the other hand, there are those who combine the knight's inborn contempt for "scribes" (while begrudgingly recognizing their usefulness) with the quite natural observation that the MSM, being the propaganda arm of transnational leftism, is an orc-horde that stinks of lies and aims at conquest. It threatens, it menaces, and it needs to be destroyed. Their hatred begets no criticism; it is nothing but the astonished rage that such people are allowed to exist at all. However, recognizing the political realities of the situation, and knowing that the battle cannot be joined at this time, they smolder in mute, exasperated fury, and do the only thing they can do: They hit the off-switch. It is the 21st century equivalent of "I will hear no more of your lies, vermin!"

    For better or for worse, we live in an historical period when the social role of the scribe-class, the MSM, has grown to exaggerated proportions. All late-stage civilizations have followed the same course. The rule of the scribes is coexistent with the rule of the Optimates, the money-powers. They are both eventually overthrown by Caesarism, wherein the long repressed knighthood reasserts its primordial superiority.

    Even now the powers of the MSM are beginning to wane. Their grip on public opinion, their ability to direct the flows of thought, sentiment, and money, is not so ironclad as it once was. Alt-media types sometimes flatter themselves that they had something to do with this, but it is not the result of anything that occurred in the so-called "battle of ideas." Still less is it the result of "technology" (cf. the oft-repeated claim that the rise of the internet was instrumental in killing off the mainstream print newspapers). It is fundamentally a result of boredom with that stage of cultural development of which newspapers were the natural organ and expression. Newspapers achieved their heyday and the climax of their power during the great unifying social movements of the early to mid twentieth century. The advance of the "-isms" required a retinue of journalists and scholars to serve as their priestly expositors, and a newspaper to serve as a hand missal. But nowadays the slogans of the old social movements are but tired cliches, and nobody is much interested in isms. Much of the old importance of the media has already faded away, but they have managed to hang on for awhile longer by redefining themselves as a political force. That, however, is a doomed quest. Once you cross over to the other side, once you decide to "get political" rather than just comment and criticize, you come up against real political politicians who don't play games and don't take prisoners. Megyn Kelly's recent run-in with Donald Trump is highly illustrative in this regard.

    Within another generation the last vestiges of the once great MSM will be of rather little account, Increasingly, the people in charge will simply run things without the help of an ideological caste to convince, explain, and exhort. Conflicts will be settled by more martial and definitive means. And even the born scribes will have a season of peace, free at last to be purveyors of truth and reason rather than the running dogs of charlatans.

  12. vinteuil says:

    Great column – one of PG’s best.

    Should have gotten front-page treatment from Unz.com

    Read More
  13. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @WorkingClass
    What is it that the majority of white, black, brown, red and yellow people have in common? The majority of all of them are working class. We have been and are being intentionally set against each other for the preservation of the ruling class. The working class is the left. The ruling class is the right. Which side are you on?

    “..The working class is the left. The ruling class is the right. Which side are you on?…”

    Clearly you need to get out more. Among whites, it’s the other way around. The powerful elites who f*** everything up, are pure left. The normal guys who drag themselves through 14 hour workdays, are conservatives almost to a man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    There are powerful elites who own both parties. All of them suck. And all of them are the ruling class. The working class does tend to be socially conservative and economically liberal. But they are not represented in Washington. Workers want work and wages not war and welfare.
  14. @J1234
    I heard David Brooks laughing, joking and chumming it up with a columnist from the New York Times a couple of years ago on NPR (I think.) It was a radio takeoff of the "conservative vs. liberal" shtick Brooks does/did with Mark Shields on the News Hour. It's very obvious (to me) that these are the people that he enjoys being around...the people he feels most comfortable with...and that's why he's hired by them. And seeks to be hired by them.

    Any "conservative" hired by the Washington Post or Newsweek is almost certainly to be of this flavor. They will satisfy the left's diversity fix (or more correctly stated, obligation) with regards to political ideology without the having to deal directly with those horrible people from flyover America. And that, my friends, is what neocons are all about.

    I'll say it again, though. Trump isn't going to be president. The importance of his candidacy is symbolic.

    I’ll say it again, though. Trump isn’t going to be president. The importance of his candidacy is symbolic.

    Trump’s “symbolic” candidacy has already claimed one Speaker of the House. That’s quite an accomplishment for a man who hasn’t even won a primary yet.

    Read More
  15. @Anonymous
    OT, but: Why do people who profess to hate the mass media feel compelled to give money to their enemies? I notice that many here (and on every site I frequent) claim to hate the NYT/WAPO mafia, but nonetheless "must" consume the garbage they produce.

    People, nobody ever died from missing a George Will column.

    TV is the same--throw it out the damned window and get yourself a library card.

    The simple fact is that these people will go away if they're not financially rewarded.

    Other than an occasional baseball game or NFL playoff game, no tv for this redneck since 1976. Honest.

    OT, but: Why do people who profess to hate the mass media feel compelled to give money to their enemies? I notice that many here (and on every site I frequent) claim to hate the NYT/WAPO mafia, but nonetheless “must” consume the garbage they produce.

    I’ve recently had similar thoughts cross my mind, and in the process I realized why I’ll never have a career as a critic. When I know that I’m not getting truth or value from a particular source, I just tune it out. I anathematize it and drop it off my radar screen; I don’t hang around to have an argument with it.

    I suppose there are deep and only partially analyzable issues of class and temperament at work here. Some people are compelled to be writers, scholars, and journalists. They naturally gravitate towards those fields as though finding their true and salubrious habitat. Their hatred of the MSM is not a hatred of its theoretical social role. On the contrary, they rather like the idea of a newspaper that actually does the job of reporting facts and cultivating enlightened opinions. Their rancor stems from the fact that they have been personally disinherited by an MSM that is nothing but the propaganda arm of transnational leftism. Yet, unable to change their nature, they continue in their destined path outside the corridors of respectable opinion. They must write!–so they establish small enclaves for themselves on the internet. They become “the alternative media.”

    On the other hand, there are those who combine the knight’s inborn contempt for “scribes” (while begrudgingly recognizing their usefulness) with the quite natural observation that the MSM, being the propaganda arm of transnational leftism, is an orc-horde that stinks of lies and aims at conquest. It threatens, it menaces, and it needs to be destroyed. Their hatred begets no criticism; it is nothing but the astonished rage that such people are allowed to exist at all. However, recognizing the political realities of the situation, and knowing that the battle cannot be joined at this time, they smolder in mute, exasperated fury, and do the only thing they can do: They hit the off-switch. It is the 21st century equivalent of “I will hear no more of your lies, vermin!”

    For better or for worse, we live in an historical period when the social role of the scribe-class, the MSM, has grown to exaggerated proportions. All late-stage civilizations have followed the same course. The rule of the scribes is coexistent with the rule of the Optimates, the money-powers. They are both eventually overthrown by Caesarism, wherein the long repressed knighthood reasserts its primordial superiority.

    Even now the powers of the MSM are beginning to wane. Their grip on public opinion, their ability to direct the flows of thought, sentiment, and money, is not so ironclad as it once was. Alt-media types sometimes flatter themselves that they had something to do with this, but it is not the result of anything that occurred in the so-called “battle of ideas.” Still less is it the result of “technology” (cf. the oft-repeated claim that the rise of the internet was instrumental in killing off the mainstream print newspapers). It is fundamentally a result of boredom with that stage of cultural development of which newspapers were the natural organ and expression. Newspapers achieved their heyday and the climax of their power during the great unifying social movements of the early to mid twentieth century. The advance of the “-isms” required a retinue of journalists and scholars to serve as their priestly expositors, and a newspaper to serve as a hand missal. But nowadays the slogans of the old social movements are but tired cliches, and nobody is much interested in isms. Much of the old importance of the media has already faded away, but they have managed to hang on for awhile longer by redefining themselves as a political force. That, however, is a doomed quest. Once you cross over to the other side, once you decide to “get political” rather than just comment and criticize, you come up against real political politicians who don’t play games and don’t take prisoners. Megyn Kelly’s recent run-in with Donald Trump is highly illustrative in this regard.

    Within another generation the last vestiges of the once great MSM will be of rather little account, Increasingly, the people in charge will simply run things without the help of an ideological caste to convince, explain, and exhort. Conflicts will be settled by more martial and definitive means. And even the born scribes will have a season of peace, free at last to be purveyors of truth and reason rather than the running dogs of charlatans.

    Read More
  16. SFG says:
    @Curle

    The working class is the left. The ruling class is the right. Which side are you on?
     
    Bad formulation. The Left is a coalition of the fringes including the lowest classes and the elites and the Right a coalition of the bourgeoisie middle. The Left are the elites with the power and the Right aren't willing to take them on. If you want to help the average worker you need to support populist candidates. Generally, the Left and the Right do everything in their power to marginalize populist candidates.

    It’s more complicated. Both sides have an elite-nonelite split, largely (IMHO) due to the fact that due to campaign laws, a party has to get money from one source and voters from another.

    The Democrats have an elite composed of wealthy gays, wealthy feminists, and wealthy Jewish liberals. They have a rank and file composed of poor non-whites, the remaining union members, and upper middle class professionals in coastal cities and college towns.

    The Republicans have an elite composed of wealthy people in extraction industries (oil, gas, coal, etc.), a few (mostly Jewish) neocons (but enough to shape foreign policy), and a nonelite composed of working-class whites and white suburban middle-class red-staters.

    Unsurprisingly, both halves of the Democratic party want more immigration. But the Republicans have an elite that supports it and a base that strongly opposes it. They are thus prone to periodic populist eruptions–see Dobbs, Trump, etc. Still, the elite controls the party, so it never really gets restricted.

    I’d be really curious to hear Prof. Gottfried’s opinions on this–he is a lot smarter than me!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    They have a rank and file composed of poor non-whites, the remaining union members, and upper middle class professionals in coastal cities and college towns.
     
    "Upper-middle-class professionals " aren't wealthy? (OK, maybe not in overpricey coastal cities.)

    "Remaining union members"? The only valid unionist position on illegals is immediate, merciless deportation, with no consideration of the effect on individual families. How many unions take that position?

    And public-employee unions? An idea so far to the left that Franklin Roosevelt rejected it!
  17. @Tom_R
    RUBIN--ANOTHER LYING SCAMMING JEWISH ALIENIST POSING AS A CONSERVATIVE!!

    Thanks for the interesting article, Sir. And thanks for exposing this Jewish left-winger, Rubin, masquerading as a conservative. Alienism is a true give-away of a left-winger.

    Lying, scamming, alienism, and other low moral behavior are highly prevalent among the Judaists. This is because many Judaists believes they are a “special race” called “Jews” (in reliance on the Torah, (Old Testament, OT 1-5) and derivative works), though they are mostly whites whose ancestors converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages. (See the book: “Invention of the Jewish People” by Sholomo Sand). They believe they are children of Abraham, who was a pimp who sold his wife/sister to an African (therefore black) Pharaoh. They worship a mass murderer Moshe (who was so black, the black Pharaoh assumed he was his grandson) as a prophet.

    Also, the biggest Jewish “prayer”, Kol Nidre, recited on the High Holy days of Yom Kippur, promotes lying and scamming:

    "All vows we are likely to make, all oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our vows, pledges and oaths be considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths."

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kol_Nidre

    These things explain the high prevalence of white hate (blancophobia), and lying and scamming and low morals prevalent among many Judaists.

    Yo Mr_R…

    Don’t hold back! Tell us what you really think of the Joos… And I compliment your brilliant deconstruction of the Kol Nidre as worthy of the deepest talmudist scholar.

    But before letting it all hang out, try to wrap your head around the concept that Prof. Gottfried is admittedly and unabashedly a Jooooo himself. Will you still call him “Sir”?

    Read More
  18. Giuseppe says:

    You said it, alright. We have a strange political arrangement that functions as a one-party system, Tovarisch Professor.

    Read More
  19. I think it would be a very interesting picture if someone less lazy than I could make a Venn diagram of the Republican and Democratic platforms. This Venn diagram would show the shared values, and the different points that each side would prefer to emphasize: but more importantly, it would also show what is outside the R-D circles, which are condemned by both sides. Think of the fun Trump could have with a diagram which would communicate at such a simple level…

    Read More
  20. Eric says:

    The only distinction of philosophy and political thought that exists today in the Western world is between libertarian and authoritarian, and authoritarians dominate both parties, the media, and the university industry in the U.S.

    Read More
  21. @Curle

    The working class is the left. The ruling class is the right. Which side are you on?
     
    Bad formulation. The Left is a coalition of the fringes including the lowest classes and the elites and the Right a coalition of the bourgeoisie middle. The Left are the elites with the power and the Right aren't willing to take them on. If you want to help the average worker you need to support populist candidates. Generally, the Left and the Right do everything in their power to marginalize populist candidates.

    You may be confusing left and right with Democrats and Republicans. D’s and R’s are neither left nor right. They are imperialists and corporatists. D’s and R’s have ruined the country. It is astonishing that Americans still legitimize them at election time. I totally agree with you regarding populist candidates. But I don’t put much hope in electoral politics.

    Read More
  22. @anonymous
    "..The working class is the left. The ruling class is the right. Which side are you on?..."

    Clearly you need to get out more. Among whites, it's the other way around. The powerful elites who f*** everything up, are pure left. The normal guys who drag themselves through 14 hour workdays, are conservatives almost to a man.

    There are powerful elites who own both parties. All of them suck. And all of them are the ruling class. The working class does tend to be socially conservative and economically liberal. But they are not represented in Washington. Workers want work and wages not war and welfare.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rod1963
    I tend to agree. There is a ruling class that uses the political parties as front men and to give a gloss of legitimacy to oligarchic rule.

    Left and Right are merely puppets to play the masses off one another while they collect loot the country and peoples and take away their future.

    Political distinctions are for the masses. At the top there is only power and wealth without accountability.

    Of course they couldn't pull it off without help from the corporate owned MSM and the intelligentsia( who always had pretenses of being part of the ruling elite) who convince and gas light people into believing we actually have a democracy when in fact we don't.

    That said, from the looks of it the ruling class are all socially liberal as can be. Yet very sociopathic in terms of policies that exploit the lower classes and even nations.

    They've ruined the U.S. and are in the process of destroying Europe.
  23. The GOP has always been a leftist party. The Dims started the shift to the left a bit before Wilson and really shifted left during Wilson’s misrule. The GOP, however, never changed. The conservative phenomenon in the GOP is rather recent.

    Read More
  24. JSM says:
    @J1234
    I heard David Brooks laughing, joking and chumming it up with a columnist from the New York Times a couple of years ago on NPR (I think.) It was a radio takeoff of the "conservative vs. liberal" shtick Brooks does/did with Mark Shields on the News Hour. It's very obvious (to me) that these are the people that he enjoys being around...the people he feels most comfortable with...and that's why he's hired by them. And seeks to be hired by them.

    Any "conservative" hired by the Washington Post or Newsweek is almost certainly to be of this flavor. They will satisfy the left's diversity fix (or more correctly stated, obligation) with regards to political ideology without the having to deal directly with those horrible people from flyover America. And that, my friends, is what neocons are all about.

    I'll say it again, though. Trump isn't going to be president. The importance of his candidacy is symbolic.

    Maybe. Yes, I can see how that would come about…On Jan 21 he is inaugurated President. On Jan. 22 he is Vince Fostered…

    Read More
  25. I used to think that we had a Stupid Party and an Evil Party.

    In my old age I have learned that we have and Evil Stupid Party and a Stupid Evil Party, but I forget which is which.

    Read More
  26. Author is correct in identifying various leftists as faux rightist, but I’m not so sure that libertarians belong in the “right” camp. They are center or left, mostly.

    What all variants of the right have in common is the centrality of common identity & belief that individuals can flourish only in an ordered community. The keyword for leftists is “equality”; for 19th C liberal types & their descendants, libertarians- “freedom”; for rightists, it is “order”.

    I’d say that right right -wing Weltanschauung can be divided, roughly, in two broad categories: traditional conservatives (insistence on traditions, probably religion, proven customs, common sense, natural community of family, people etc….) & radical right-wingers who are not conservatives, but revolutionaries who despise old-fashioned models of society as antiquated and want to establish a new Utopian society based mostly on social Darwinian ideology (Nazis & similar radical types).

    Rubin, Goldberg and similar propagandists do not belong to right, left, center or anything in between. They are Jewish nationalists & supremacists and this is their defining ideology (if one could call this an “ideology”).

    And- as I see, this site is infested by anti-Semitic bozos who think that virtually all people of Jewish ancestry or identity are a monolithic entity preying on all things white or Christian or European (culturally). Not all the comments, of course, but still ….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I’m not so sure that libertarians belong in the “right” camp. They are center or left, mostly.
     
    Liberty itself is reactionary, so genuine libertarians would be on the right. Problem is, libertarians aren't very libertarian, compared to 40 or 50 years ago. They support radical state inventions like "same-sex marriage", and do little to oppose tyrannies like eminent domain antidiscrimination law applied to private entities.

    So their compromise "solution" to a B&B's turning away a lesbian couple is to tear down the house to expand the state highway they love so much.
    , @Trumped
    You believe Hoppe and Rothbard belong to the left?
    , @guest
    "for 19th C liberal types & their descendants, libertarians- 'freedom' ; for rightists, it is 'order'"

    Who says "freedom" doesn't imply order? That's part of what the "dom" suffix means. One definition of "freedom" is the possession of certain privileges, which can't exist, obviously, without some order to recognize them.
  27. @Tom_R
    RUBIN--ANOTHER LYING SCAMMING JEWISH ALIENIST POSING AS A CONSERVATIVE!!

    Thanks for the interesting article, Sir. And thanks for exposing this Jewish left-winger, Rubin, masquerading as a conservative. Alienism is a true give-away of a left-winger.

    Lying, scamming, alienism, and other low moral behavior are highly prevalent among the Judaists. This is because many Judaists believes they are a “special race” called “Jews” (in reliance on the Torah, (Old Testament, OT 1-5) and derivative works), though they are mostly whites whose ancestors converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages. (See the book: “Invention of the Jewish People” by Sholomo Sand). They believe they are children of Abraham, who was a pimp who sold his wife/sister to an African (therefore black) Pharaoh. They worship a mass murderer Moshe (who was so black, the black Pharaoh assumed he was his grandson) as a prophet.

    Also, the biggest Jewish “prayer”, Kol Nidre, recited on the High Holy days of Yom Kippur, promotes lying and scamming:

    "All vows we are likely to make, all oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our vows, pledges and oaths be considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths."

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kol_Nidre

    These things explain the high prevalence of white hate (blancophobia), and lying and scamming and low morals prevalent among many Judaists.

    It’s leukophobia, not “blancophobia”. Who taught you Greek? Have his license revoked.

    Read More
  28. @SFG
    It's more complicated. Both sides have an elite-nonelite split, largely (IMHO) due to the fact that due to campaign laws, a party has to get money from one source and voters from another.

    The Democrats have an elite composed of wealthy gays, wealthy feminists, and wealthy Jewish liberals. They have a rank and file composed of poor non-whites, the remaining union members, and upper middle class professionals in coastal cities and college towns.

    The Republicans have an elite composed of wealthy people in extraction industries (oil, gas, coal, etc.), a few (mostly Jewish) neocons (but enough to shape foreign policy), and a nonelite composed of working-class whites and white suburban middle-class red-staters.

    Unsurprisingly, both halves of the Democratic party want more immigration. But the Republicans have an elite that supports it and a base that strongly opposes it. They are thus prone to periodic populist eruptions--see Dobbs, Trump, etc. Still, the elite controls the party, so it never really gets restricted.

    I'd be really curious to hear Prof. Gottfried's opinions on this--he is a lot smarter than me!

    They have a rank and file composed of poor non-whites, the remaining union members, and upper middle class professionals in coastal cities and college towns.

    “Upper-middle-class professionals ” aren’t wealthy? (OK, maybe not in overpricey coastal cities.)

    “Remaining union members”? The only valid unionist position on illegals is immediate, merciless deportation, with no consideration of the effect on individual families. How many unions take that position?

    And public-employee unions? An idea so far to the left that Franklin Roosevelt rejected it!

    Read More
  29. @Bardon Kaldian
    Author is correct in identifying various leftists as faux rightist, but I'm not so sure that libertarians belong in the "right" camp. They are center or left, mostly.

    What all variants of the right have in common is the centrality of common identity & belief that individuals can flourish only in an ordered community. The keyword for leftists is "equality"; for 19th C liberal types & their descendants, libertarians- "freedom"; for rightists, it is "order".

    I'd say that right right -wing Weltanschauung can be divided, roughly, in two broad categories: traditional conservatives (insistence on traditions, probably religion, proven customs, common sense, natural community of family, people etc....) & radical right-wingers who are not conservatives, but revolutionaries who despise old-fashioned models of society as antiquated and want to establish a new Utopian society based mostly on social Darwinian ideology (Nazis & similar radical types).

    Rubin, Goldberg and similar propagandists do not belong to right, left, center or anything in between. They are Jewish nationalists & supremacists and this is their defining ideology (if one could call this an "ideology").

    And- as I see, this site is infested by anti-Semitic bozos who think that virtually all people of Jewish ancestry or identity are a monolithic entity preying on all things white or Christian or European (culturally). Not all the comments, of course, but still ....

    I’m not so sure that libertarians belong in the “right” camp. They are center or left, mostly.

    Liberty itself is reactionary, so genuine libertarians would be on the right. Problem is, libertarians aren’t very libertarian, compared to 40 or 50 years ago. They support radical state inventions like “same-sex marriage”, and do little to oppose tyrannies like eminent domain antidiscrimination law applied to private entities.

    So their compromise “solution” to a B&B’s turning away a lesbian couple is to tear down the house to expand the state highway they love so much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Trumped
    That is like saying all conservatives favor neo-con policies of open borders and war abroad. You are talking about the Koch backed Cato types - hardly real libertarians. Most of the Mises affiliated types follow Mises and Rothbard. Tough to argue that Tom Woods, Dilorenzo, Hoppe, etc are not of the libertarian movement that Rothbard created.

    As far as anti discrimination laws, has any major politial figure besides Ron Paul opposed those laws in public comments/votes in the last couple decades? Maybe Buchanan, but was he opposed to the civil rights act like paul?

    Granted, the Koch backed frauds get most of the media attention, but that is also true for neo-cons, too.

  30. Trumped says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Author is correct in identifying various leftists as faux rightist, but I'm not so sure that libertarians belong in the "right" camp. They are center or left, mostly.

    What all variants of the right have in common is the centrality of common identity & belief that individuals can flourish only in an ordered community. The keyword for leftists is "equality"; for 19th C liberal types & their descendants, libertarians- "freedom"; for rightists, it is "order".

    I'd say that right right -wing Weltanschauung can be divided, roughly, in two broad categories: traditional conservatives (insistence on traditions, probably religion, proven customs, common sense, natural community of family, people etc....) & radical right-wingers who are not conservatives, but revolutionaries who despise old-fashioned models of society as antiquated and want to establish a new Utopian society based mostly on social Darwinian ideology (Nazis & similar radical types).

    Rubin, Goldberg and similar propagandists do not belong to right, left, center or anything in between. They are Jewish nationalists & supremacists and this is their defining ideology (if one could call this an "ideology").

    And- as I see, this site is infested by anti-Semitic bozos who think that virtually all people of Jewish ancestry or identity are a monolithic entity preying on all things white or Christian or European (culturally). Not all the comments, of course, but still ....

    You believe Hoppe and Rothbard belong to the left?

    Read More
  31. Sherman says:
    @Tom_R
    RUBIN--ANOTHER LYING SCAMMING JEWISH ALIENIST POSING AS A CONSERVATIVE!!

    Thanks for the interesting article, Sir. And thanks for exposing this Jewish left-winger, Rubin, masquerading as a conservative. Alienism is a true give-away of a left-winger.

    Lying, scamming, alienism, and other low moral behavior are highly prevalent among the Judaists. This is because many Judaists believes they are a “special race” called “Jews” (in reliance on the Torah, (Old Testament, OT 1-5) and derivative works), though they are mostly whites whose ancestors converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages. (See the book: “Invention of the Jewish People” by Sholomo Sand). They believe they are children of Abraham, who was a pimp who sold his wife/sister to an African (therefore black) Pharaoh. They worship a mass murderer Moshe (who was so black, the black Pharaoh assumed he was his grandson) as a prophet.

    Also, the biggest Jewish “prayer”, Kol Nidre, recited on the High Holy days of Yom Kippur, promotes lying and scamming:

    "All vows we are likely to make, all oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our vows, pledges and oaths be considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths."

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kol_Nidre

    These things explain the high prevalence of white hate (blancophobia), and lying and scamming and low morals prevalent among many Judaists.

    I wonder if your psychiatrist is Jewish.

    Read More
  32. Carson, who seems to be the latest darling of Republican Evangelicals, wants to deal “compassionately” with those who are here illegally.

    Just what we need–a black Bush!

    Read More
  33. rod1963 says:
    @WorkingClass
    There are powerful elites who own both parties. All of them suck. And all of them are the ruling class. The working class does tend to be socially conservative and economically liberal. But they are not represented in Washington. Workers want work and wages not war and welfare.

    I tend to agree. There is a ruling class that uses the political parties as front men and to give a gloss of legitimacy to oligarchic rule.

    Left and Right are merely puppets to play the masses off one another while they collect loot the country and peoples and take away their future.

    Political distinctions are for the masses. At the top there is only power and wealth without accountability.

    Of course they couldn’t pull it off without help from the corporate owned MSM and the intelligentsia( who always had pretenses of being part of the ruling elite) who convince and gas light people into believing we actually have a democracy when in fact we don’t.

    That said, from the looks of it the ruling class are all socially liberal as can be. Yet very sociopathic in terms of policies that exploit the lower classes and even nations.

    They’ve ruined the U.S. and are in the process of destroying Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    Thank you for your reply.

    Well said.

    I have one difference:

    There are people who are legitimately socially liberal or socially conservative. Both actually care about the well being of humanity. They differ regarding what that means and how it might be achieved. A sociopath is incapable of being either socially liberal or conservative. They have no empathy. They only care about their own individual desires and well being. Perhaps they are genetically different than the rest of us. Perhaps they simply have no soul. In any case, they tend to rise to wealth and power specifically by the exploitation of those of us who are restrained by conscience. They have a conservative and a liberal mask which they wear depending on the occasion.

    And one quibble:

    Working class people prefer the term working class (or even low income) to lower class because it seems more dignified. That's why I don't call myself LowClass even if it might be accurate.
  34. Trumped says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    I’m not so sure that libertarians belong in the “right” camp. They are center or left, mostly.
     
    Liberty itself is reactionary, so genuine libertarians would be on the right. Problem is, libertarians aren't very libertarian, compared to 40 or 50 years ago. They support radical state inventions like "same-sex marriage", and do little to oppose tyrannies like eminent domain antidiscrimination law applied to private entities.

    So their compromise "solution" to a B&B's turning away a lesbian couple is to tear down the house to expand the state highway they love so much.

    That is like saying all conservatives favor neo-con policies of open borders and war abroad. You are talking about the Koch backed Cato types – hardly real libertarians. Most of the Mises affiliated types follow Mises and Rothbard. Tough to argue that Tom Woods, Dilorenzo, Hoppe, etc are not of the libertarian movement that Rothbard created.

    As far as anti discrimination laws, has any major politial figure besides Ron Paul opposed those laws in public comments/votes in the last couple decades? Maybe Buchanan, but was he opposed to the civil rights act like paul?

    Granted, the Koch backed frauds get most of the media attention, but that is also true for neo-cons, too.

    Read More
  35. guest says:

    “what is ‘conservative’ about bringing social engineering government administrators more deeply into private and parochial education”

    Nothing, except that the number of kids pulled out of public school, they hope, will outweigh the novel state influence sure to come with the money. Perhaps they’ve fooled themselves into thinking oversight won’t come with the money, as if the voucher holders will be part of some freer market in education. While you see vouchers as an extension of government control, as they undoubtedly are, they see them as the tradeoff of more control there (private and quasi-privatr schools) for less control here (public schools).

    These are the same kind of minds that came up with all but nationalizing the health insurance industry to deal with the so-called crisis in the price of healthcare, as well as the phantom problem of uninsurance, the solutions to each of which are mutually exclusive). This was dreamed up to forestall the dreaded single payer system. So to protect ourselves from socialism and the Administrative State our “conservative” betters build a wall slightly less objectionable government expansion. We are being defended by our enemies.

    They are, as I once heard Newt Gingrich described, frugal socialists. School vouchers are a ruinous, statist idea clothed in free market jargon.

    Read More
  36. guest says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Author is correct in identifying various leftists as faux rightist, but I'm not so sure that libertarians belong in the "right" camp. They are center or left, mostly.

    What all variants of the right have in common is the centrality of common identity & belief that individuals can flourish only in an ordered community. The keyword for leftists is "equality"; for 19th C liberal types & their descendants, libertarians- "freedom"; for rightists, it is "order".

    I'd say that right right -wing Weltanschauung can be divided, roughly, in two broad categories: traditional conservatives (insistence on traditions, probably religion, proven customs, common sense, natural community of family, people etc....) & radical right-wingers who are not conservatives, but revolutionaries who despise old-fashioned models of society as antiquated and want to establish a new Utopian society based mostly on social Darwinian ideology (Nazis & similar radical types).

    Rubin, Goldberg and similar propagandists do not belong to right, left, center or anything in between. They are Jewish nationalists & supremacists and this is their defining ideology (if one could call this an "ideology").

    And- as I see, this site is infested by anti-Semitic bozos who think that virtually all people of Jewish ancestry or identity are a monolithic entity preying on all things white or Christian or European (culturally). Not all the comments, of course, but still ....

    “for 19th C liberal types & their descendants, libertarians- ‘freedom’ ; for rightists, it is ‘order’”

    Who says “freedom” doesn’t imply order? That’s part of what the “dom” suffix means. One definition of “freedom” is the possession of certain privileges, which can’t exist, obviously, without some order to recognize them.

    Read More
  37. @rod1963
    I tend to agree. There is a ruling class that uses the political parties as front men and to give a gloss of legitimacy to oligarchic rule.

    Left and Right are merely puppets to play the masses off one another while they collect loot the country and peoples and take away their future.

    Political distinctions are for the masses. At the top there is only power and wealth without accountability.

    Of course they couldn't pull it off without help from the corporate owned MSM and the intelligentsia( who always had pretenses of being part of the ruling elite) who convince and gas light people into believing we actually have a democracy when in fact we don't.

    That said, from the looks of it the ruling class are all socially liberal as can be. Yet very sociopathic in terms of policies that exploit the lower classes and even nations.

    They've ruined the U.S. and are in the process of destroying Europe.

    Thank you for your reply.

    Well said.

    I have one difference:

    There are people who are legitimately socially liberal or socially conservative. Both actually care about the well being of humanity. They differ regarding what that means and how it might be achieved. A sociopath is incapable of being either socially liberal or conservative. They have no empathy. They only care about their own individual desires and well being. Perhaps they are genetically different than the rest of us. Perhaps they simply have no soul. In any case, they tend to rise to wealth and power specifically by the exploitation of those of us who are restrained by conscience. They have a conservative and a liberal mask which they wear depending on the occasion.

    And one quibble:

    Working class people prefer the term working class (or even low income) to lower class because it seems more dignified. That’s why I don’t call myself LowClass even if it might be accurate.

    Read More
  38. And one quibble:

    Working class people prefer the term working class (or even low income) to lower class because it seems more dignified.

    A bigger quibble:

    Working people prefer the term “working” to “working class”, at least in America. It doesn’t “seem” more dignified, it is. Classes are for judging animals at the county fair.

    Any class other than middle is rejected in our country. Even the most moronic of political hacks know this, which is why they drone on about “America’s working men and women”.

    Having class… now that’s good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    "Working people prefer the term “working” to “working class”, at least in America."

    True. After the second war, with the perceived threat of Communism, we were told that we were immune from the threat because ours was a classless society. The classless society was and is a lie but almost all Americans to this day believe in it. The American working class does not know that it is the working class. That is why we are powerless. How many times in the alternative media do you hear the call to WAKE UP. If and when we awaken we will unite, posing a threat to the existing order. As matters stand we are divided against one another along lines of race, gender, ethnicity, etc.. Thus the many are precluded from defending themselves against the predations of the few.
  39. Workers want work and wages not war and welfare

    Nope. Workers prefer work and good wages and welfare also. Sometimes they’ll enthuse about war.

    The “workers” — a parlor pinko’s abstract noun.

    … for rightists, it is “order”

    Or maybe a New Order. Did Oliver Cromwell, for example, try to preserve the old Establishment? Were the Confederates of 1861-65 primarily interested in keeping things orderly?

    There are cross currents of order and radicalism on the Right.

    Read More
  40. Furthermore, Right wing-ery is nationalistic and/or ethnocentric. The Left is neither.

    Or perhaps some Leftists are ethnocentric, but they try to disguise it and deny it in their overt rhetoric.

    Read More
  41. @Reg Cæsar

    And one quibble:

    Working class people prefer the term working class (or even low income) to lower class because it seems more dignified.
     
    A bigger quibble:

    Working people prefer the term "working" to "working class", at least in America. It doesn't "seem" more dignified, it is. Classes are for judging animals at the county fair.

    Any class other than middle is rejected in our country. Even the most moronic of political hacks know this, which is why they drone on about "America's working men and women".

    Having class… now that's good.

    “Working people prefer the term “working” to “working class”, at least in America.”

    True. After the second war, with the perceived threat of Communism, we were told that we were immune from the threat because ours was a classless society. The classless society was and is a lie but almost all Americans to this day believe in it. The American working class does not know that it is the working class. That is why we are powerless. How many times in the alternative media do you hear the call to WAKE UP. If and when we awaken we will unite, posing a threat to the existing order. As matters stand we are divided against one another along lines of race, gender, ethnicity, etc.. Thus the many are precluded from defending themselves against the predations of the few.

    Read More
  42. I think the major difference between the parties is rhetoric. They have to appeal to different demographics to gain power and do damage to this country. I always thought conservatism like progressivism was some kind of pragmatism that followed fads (one based on what one grew up with and another going for new shiny objects). Baby boomers are far more tolerant than their parents generation. They divorced with ease while their parents stayed together for life. They lived through the glory days of the United States. They have grown up inside the belly of an Empire and have been fed its propaganda all their lives. I think what we are seeing is a shift in values based on demographics. Jennifer Rubin is defending the new normal for conservatism. She seeks to maintain the existing order which is an Empire that caters to Israel.

    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