The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 James Kirkpatrick Archive
#NRORevolt Proves National Conservatism the Only Way Forward
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
The National Cuckview.  Credit:
The National Cuckview. Credit:

goldberg-headshotMore than two decades after the Establishment suppressed Pat Buchanan and his “peasants with pitchforks,” the grassroots are again in revolt against the noodle-armed effetes of the Beltway Right. But this time, the uprising is directed not just against the political candidates of the Beltway Right, but against its intellectual mouthpieces: Conservatism Inc. is being rocked by what Twitter activists have tagged the #NRORevolt. And as I’ve been predicting for years, it’s a battle that American patriots need to fight and win–not just to save the American Right, but to ensure there’s still a country left to defend.

The battle started when Jonah Goldberg assumed his traditional function of insulting the conservative base. Reacting to Donald Trump’s position as the GOP Presidential frontrunner, Goldberg kvetched: “If this is the conservative movement now, I guess you’re going to have to count me out.” He wrote:

If I sound dismayed, it’s only because I am. Conservatives have spent more than 60 years arguing that ideas and character matter. That is the conservative movement I joined and dedicated my professional life to. And now, in a moment of passion, many of my comrades-in-arms are throwing it all away in a fit of pique. Because “Trump fights!”

[No Movement That Embraces Trump Can Call Itself Conservative, National Review,September 5, 2015]

Goldberg’s tantrum provoked an explosion of Twitter users firing back using the #NRORevolt hashtag. And of course Goldberg’s rosy history of the noble Conservative Movement™ left a few things out. As even conservative true believers observed, “the movement,” as we Beltway types still call it, beyond financing all too many Goldbergian “professional careers,” hasn’t actually donemuch to accomplish its stated goals.

In an “Open Letter” read aloud on air by Rush Limbaugh, “Sundance” at Conservative Treehouse outlined listed the more obvious Republican failings, concluding:

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us? SERIOUSLY?

[An Open Letter to Jonah Goldberg—Re: The GOP and Donald Trump, September 7, 2015]

In response, Goldberg doubled down, arguing National Review and the “conservative movement” have essentially done their best to push the GOP to the Right. Thus on immigration, Goldberg claims

I I came out in favor of a wall on the border in 2006. On specifics — wolfsbane to Donald Trump — I tend to agree with Mark Krikorian that you don’t need a literal wall everywhere, that you don’t need a literal wall everywhere, but I am 100 percent in favor of securing the border, and was saying so when Trump was posing with DREAMers and bad-mouthing Romney for being insensitive to Hispanics.

[The Great Trumpian Divide, September 11, 2015]

But this isn’t really true. It was Goldberg who boasted (in the midst of a column ostensibly arguing for immigration law enforcement), “philosophically and politically, I am on the side of every pro-immigration movement of the last two centuries” [Immigration’s bad guys, Los Angeles Times, June 5, 2007]. Presumably, this includes the nation-breaking 1965 Immigration Act.

And in fact Trump has been pretty “specific” about his immigration policy.

More to the point, one can’t help but see a tinge of fantasy about Goldberg’s complaints. For example, in his initial broadside, Goldberg complained

If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare… Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent.

Leave aside the mischaracterization of Trump’s position. Opposition to Obamacare did indeed deliver several Republican victories, from Scott Brown’s initial upset in Massachusetts and the 2010 midterms. But the resultant Republican Congress did nothing to reverse it and it was ultimately confirmed by a chief justice appointed by a Republican President (thus demolishing forever the argument that we must vote GOP “to get good judges.”)

If you are actually opposed to single-payer health care or Obamacare, what difference does it make if the “conservatism” exists at all?

But while the GOP has failed to deliver on the issues that animates its base, it has certainly delivered for its donors.

In the most obvious example, the Republican Congress won the 2014 elections by campaigning against immigration–then promptly turned around and funded Obama’s unilateral and illegal Amnesty. But not content with betrayal, the GOP the proceeded gleefully to ally with Obama to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership, despite grass-roots conservative opposition. And here too, National Review, rather than representing conservatives to the Republican leadership, acted as a way for the GOP to repress the grassroots.

The unavoidable reality is that conservative voters can never count on the GOP to pass what they want, even if it’s overwhelmingly popular–but somehow the Beltway Right is always there to tell conservatives to slash the few overwhelmingly popular government programs that actually benefit them.

The bottom line: William F. Buckley- style conservatism has failed, on three separate levels.

  • It failed by its own criteria in the cause of “limiting government.”
  • It failed to reverse a larger Cultural Marxist takeover of the culture, largely by participating in the ritualistic human sacrifices of conservatives like Jason Richwine, Robert Weissberg, Joseph Sobran, and our own Peter Brimelow in the failed quest for “respectability.”
  • And most spectacularly, it failed to “conserve” the nation in the most basic sense, by facilitating the replacement of the historic American nation with foreign peoples who have no stake in preserving any of the principles, institutions, or cultural norms that conservatives supposedly hold dear.

Thus in the #NRORevolt row, there’s something larger at stake than simply conservative impatience with Republican failure. Trump’s declaration that Americans are being played for suckers is especially true for the (overwhelmingly White) conservative base. They are tired of being used as cannon fodder. They are tired of seeing nothing in exchange for their votes except trade and tax policies that help the same plutocrats who support Open Borders.

So, quite naturally, they are moving towards a more National Conservative position in which the GOP is expected to defend the concrete interests of its core constituency, like the patriotic parties of Europe.

In a piece on #NRORevolt largely celebrating the split within the American Right, Matt Yglesias at Vox noted that

the demographic math of the Reagan coalition doesn’t work anymore. To win, conservative politicians either need to broaden their appeal to African-American or Latino voters or else significantly improve their performance among white voters from an already high level.

[#NRORevolt Explained, September 8, 2015].

He continued:

The strategy favored by much of the party elite… is to try to neutralize the immigration issue in the Latino community and then win votes from more affluent or more religiously devout Hispanics. The alt-right/identitarian/Trump strategy is to do the opposite, and make increasingly explicit appeals to ethnic nationalism to try to make whites more uniformly loyal to the GOP.

What Yglesias doesn’t say is that the elite strategy is already Dead On Arrival. Trump is currently under attack by the Beltway Right because The Donald evidently thinks high salaries for CEOs shouldn’t be a defining principle of the American Right. But Hispanics want more economically progressive policies even more than they want free markets.


The plan of the GOP “Smart Set” to win by putting a minority or female face (Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina) on the same tired policies will still ultimately depend on high White turnout and voter share in order to be successful. But it’s just far less likely to work. On the other hand, paradoxically, Trump’s populist strategy actually seems more likely to win a sizable minority of black and Hispanic voters than the cringe-inducing pandering of a Jeb Bush or a Marco Rubio.

It’s an unfortunate situation for the Beltway Right. But, after all, they were warned and they chose to shoot the messenger. Popular disgust at the American Right’s cowardice, short-sightedness, and baffling stupidity is one of the key motivations driving the #NRORevolt.

The existential crisis of Western Civilization in the United States and Europe was utterly unnecessary. But National Review, among others, deliberately chose to treat demographic and racial issues as beneath discussion in the same way they now choose to dismiss Trump.

And so at the beginning of what is shaping up to be the Century of Identity, a new politics is needed. And National Review and its cuckservative fellow travelers have nothing to offer.

They have no one to blame but themselves. When it comes to the death of Beltway Right-style conservatism, I’m reminded of a phrase widely used by the young Alt-Right shaping the new age of Ethnopolitics:

“Don’t call it a grave. It’s the future you chose.”

James Kirkpatrick [Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
Hide 67 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. …but somehow the Beltway Right is always there to tell conservatives to slash the few overwhelmingly popular government programs that actually benefit them.

    But if you offer to raise Medicare payments by 50%, the other side will offer to raise them by 75% and call your raise a cut. And those hoary old white folks will still vote to dig their grandchildren’s graves.

    I see no way out of this except telling them point blank they have to choose between Medicare and their children’s country. Their children will be the ones taxed to pay for the former in any event; nonwhites simply do not pay taxes, so there really is no interracial transfer.

  2. Curle says:

    The excrable Jennifer Rubin got her start at the National Review. The same rag that defenestrated Derbyshire. Need more be said?

  3. Arius says:

    Buckley failed because it was he that exiled the old conservatives then brought in James Burnham and others from the Left. Result: the neocons. This is all spelled out in gory detail by others. The wrong question is being asked; the question is why the neocons are in total control of the republican party, a party that now shares the center with the democrats.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    , @tbraton
  4. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website

    Ah, yes, Conservatism Inc vs the grassroots Alt-Right/DissdentRight.

    I am there with ya. I hear ya talking. But you are missing some facts. Lucky for you that I am here to set you straight.

    The conservative establishment serves big money. The conservative establishment disseminates the memes of Capital in order to reap rewards.

    The alt-right/dissidentRight wants to serve the white working class, wants to stop the disaster of mass immigration and anti-white multiculti, but the alt-right’s core ideology is corrupted and infected by the memes of Capital as well, corrupted and infected from the propaganda of earlier generations, decades ago–from the propaganda war fought by Capital against socialism.

    Restated, the alt-right cannot win this battle (or is at least greatly hampered) because the Alt-Right cannot accept that Capital is the enemy.

    It’s like that old military saying–the generals always want to fight the previous war instead of the current war. One good proof of this is how the Alt-Right is always saying that this current propaganda regime (the anti-white-multiculti/nonwhite-immigrant-sacralization regime) is linked to marxism and socialism. Wow. Could you BE more wrong?

    Capital loves mass immigration and multiculturalism because it supplies a never-ending supply of workers and consumers and thus profits. Duh. How can you miss that?

    Does that sound like socialism or marxism to you???!! A clue for you–when the goal of a regime is corporate PROFIT, that regime is NOT marxist or socialist. Go ahead and write that down on your palm. Cherish that wisdom.

    Regrettable, this crippled and corrupted ideology of the Alt-Right. Help me, Alt-Right, you are the only hope of the white race.

    That white knight aint gonna answer the bell, sweetie.
    BTW, I have long enjoyed kirkpatrick’s vdare essays. Maybe the best and most knowledgeable writer they have. But he is not there yet. Getting there, though.

    Consider this comment a nudge in the proper direction.

  5. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    American Conservatism is bound to fail because it not only fails to identify its main enemy but shamelessly cucks itself out to it.

    In any fight, you have to identify the enemy and focus the main energy against it.

    The defense of a football team sees the quarterback as the main enemy. It tries to penetrate through the offensive line to sack the quarterback. The focus is on the ball. Quarterback is the first to snap the ball, so he is the main target. If the ball goes to a running back or receiver, then the defense focuses on the runner or receiver.
    That is how the defense holds down the offense and turns the tide.

    American Liberalism wins because it has its eyes focused on its main enemy: white folks, especially conservative white folks. So, American Liberalism, controlled by Jews, has used the power of media, academia, and government to guilt-bait white people, vilify white history, subvert white unity, shame white identity, divide white men and white women by making white college girls believe white boys are ‘rapists’. Jews make blacks hate whites for ‘racism’ and make white women hate white men for ‘rapism’ even though blacks are top rapists in the US. Jewish ideal is for white women to have babies with black men while castrated white boys smile like Jeb Bush and applaud such ‘progressive’ act of love.

    Jews control US Liberalism, and they target white identity, white unity, white pride, white consciousness, white power, and etc. No wonder Jews got so powerful. They fix their aim at the bull’s eye. They go for head blows. They sack the quarterback.

    Now, when American Conservatism plays defense, it should concentrate its aggressive energy on the core of American Liberal power. It is Jewish power. Next is black power, though recently there’s been the super-rise of homo power. There is feminism, but it should really be seen as part of Jewish power since New Feminism was dominated by Jewish feminists and ugly lesbians and given media protection by the Jewish-run media.

    So, American Conservatism should have tried to sack the Jewish quarterback. It should have targeted Jewish power, Jewish unity, Jewish pride, Jewish interest, Jewish identity. American Conservatives should have guilt-shamed Jews about Jewish role in white slaver trade, Jewish role in collaboration with Muslims to take over Spain and Constantinople, Jewish role in communism, and Jewish role in Zionism.
    Of course, IF Jews had been willing to work with whites, whites should have been nice to Jews in return. But in fact, so many Jews have been nasty, vile, and aggressive against whites. Hostility has to be met with hostility.
    Jews were victims of horrible Holocaust, but Jews also took part in some of the worst crimes of the 20th century. And if we look back in history, Jews were directly or indirectly involved with lots of bad stuff, no less(though no more)than whites.
    There is no need for whites to hate Jews(or any people) if Jews don’t hate on whites. But if others hate on whites, it is the duty of whites to hate them back. When Japan attacked the US, Americans were right to hit back.

    As for blacks, it’s true that blacks suffered from slavery and discrimination in the US. But being stronger and more aggressive, blacks have been mean sons of bitches too, and when they got their equal freedom in the 60s, they’ve been acting like crazies, louts, punks, thugs, beasks, and ghastly loonies. So, it would have been easy for whites to play victim of blacks. If true white conservatives had control of the media, there would be non-stop coverage of black-on-white violence, the kind presented by Council of Conservative Citizens. And then, blacks would have been put on the moral defensive.

    So, white American Conservatism should have had its eyes on the Jewish quarterback and black running back of American Liberalism, but instead, it refused to ever try to sack the Jewish quarterback. And it went easy on the Negro running back.

    But it got even more surreal. Imagine if a football team invited the assistant coaches of the other team to come over and give orders to the head coach of its own team. So, the team would now be taking advice from the subversive assistant coaches of the other team.
    Eventually, what’s gonna happen to the game?
    You can’t sack the Jewish quarterback, you can’t rough-handle the Negro running back, and furthermore, you got the assistant neocon(Liberal Jews pretending to be ‘conservative’) coaches from the other team giving advice to your team while slipping all the secrets of your team to the other side. Your team’s gonna lose!!!

    The most surreal aspect of US politics is American Conservatism is most slavish and cuckish to the very people, the Jews, who are most determined to kick white ass and take pleasure from the demise of white power, identity, unity, and etc.
    How can anyone win this way?

    Of course, it could be that Jews overplayed their hand by promoting diversity.
    If UK politics portends the future of US politics, then it’s possible that the Democratic Party will go the way of Labour. Labour Party recently surprised everyone by totally embracing Muslims, opposing Israel and Zionism, and saying NO to Jewish financial power. BDS is becoming a real possibility in the UK.

    Can this happen in the US? If the GOP cucks itself so much that it submits to Jewish-homo or Jomo domination, it will become the New Democratic Party. It could be a party that Jews could actually feel comfortable in. Tories are urbane and have far less ‘white trash’ baggage.

    Meanwhile, the Democratic Party could be the new Mexican-Black-Muslim-Asian Party that is increasingly hostile to Israel and Zionism(and also insisting that Jews are part of ‘white privilege’). Then, will Jews turn to the GOP?
    For that to be possible, GOP has to become like the British Tories. An urban party of cosmopolitanism that cuts off links with the Southern ‘rednecks’.

    But maybe this won’t happen in the US because the main minorities will be black and Hispanic than Muslim. Whereas Muslims in Europe have a passionate hatred for Israel, it is not the case among blacks and Hispanics and Asians. Most American minorities may not be crazy about Israel, but they have no strong feelings against it either. So, even though there are some BDS stuff in the US campuses, it’s not a big thing here that it could be in Europe where, often, the main minorities are indeed Muslim and/or Arab. So, it’s not likely that the Democratic Party will go the way of Labour recently in the UK.

    Also, despite Blair’s ‘reforms’, Labour has had a deep class conscious background, so it can return to its roots of class warfare stance.
    In contrast, even though Democrats were once populists and New Dealers who were close to Big Labor, it doesn’t have deep or powerful roots in class warfare consciousness. And that was why it so easily morphed into an urban party of lifestyle issues of homos and the like, and Jews like it that way since they are now the lords of urbanism, especially as key cities have been saved from Negroes.

    Whatever the case, American Conservatism’s long term goal must be the breaking of the Jewish power-grip on US and the world. If the Jewish power goes, the Democratic coalition breaks up. Homos are nothing without Jewish backing. Hispanics depend on Jewish money and leadership. Blacks are angry and loud but don’t know how to organize anything. Even the Civil Rights Movement was organized and orchestrated by Jews. Asians are grinds and drones, and they won’t lead nothing.

    Get the Jew, and the Liberal Coalition is all through. So, how do you get the Jew? Make every group distrust the Jew for different reasons. Tell blacks that Jewish businessmen ripped off blacks in the past. Tell blacks that Jews were involved in slave trade. Tell blacks that Jews are behind stop-and-frisk and gentrification of cities. Tell Mexicans that Jews, not gringos, are the richest people in America. Tell Asians that Jews are the ones in Ivy league schools who cook the books to limit the number of Asians. Tell Asians that Jews use yellow peril fears to make Americans hate Asia instead of waking up to Jewish power. Tell Arab-Americans and Muslims that Jews have been behind US foreign policy that destroyed the Middle East.
    Tell every white ethnic group that Jews have been behind white slavery, collaboration with Muslim invaders, communist mass murder, financial robbery on a huge scale, mega-theft through control of gambling, anti-white propaganda, the promotion of trash culture that has ruined the lives of so many young people, and etc. Tell women that Jews are behind porn that trashes women; Jews are behind pop culture that degrades women.
    Of course, this would be nasty, but remember white people didn’t start this. Jews began the war on gentiles just like they began the War on Russia(even though Putin is friendly to Jews). We don’t wanna badmouth or fight Jews, but when Jews bash every gentile group — whites, Muslims, yellows, blacks, etc. —, it is only right that we all agree on one thing: “We are all Palestinians living under occupation in the Jew World Order.” The JWO totally messed up the Middle East. JWO is pushing the homo agenda on Asia. JWO is making Europe taking in tons of migrants who’ve been shaken loose by Wars for Israel. Jewish power has shaken Russia. Jews use Hollywood to vilify Chinese. Jews use TV to portray Muslims as terrorists. Jews use Movies to blame everything on ‘white privilege’. TV crime shows would have us believe that all the criminals in the US are white and male and gentile(when not Russian, Muslim, or Asian spies).

    By morally discrediting Jews and putting them on the defensive, the Liberal crackup will happen. Without Jews to manipulate everything in divide-and-rule way, we will finally have real politics in the US according to identity and real interests. And then, the various groups can come to some kind of compromise on a more honest basis.
    Whites, blacks, browns, yellows, Muslims, and etc should all represent themselves and deal with one another on a direct one-on-one basis. The problem is Jews(and their homo servants) serve as the Middlemen among the various groups. So, whenever whites, blacks, yellows, Muslims, browns, etc wanna do something, they must go through the Jewish broker, and the deal usually comes down to ‘support Israel’. It’s like ‘be sure to drink your ovaltine’ in A CHRISTMAS STORY. Because Jews act as mandatory middlemen in the Democratic Party and GOP, all negotiations among various groups finally come down to little more than ‘support Israel’ or ‘be sure to love the Big Jew.’

    Get rid of the middlemen. Let all groups negotiate directly with one another. It won’t be easy and differences will remain, but at least we can have a more honest discussion without Jews acting as devious middlemen who turn every issue into ‘support Israel and kiss my Jewish ass.’

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Sam Shama
  6. Tom_R says:


    Thanks for the great article. I agree with you that the Republicans will not win by becoming supporting the alien invasion, by becoming pseudo-Democrats. 90% of these 3rd world aliens will always vote for the Democratic party. Immigration will make the Republican party’s “Demographic problem” worse, not better. A few more points:

    1. The USA is the 3rd most populous nation on earth. The first 2 have 0 immigration, only net E-migration (Out). The world population is 6 billion; we cannot fit the whole world here.

    2. Alienism is a sure sign of a liberal nut, especially a Jewish liberal. When Judaists like Goldberg or Kristol support immigration, while posing as conservatives, people can see through his scam. A true conservative will be more civilized and will not sell his mother or his motherland like some Judaists and would want to ban immigration.

    3. A small magazine like National Review is not any reason for any Republicans to base any decisions on, especially immigration where the nation and the white majority faces an existential threat.

    4. Though the USA is purportedly as a democracy and banning immigration is the right, moral and ethical thing to do and is in the national interest and is supported by the majority, the fact that it has not happened so far proves that a criminal gang controls and subverses our politicians and prevents them from doing what is right and in the national interest. This subversive criminal gang is the Jewish lobby which provides 50% of the campaign contributions of the Democrats (and 40% of the Republicans). The fact that this lobby can muzzle and oppress the majority and subvert its interest is criminal and shocking. The lobby openly fights against immigration control. See:

    This is a crime against humanity.

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  7. @Leftist conservative

    You hit the nail on the head. John C. Calhoun saw all of this coming and even attempted to make common cause with the horribly downtrodden Northern workers well before Marx was understood. This caused intense hatred for Calhoun among the banking/industrial class of the time, for which he is still reviled to this day. So, yes…the chickens have come home to roost.

  8. “on the other hand, paradoxically, Trump’s populist strategy actually seems more likely to win a sizable minority of black and Hispanic voters”

    Yup – Trump is actually in a very strong position, whereas the positions of the elite Republicans are very unpopular.

  9. Jason says:
    @Leftist conservative

    But capital isn’t what drives genocidal anti-White policies. Big business wants cheap labor for sure, but they think too short term to plan out generations of anti-White policies.

    White countries with tons of rich businessmen remained White for centuries. It wasn’t until the modern Left and Anti-Whites got the upper hand that EVERY White country came under assault.

    • Agree: GW
  10. @Jason

    That’s where the modern leftist and his Jewish paymaster come into play, Jason.

  11. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website

    But capital isn’t what drives genocidal anti-White policies. Big business wants cheap labor for sure, but they think too short term to plan out generations of anti-White policies.

    White countries with tons of rich businessmen remained White for centuries. It wasn’t until the modern Left and Anti-Whites got the upper hand that EVERY White country came under assault.

    A book for you to read: Foundations And Public Policy: The Mask Of Pluralism.

    Foundations means nonprofit foundations, as in like Ford, Rockefeller, etc. These rich plutocrats, along with big corporations, donated money to large nonprofit foundations. These foundations then funded activists, writers, academics, etc.

    What sort of funded activists, writers, academics got money from the upper crust?

    What kind do you think? The kind that write Good Things about females, immigrants and nonwhites and Bad Things about those nasty, brutish, ignorant rednecks and their horrible, ugly white bread culture. Ewww. White people!

    This all started many decades ago. Over the decades, this propaganda developed momentum, inertia, and transformed the culture. Long term? You betcha.

    Capital creates propaganda. Propaganda seeps into the educational curriculum. Stick with me on this: The educational system (carrying the seeds of plutocratic/corporate propaganda) thus shapes young and malleable white minds. Over decades. Long term? You betcha.

    Those minds thus shaped by propaganda go on into adulthood carrying the seeds implanted via propaganda. Supreme Court Justices. Politicians. Actors. Comedians. Teachers. Professors. Educated white folks who then influence and make the laws, policies and cultures of the USA.

    Why does Capital like nonwhites and immigrants? Fecund. Fertile. Innumerable. Driven. Greedy. Ambitious.

    Human Livestock. That is what Capital desires. Can educated whites be a good supply of human livestock, a supply of workers and consumers? A source of growth?


    Understand this–the modern Left (aka the Pseudo-Left) was created by Capital, made over and reshaped to suit the needs and desires of Capital. Just as Conservatism Inc is a creation of Capital, so too is the Pseudo-Left a creation of Capital. Both of these propaganda regimes are molded and evolved to serve the interests of Capital. Know your enemy, first.

    • Replies: @Marian
    , @woodNfish
    , @geokat62
  12. Marian says:
    @Leftist conservative

    I agree with everything but why Capitol likes immigrants. They like them for being not ambitious. They love them for being compliant, faceless, and never questioning. Last thing money wants is any challenges to their power.

    • Replies: @Realist
  13. Rurik says:
    @Priss Factor

    Well done Sir, as usual

    great stuff!

    but don’t forget the Eye of Modor of Jewish power


    and their money machine, the Federal Reserve Bank. Without their counterfeit machine, their power would diminish just like the way the orcs dropped over in the movie when the Eye of Mordor came crashing down

    the Fed is the Ring, and as long as they have it, their money will be able to buy and bribe and purchase anything they want. Including handfuls of cucks from Bill Cuckley to Boner to Ron Paul’s idiot son to catamites like Jeb.

    It’s irresistible as long as it’s in their possession.

    that’s why they own all the media, academia and nearly every single politician. That’s why they own the EU and most European politicians. It’s why they own Hollywood and everything they want to own. Because they can hit a key on their computer and “create” trillions of Federal Reserve notes to hand out in secret to whom ever they want, and can thereby buy whatever can be bought. The few things or people, like Ron Paul, that they can not buy, they use their media and corrupt whores in the GOP and shills like Peggy Noonan to marginalize.

    So in order to keep one’s eye on the ball, (great analogy), it’s important to remember that it is the Fed that their seemingly ubiquitous power flows from.

    This is a great article and I would just add that the Jews are simply following what they perceive to be in their best interest = the systematic genocidal replacement of white people with a blended population of slaves. They’ve been at that agenda for thousands of years. But what’s so nice about this article is who it points out the cucks. Those non-Jewish men who are so willing- kapo like- to betray their own, for a few shekels contemptuously tossed in their direction. Like Bill Buckley (rot in hell) How can you tell which ones are cucks? They love immigrants and Israel.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  14. @Leftist conservative

    Are you saying there is no way to defeat “Capital” or that the past differences mean nothing? I think you are largely right about what or what the main enemy is, but I don’t think that profit is the only motive. If you mean that Alt-Right was infected with Libertarian and free-market ideology early on, I agree.

  15. woodNfish says:
    @Leftist conservative

    “…when the goal of a regime is corporate PROFIT, that regime is NOT marxist or socialist.”

    Really? How do you explain the capitalism of communist china? I’ll tell you what it is here in amerika – fascism. Just another form of socialism with profit.

    • Replies: @Quartermaster
  16. But while the GOP has failed to deliver on the issues that animates its base, it has certainly delivered for its donors.

    You could say the same about the Democrats. “Real” Democrats didn’t want Obama Care. They wanted and still want Single Payer. The real beneficiaries of Obama Care are the health insurers and big pharma.

    There is a legitimate ideological left and right among the people. But elected Democrats and Republicans in Washington are neither. They are lairs, thieves and traitors. Please! Whatever else you do – stop supporting the legacy parties.

  17. woodNfish says:

    The US is a republic. It once had democratic principles, but that is no longer true. It is now a fascist oligarchy run police state.

  18. [usual disclaimer- I’m a Canadian. My conservatism is pretty far right for that context but it isn’t exactly either American or European in nature. More eclectic. But I’ve been following American conservatism for 30 years and have read a bit of its history in all that time, and I vest some hope in a conservative version of my American neighbour as a shield of western civilization, even now. Just as strongly, I dread other currents of America that have always been there- the progressivist statism of the past 100 years, the populism, the universalism, the world-perfecting idealism of the American ideal. I’d tolerate the latter if the goal was to make a global America. Barely. But the goal now seems to make America global. Canadian conservatives of every kind always have had that kind of relationship to America… Anyway, random unformed thoughts…]

    Buckleyite conservatism was of its time. It had a purpose, resonance, and maybe a chance in the America it was born into , and which still existed as a sort of shadow America in Reagan’s era.

    But it was coming undone from the end of the cold war. Anticommunism was no longer necessary, and there was little left to unite social conservatives and libertarians, or business interests and traditionalists, and the neocons had lost their global ideological rival and could not or would not stand down. And their global ambitions no longer had anything to do with staring down a real challenger, or a cause I would consider a good one, and little if anything to do with national interest.

    So the coalition started fraying and everyone started going their own way. And there was possible never a potential majority for any one or two of them in wider America.

    So there it goes. The Democrats have been fraying in similar ways for even longer, and they have now begun to coalesce around their new, more radical worldview, and already to shape America along those lines.

    Or look at it another way. The ‘Progressive’ New Deal consensus America of 1933-roughly 1965, based on big government, big business, big labor in a cosy corporatist structure, largely administered by progressive white [WASP-German for the most part] elites and with some elements of social conservatism [though only fitfully religious] collapsed. The new right and the new left competed to replace it for a generation or so. The new left won. it has remade America. The coalition Buckley built could not now form, and would not be a competitor if it did. Its institutional remnant clings to its status, but its ideology has changed a lot since even the 1980s.

    Or to sum it up- the Buckleyites fought against the new left and against the old liberal Republicans. They were utterly defeated by the former and have assumed the water-carrier role of the latter. Because the nature of the issues at stake has changed, they can still validly claim to be more conservative than the old liberal republicans on many social and economic issues, but no one cares. On the issues of the hour, they have taken on Rockefeller’s role.

    The old right of the post world war 1 era, to the extent it even was a political coalition, collapsed. It was a no hoper for a generation as the New Deal commanded consensus. The new right of the 1960s has failed in its attempt to defeat the new left for a chance to shape a new consensus. We are now in an era when the progressives of this time again dominate the discourse. More than the New Dealers ever did.

    I can see things I’d like to see salvaged from the new right, as from the old. There were strands of traditionalism there, of religion and nationhood. I could do without too much from the religious evangelical right, but that might just be taste. Some would be good. There was good writing and thinking on the economy, but I could do without dogmatic libertarianism and open borderism that seemed to take over in just the last 20 odd years. There was good writing on constitutionalism and republicanism, good connections made to the deeper past on those issues. For that matter, when I started reading NR, Human Events, and getting books from the Conservative Book Club, they were still talking about Burke, the western tradition, the Anglo Saxon virtues, and publishing Russell Kirk.

    It seems a lot has changed since 1991 and I dread the absence of either a way back, or a way to pick up things of value and bring them forward.

    • Replies: @Bill
  19. joe webb says:

    National Conservatism…! Hoo boy, just inches away from National Capitalism, or if you prefer National Socialism, the bad boy of the Right, and I do not make a case for it, but if divorced from its namesake, it suggests that, like the historic compromise of the late 19th century between Capital and Labor in Germany and Europe generally called Social Democracy, then there is an intellectual opening to a new old deal.

    Capital and Wages have a natural virtuous circle relationship, enough Capital for investment and reasonable profit, and enough wages for a consumer driven economy to thrive.

    On top of that, and more importantly of course, is Society, which has a natural internal relationship of man as a social animal who prefers his own kind. A corollary of preference for one’s own kind, is the removal of aliens who will never assimilate into White society, or as Wilmot Robertson put it in The Dispossessed Majority a few decades back, White Society.

    None dare call it Reasonable, well some do, but it is eminently reasonable to separate the races and within-race ethnys if that is their wish.

    You want world peace, or relative peace as opposed to warlike liberal cant like the Brotherhood of Man? Then separate and everybody go in relative peace. Back to Africa, etc. for our various racial cousins….Mexico, Middle East and so on.

    Peace in Our Time.

    Let everybody be who they are, without some with their hands out, and others with their complaining, and of course Others with guns and genitals assaulting our Whiteness and our women.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  20. woodNfish says:
    @Leftist conservative

    Human Livestock. That is what Capital desires. Can educated whites be a good supply of human livestock, a supply of workers and consumers? A source of growth?


    Yeah, not buying that. You need to explain why you say, “No.”, because you blew your whole premise right there.

    • Replies: @sure thing
  21. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    The ‘new normal’ promoted by Jews.

    NON è uno scherzo!Come dissero a Don Abbondio "questo matrimonio non s'ha da fare"!!E noi aggiungiamo nè ora nè mai!

    Posted by Forza Nuova on Tuesday, September 15, 2015

  22. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    One thing for sure, we must resist the power of Narrative Supremacism.

    Reality is so complex. Every people, group, interest, society, nation, and identity has its own narrative. Their own perspective, subjectivity, experience.

    The problem in the West is the rise of Narrative Supremacism controlled by the Jomo Power Complex that forces a Jomocentric Narrativity on everything.

    Look at the Iran issue. We are flooded with Zio-globalist Narrative Supremacism that only ‘privileges’ Jewish interests, fears, worries, and etc. Never mind that Iran, a law-abiding nation when it comes to nuclear power, has suffered so much due to sanctions that, by the way, weren’t applied to Israel that has 300 illegal nukes.

    And look the Ukraine Crisis. Total Narrative Supremacism on the part of the Jomo Power Complex. Jews hate Russia cuz Putin foiled total Jewish takeover of that country, and Homos hate Russia cuz it won’t worship homos and allow them to have victory homo parades in Red Square that has commemorated the sacrifice of 25 million Russians in defeat of Nazi Germany in WWII. Homos think their fecal-penetrative celebration should trump the glory of Russian history, heritage, and sacred memory. They want Russia to become like United States of Amnesia where the only culture is homo worship promoted by TV, Hollywood, and Wall Street.

  23. Bill says:

    What a great article.

  24. rod1963 says:

    Buckely did in the NR by purging the nativists and others. He made the NR into a small tent fit for only country club businessmen and approved intellectuals and the like. All others need not apply. Especially populists.

    The whole notion of appealing to the proles or listening to what concerned them was probably revolting to him.

    He created the garden where Neo-Cons could grow and multiply thanks to his support of foreign entanglements and wars.

    What we see today is a result of his efforts. A bizarre magazine run by establishment shills, Neo-Cons and Davos men who are for all intents care nothing for the U.S.

    • Replies: @Mark Green
  25. Bill says:

    Oh, come on. Capital was enthusiastic about the Great Wave of immigration from Europe to the US. When WWI ended that, Capital promptly substituted the Great Migration of blacks to the formerly lily white North. Capital imported coolies to work on its railroads. Capital imports coolies, wogs, and wetbacks now.

    Capital is happy to depress wages by importing poor whites. Capital is happy to depress wages by importing poor blacks. Capital is happy to depress wages by importing poor Chinese. Capital is happy to depress wages by importing poor Mestizos. Capital is happy to depress wages by importing poor Indians. If ever cultural marxism ceases to be useful to Capital, cultural marxism will go by the wayside. It’s just a PR strategy.

    The libertardians are right about Capital: it is completely and entirely amoral, mechanistic, and inhuman. It’s just that they think these are good things. Just ask Bryan Caplan.

    • Replies: @Jason
  26. Bill says:
    @random observer

    Buckleyite conservatism was of its time. It had a purpose, resonance, and maybe a chance in the America it was born into , and which still existed as a sort of shadow America in Reagan’s era.

    But it was coming undone from the end of the cold war. Anticommunism was no longer necessary,

    You don’t seem to be too clear on the history. The Buckleyite purges started well before the end of the Cold War. Even the neutered John Birch Society was too radical for Bill Buckley. Things have gotten even worse since the end of the Cold War, but it’s just an intensification of an already-present tendency.

    The ‘Progressive’ New Deal consensus America of 1933-roughly 1965, based on big government, big business, big labor in a cosy corporatist structure, largely administered by progressive white [WASP-German for the most part] elites and with some elements of social conservatism [though only fitfully religious] collapsed.

    Yeah, it just kinda happened, you know? Sorta spontaneous-like. Causelessly. It just suddenly seemed, to everyone all at once via the Jungian collective subconscious, that the idyllic post-War America needed to be ruthlessly burned to the ground and its children turned out. And then fires, they just popped up everywhere. And key parties, let’s not forget the key parties. Just happened one day. For no reason.

    What would Strunk and White say? Who cares, thought, right? Not only were they WASPs, they weren’t even linguists.

    • Replies: @random observer
  27. Mark Green says: • Website

    I watched Buckley’s TV show ‘Firing Line’ for decades. He actually did some good work in the early part of his career. He was far better than mainstream news or PBS. Buckley did publish some outstanding articles by Joe Sobran and others. But once the cold war ended, the neocons totally took over Conservatism, inc. It happened under Reagan’s watch.

    Buckley yielded to the neocons because he was dependent on Jewish money (e.g. Walter Annenberg and others) to keep his TV show and magazine (National Review) afloat. Every white identarian faces this problem once they go national and try to (1) raise money and (2) receive ‘good press’. The hidden hand of world Jewry is everywhere.

    Cohesive and focused Jewish financial and editorial power makes it nearly impossible to be anti-Zionist (‘anti-Semitic’) without being blacklisted, defamed, rendered invisible, and having all political money dry up. Billionaire Trump realizes this. His recent ‘pledge of loyalty’ to the GOP means that he will never deviate from the mainstream US position concerning Washington’s ‘special relationship’ with the Zionist cuckoo. Even a whiff of disloyalty towards Israel would spell political suicide.

    Indeed, if Trump expressed sympathy for the Palestinians or raised the issue of Israeli nukes, he’d get murdered by the press and disowned by the GOP. He fully understands this. Thus, Trump’s ‘moderate’ Iran-hating and Israel-loving positions. This is the state of US politics. We are living under soft occupation.

    • Agree: random observer
    • Replies: @silviosilver
  28. MarkinLA says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    nonwhites simply do not pay taxes, so there really is no interracial transfer.

    Yes from tax paying whites to the non-white never-in-their-lives-taxpaying elderly.

  29. WhatEvvs [AKA "Danuta Tramp"] says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    But if you offer to raise Medicare payments by 50%, the other side will offer to raise them by 75% and call your raise a cut. And those hoary old white folks will still vote to dig their grandchildren’s graves.

    No they WON’T. Geez, guys like you are retch inducing. Really. Guys like you are as bad as the cucks. Get a life, Caesar, talk to some older people. They care about their kids and their grandkids. Do you have any?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  30. Sam Shama says:
    @Priss Factor

    US. Jewish ideal is for white women to have babies with black men while castrated white boys smile like Jeb Bush and applaud such ‘progressive’ act of love.


    Ok Priss, just tell then why are 50% of Jewish boys marrying shiksas? I mean seriously, how many blacks are coming into contact with white women? (I don’t know, just asking the obvious)

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  31. Sam Shama says:

    You are wrong yet again about the Fed of course.

    Although you’ve surely outdone yourself this time, as the picture of

    best interest = the systematic genocidal replacement of white people with a blended population of slaves.

    prompted me to hearken back to the song sung to Moses by his Egyptian nanny, with the ‘blended’ (read ridiculously made-up extras of the 1950s set) slaves keeping watch!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  32. Dutch Boy says:

    Burnham was not a Neo-Con. They came later.

    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  33. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:
    @Sam Shama

    “Ok Priss, just tell then why are 50% of Jewish boys marrying shiksas?”

    Some Jewish guys don’t care about Jewishness and just wanna do whatever.

    But many Jewish guys who marry non-Jews insist on raising their kids as Jewish.
    Also, there is no pure European Jew as Ashkenazi Jews were, from the very beginning, half European as a bunch of Jewish guys had kids with European women.
    So, you see, that is the basis of Jewishness in the West. Jews can mate with non-Jews, but if the kids are raised as Jewish, the kid is Jewish.

    Now, why are Jewish men not marrying Jewish women as they used to? Cuz too many Jewish women act like Sarah Silverman and Sarah Jessica Parker. They are in-your-face and nasty and vile. In contrast, northern European women tend to be ‘nicer’, like Diane Keaton in ANNIE HALL. (Mia Farrow turned out to be a huge problem for Allen but because she was ‘too nice’, so ‘nice’ in fact that she couldn’t stop adopting all these loser kids, and Allen had enough of it… though one of the kids was fun to play with.)
    When Jews are not going for northern european women(who are less abrasive than Jewish women), they go for East Asian women. East Asians are generally less pushy and abrasive than Jewish women. Indeed, they are milder than even Northern European women. And Allen fell for Soon Yi the baseballmittface(as Howard Stern called her) cuz she’s just so worshipful of Allen. Once Jewish women were ‘liberated’, they began to compete with Jewish men over who was smarter. But even ‘liberated’ Asian women look up to Jewish men and cook supper, so Jewish guys don’t starve. And Jewish men hook them girls with their meaters.

    Anyway, it’s wrong to see Jewish race-mixing with other races as necessarily loss of Jewishness. Jewishness is racial but also interracial and has been for a long time. Jews can tolerate as a Jew someone is who is part Jewish. It’s like Negroes can accept even someone who is 10% black as black. Jewishness is biologically based but also sort of ‘fluid’, which is why there are blonde-and-blue eyed Jews and Jews who look like Gabe Caplan. There are Kirk Douglas Jews and Abe Foxman Jews. While Jews don’t have a one-drop rule, they do have something like a cup Jew. If you got a cup of Jewish blood, you might be accepted as Jewish.

    Also, as Jews go to good schools and mate with higher-IQ gentile girls, they are actually taking elite IQ genes from other races. That advantages the Jew, especially since the kid is likely to take on Jewish identity. So, Jews win out.

    Suppose there are 1000 gentiles at a school. Suppose out of the 100o gentiles, 10 are really smart. If those gentiles marry fellow gentiles and lead their gentile masses, then it’s a boost to gentile power since smart gentiles will lead gentile masses.
    But suppose out of the 10 very smart gentiles, 5 marry Jews and the kids are raised as Jews.
    Then, Jews got extra high IQ genes from gentiles while gentiles have lost elite IQ genes to Jews.

    Given the worship of Jews and Holocaust, everyone wants to be associated with Jewishness(except in Muslim countries, but then, even Saudis prefer to deal with Jews than Shia Muslims).
    Also, being Jewish or part-Jewish means powerful Jews will favor you for promotion. Ivy League schools seem to game the system that favors Jews.

  34. @joe webb

    You want world peace, or relative peace as opposed to warlike liberal cant like the Brotherhood of Man?

    How’d that work in Europe?

    And if you want to know just how deeply fucked up the US is, there’s this:

    This is Wiemar on steroids

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    , @joe webb
  35. geokat62 says:
    @Leftist conservative

    This all started many decades ago. Over the decades, this propaganda developed momentum, inertia, and transformed the culture…

    Know your enemy, first.

    Here’s a comment I posted previously that warrants reposting:

    The question that has to be asked is: who… is responsible for promoting Political Correctness (PC)?

    The brain-trust behind the promotion of PC is the Frankfurt School. The FS identified nationalism as the root cause of the holocaust. To ensure that another holocaust never occurred again, the FS prescribed cultural Marxism (better known as Political Correctness) as the antidote to nationalism.

    Theodor W. Adorno, a leading member of the Frankfurt School of critical theory, wrote The Authoritarian Personality in 1950. In it, Adorno invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranking them on what he called the ‘Fascist scale’.

    Here’s how one observer characterized the book’s goal:

    [it] was to eliminate antisemitism by “subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy — by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum.” (emphasis added)

    And hell bent on eradicating PC is a zionist entity with the front name of The Clarion Fund. It is keen on destroying PC, especially in Europe, as the birthrate of Muslims is outstripping that of Christians. The concern is that the jungle will be expanding rather than contracting, thereby making it less safe for the villa.

    The Clarion Fund has produced a trilogy of films – Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, The Third Jihad, and Iranium – in an effort to get the goy to get there act together and re-embrace nationalism.

    With all this toing and froing between nationlism and political correctness, one gets the sense that the goy are perceived to be puppets whose strings are constantly being pulled by the puppet masters.

  36. Every thing you need to know about Buckley is contained in this quote

    “”We have got to accept Big Government for the duration—for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores. And if they deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant centralization of power in Washington…” – William F. Buckley”

    The man was, and remained until his death a CIA backed tool of the MIC whose main function was to destroy the Taft Republican non-interventionist traditions of the Republican party.

    He succeeded in Spades. Pretty much all of the $18 trillion in government debt is a direct function of the policies enabled by this pos.

  37. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sam Shama

    Naw Sam, I’m right about the Fed.

    “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

    and that was at the beginning of the 20th century. Look how far they’ve come at destroying this country and any hope for its future or its people. We are on the brink, and Wall Street is like a bloated tick about to pop- it’s so glutted with the wealth of looted Main Street. And there’s no end in sight to the .01%s vampiric gorging on America. I wish I were wrong about the Fed, but I’m not alas.

    As for the blending, just check out Jewish Hollywood some time or our immigration policies. There again, I wish I were wrong..

  38. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Kirkpatrick and the rest of….always trying to bring back the corpse of Ronnie Reagan. This of course makes the problem.

    Let the Republican Party croak…including the Ronnie Reagan version.

    The only viable game in town for The Historic Native Born White American Working Class Majority is highly racialized…highly zenophobic racial…economically progressive Racial Patriotism-Racial Nationalism. The Republican Party..whatever version…is a rotting stinking corpse that must be buried in lead and buried in a Utah salt mine.

    The immigration moratorium is another form of very rapid race-replacement immigration policy…its playing footsie with an enemy that has genocidal intent towards The Native Born White American Working Class.

  39. @Dutch Boy

    Honestly what is he talking about. Sam Francis admired James Burnahm. And more to the point James Burnham didn’t replace anyone he was at NR from the start.

  40. Art says:

    Next to Buckley – Scoop Jackson (Senator from Washington state ) is the one most responsible for the Talmudic Jew takeover of America.

    He started taking Jew reelection money for supporting Israel in the 60’s. He started the takeover of the US congress by Jews.

    For personal gain he sold out his Christian nation and turned it over to the Christ hating Talmudic Jews.

  41. Meanwhile, back in the YUK the corporate media whores welcome Corbyn’s victory as new leader of the Labour Party in typical unbiased style.

  42. @Bill Jones

    “And if you want to know just how deeply fucked up the US is, there’s this:

    This is Wiemar on steroids”

    Yeah, except that wasn’t a bona fide public opinion survey, but just one of those online voting polls, which tell us almost nothing about what the public actually thinks. Kinda like when they’d ask “Who are you going to vote for in the 2012 Republican Presidential primary?,” and Ron Paul would get 93 percent, and Mitt Romney would 1.6 percent. Yet in the actual elections, a lot more people voted for Mitt Romney (unfortunately).

  43. joe webb says:
    @Bill Jones

    Bill, your referenced article: ” Online survey shows 29% would support possible takeover while 41% said they could not imagine supporting such an event.”

    I don’t want to nitpick but an online poll is about as reliable as Chinese pollsters on economics.

    Otoh, still not sure what point you are making. Asking the military to takeover from Jew-tool fools that run us is an interesting idea.


  44. tbraton says:

    “The wrong question is being asked; the question is why the neocons are in total control of the republican party, a party that now shares the center with the democrats.”

    I agree, and that is a question I asked a number of times between 2010 and 2014 on TAC. In late 2010, I posted the following message:

    “tbraton says:
    November 11, 2010 at 2:54 pm
    Let me add my compliments for a well-written article.

    The thing that has always puzzled me about the neocons is what they brought to the Reagan coalition. The neocons, who were largely Jewish, had already abandoned their spiritual home, the Democratic Party and had nowhere else to go. Since they represented a minority of the population (2%) that continued to vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates, they brought little to no electoral votes, in contrast to the Christian Conservatives, who brought quite a few states in the South and border regions. The neocons did not agree with the Reagan domestic policy, and many neocon leaders eventually criticized Reagan for his tepid foreign policy. The neocons have done great damage to the country and to the Republican Party. So count me as puzzled about what they have added.”

    In 2011, I reposted the following paragraph from an October 28, 2010 blog on TAC by David Gordon:

    ” The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle, they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly, many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless, some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. “In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president’s desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters as a ‘man of peace,’ ready to negotiate with the Soviets.”

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  45. “Pure Capitalism” and ” (pure) Communism” are exactly the same, as predicted by the Smith Chart. Of course, both are entirely theoretical, neither having ever been achieved.

    Communism can be defined exactly as the Marxist-Leninists did; the state, post-Socialism, where the organs of the state wither away because New Soviet (or whoever) Man no longer needs them.

    To the true and correct Communist, there never was a Communist country. All “communist” countries were, in the terminology of Communists, “Socialist”, rather than communist. Socialism being this theoretical intermediate state between “bourgeois capitalism” and the future promised “Communism”.

    Under Socialism, as practiced in the Soviet Union and other Marxist states, everyone theoretically owned everything, but in practice no one owned anything. All property and transactions were controlled by the State. The nomenklatura lived like wealthy people in the capitalist world, and most everyone else lived in poverty. They could ride the subway for a kopek, and see world class ballet and classical music cheaply, but they dressed shabbily, smelled bad, and although they ate enough, the food was crappy and unappetizing.

    Pure capitalism, like true Communism, was a figment of the imagination of a theoretical intellectual, in this case, a Russian Jewess named Alyssa Rosenbaum. In her postulated “Galt’s Gulch”, individuals would interact on a constantly competitive and pure state of enterprise, with no state apparatus to guide, uplift, suppress, or otherwise bother them. That was about as likely in reality as the Socialist State was to wither away on its own. What really happened in “capitalist” countries was that we had not capitalism, but State Corporatism.

    State corporatism was better for the average American than Socialism was for the average Russian (or Ukrainian or whatever), but it was probably not mostly because the people at the top of American society were all that much more benevolent than their Soviet counterparts. We should be asking a lot of questions why this was so.

  46. MarkinLA says:

    I read that it was the Reagan people who came to the neocons via Buckley not the other way around. The issue was that Reagan lacked foreign policy “gravitas” being only a governor and not really part of the Washington beltway crowd.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  47. @WhatEvvs

    Get a life, Caesar, talk to some older people. They care about their kids and their grandkids. Do you have any?

    Yeah, I do. They’re interrupting me now, and slowing down the replies. My kids are the age of my contemporaries’ grandkids, so I get both perspectives at once.

    I didn’t say all old people are like that. Hell, I’m the tireless nag on this forum damning everyone else for dumping people into pseudoscientific groupings called “generations” on the thin grounds that they were born about the same time.

    I was talking about benefit-first voters who, as Mr Kirkpatrick reminds us, make those benefits “overwhelmingly popular”. Popular enough for swing voters to trade away their grandchildren’s country to keep the checks coming in.

    I’m old enough to remember stumping for Goldwater on my neighbor’s lawn, even though my 21st birthday was well over a decade in the future.

    Forty million white people voted for their benefits above all else that November– and millions more would have done the same, had not the benefits party promised them “negro pandemonium” along with the rest. That’s one stark lesson for a kid in kneepants. I never forgot it.

    Now most of those voters are dead, and their great-grandchildren are already a minority of their own cohort. Thanks to their ancestors who “voted their pocketbooks”.

  48. @woodNfish

    The key word is ‘educated’.

    As in the ability to reason through the development of the critical faculties, primarily through literacy, Capital’s worst enemy. ( Which is why it flooded the universities with po-mo, which has led to homo ‘marriage’, or eugenics-by-stealth. Always an obsession of the plutocracy – check out the Rockefeller-Mengele funding connection.)

    First you make folk stupid. That way they internalize their own degradation and become pliant cattle. The well-educated resist the indoctrination, they can join the dots and have the means – and desire – for argument.

    Radcentrist is walking just fine.

    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
  49. @Mark Green

    Cohesive and focused Jewish financial and editorial power makes it nearly impossible to be anti-Zionist (‘anti-Semitic’) without being blacklisted, defamed, rendered invisible, and having all political money dry up. Billionaire Trump realizes this. His recent ‘pledge of loyalty’ to the GOP means that he will never deviate from the mainstream US position concerning Washington’s ‘special relationship’ with the Zionist cuckoo. Even a whiff of disloyalty towards Israel would spell political suicide.

    You’re completely ignoring the cultural context that makes all this possible. Look who just became leader of the British Labour Party. They tried all the smears about ‘anti-semitism’ on him; public didn’t care.

  50. @sure thing

    “The well-educated resist the indoctrination, they can join the dots and have the means – and desire – for argument.”

    I agree that there is every attempt to dumb down the masses, but it seems that the well-educated are often the ones who are the most indoctrinated, or at least they spew the most garbage. Why not? They’re the ones who are tapped to run things. The unwashed aren’t the ones making and enforcing the rules. They’re usually even ignored by the politicians who are supposed to represent them.

  51. @Bill

    I know he was purging the Birchers way back in the day. My point was that his kind of conservatism (i.e. the kind he created, so the one he shaped having purged whoever he wanted) was a product of that time and has nothing to say to this era. I happened to augment that by arguing that its irrelevance began with the end of the unifying function of anticommunism, causing its components to spiral off in their own directions, one of which was the sort of unfocused neocon/internationalism/liberalism “conservatism” we see in charge today.

    That strain could only have taken its present form after the end of the Cold War, because only then did the main goal of challenging the USSR end, leaving them room to contemplate their own world revolution [unchecked, so they thought], and because only then did liberalism/progressivism start to really come out in its neo-McGovernite form. Most of the social liberalism of today, for example, was unthinkable to the majority in the 1980s but it started to be propagated openly in the Clinton era. Mass-market TV got even more progressive quite quickly. That created a climate in which the neocons could essentially embrace a progressive, universalist narrative at home, and focus on projecting it abroad.

    I frankly don’t see the relevance of Buckley purging the JBS back then to the irrelevance/disintegration of his type of conservatism today. If he had not purged JBS, his type of conservatism would not have had anything to say to the majority right from the start, never mind becoming irrelevant 30 years later. His conservatism would have been stillborn and there would have been no vaguely conservative voice at all in the 1960s-80s. Look at how much the left accomplished in those years with weak opposition. Now imagine no opposition existed at all. The Birchers’ version of conservatism wasn’t going to provide it. If they had been capable of winning anything like that level of support, they would have done it with or without him.

    Now, I agree with your contention that the tendency of modern Conservatism Inc to purge its internal enemies is an extension of what Buckley did. But that was not my point. My point was that the movement he created by doing that had its time and after that time had nothing left of value to say to a changed era.

    Besides, all political movements end up defining themselves by including some and excluding others. If the excluded are up to it and have an audience willing to hear them, they will succeed anyway and overtake those who purged them. Buckley and his conservatives hardly created this cycle ex nihilo.

    On the collapse of New Deal America, I don’t know what all that is supposed to mean. I said it collapsed. I didn’t say it “just happened” or speculate on all the reasons involved, interests at play, or individuals at work. So I’m not sure there is any disagreement here. I would, at this point, observe that it is nevertheless so that political and social change on that scale does, on some level, just happen. History can be nudged along by people willing to say and do things and see where the chips fall. But even that happens at the margins. Too many moving parts have to work at their own pace and one has to take advantage of what is already happening rather than seek to wholly change course. Big History is not planned.

    It’s pretty hard for the secret council of twenty to engineer a huge transcontinental baby boom with consequent large bulge of youth seeking to define themselves, also engineer unprecedented prosperity so that they feel free to pursue a more open approach to doing that, and parents who want to indulge them, AND have already engineered an apocalyptic war whose excesses start to alter the moral compass of the entire society and offer a convenient ideological bludgeon to radicals. I know I find those planning sessions exhausting and ultimately futile. The last meeting just dragged on forever.

  52. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website

    I agree that there is every attempt to dumb down the masses, but it seems that the well-educated are often the ones who are the most indoctrinated, or at least they spew the most garbage. Why not? They’re the ones who are tapped to run things. The unwashed aren’t the ones making and enforcing the rules. They’re usually even ignored by the politicians who are supposed to represent them.

    Exactly, and this is why the GOP never did anything about school vouchers when they got control of all three branches of the federal govt in the early 2000’s. The GOP ran primarily on school vouchers, but once in power, did absolutely nothing about it. Capital knows that education is propaganda. The pervasiveness of higher education in america as compared to europe is one big reason why the USA has so much more immigration. Yes, we are far more diverse than almost all of europe. And americans have much more formal education. Formal education has a large component of multiculturalist propaganda.

    The plutocrats and corporations started reshaping the culture at the educational curriculum level. And now that propaganda feed that took place over decades has had its effects. White race guilt is endemic in the white population.

    Once you get your propaganda seed into the young mind, you have most of them for life, or at least for several decades. A child raised up in a certain way will not depart therefrom.

  53. tbraton says:

    “I read that it was the Reagan people who came to the neocons via Buckley not the other way around. ”

    You may be right, but I recall reading somewhere that it was the neocons who approached Reagan. The only prominent neocon who identified with Reagan from the “start” was Jeane Kirkpatrick, and she got rewarded with an appointment as Ambassador to the U.N. I tried Googling, and I came up with nothing, one way or the other. And I honestly can’t remember where I read it. Of course, I should point out that it’s possible that you read an account offered up by one of the neocons, who obviously would want to make it clear that the neocons were being sought out by Reagan rather than that they were the ones begging for a place at the table.

    (I pulled out my copy of Theodore White’s book on the 1980 election, and he has virtually nothing to say about the matter, which, at that time, was pretty much under the radar, even for someone closely following politics. This is what I found on Wikipedia under Kirkpatrick:
    “This piece [in Commentary] came to the attention of Ronald Reagan through his National Security Adviser Richard V. Allen.[4] Kirkpatrick then became a foreign policy adviser throughout Reagan’s 1980 campaign and presidency and, after his election to the presidency, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, a position she held for four years. The Economist writes that, prior to this point, “she had never spent time with a Republican before.”[1] On the way to her first meeting with him, she told Allen, “Listen, Dick, I am an AFL-CIO Democrat and I am quite concerned that my meeting Ronald Reagan on any basis will be misunderstood.”[7] She asked Reagan if he minded having a lifelong Democrat on his team; he replied that he himself had been a Democrat until the age of 51, and in any event he liked her way of thinking about American foreign policy.[5]” So I gather from this that any reaching out by Reagan was done on an individual basis. And I don’t believe anyone has ever argued that Reagan was a master of detail, so I doubt that he ever gave serious thought to the implications. BTW in 1976, Kirkpatrick had served on the Democratic Party’s platform committee. And, I should point out, that Reagan made a very serious run for the Republican nomination that year criticizing the Panama Canal treaty and taking very aggressive foreign policy positions and nearly pulled it off.)

    But, either way, it was Reagan’s decision to give the neocons a seat at the table, and it was he who appointed several neocons to positions of power in his administration, which they used to vastly increase their power. Granted, Reagan virtually ignored all their advice, which made the neocons generally unhappy, but he allowed the camel to get its nose under the tent. I am thinking specifically of Richard Perle who got a position at Defense, although, as I read in a piece by Max Boot pooh-poohing the very idea of a neocon conspiracy, Richard Perle has remained a Democrat throughout the whole experience, apparently in loyalty to his old mentor, the former socialist, Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson from Washington State.

    As far as loyalty goes, I was amused to read the other day on Breitbart that William Kristol apparently made it clear on his new perch at This Week with George Stephanopolis that, if Trump is the nominee of the Republicans, he will seriously consider endorsing a third party candidate. Now that’s funny. After all the criticism Trump received for hinting that he might run as a third party candidate because of fears that that would succeed in throwing the election to Hillary Clinton, Bill Kristol is threatening to do the very same thing himself without much criticism as far as I can tell. That shows where his true loyalties lie. I guess he figures that Trump will not be as influenced by Kristol’s whispers in his ear as those empty vessels Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin. I believe Kristol’s former boss, Rupert Murdoch, also recently tossed out the idea of endorsing Michael Bloomberg if he were to run as a third party candidate.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  54. Bill says:

    When @sure thing said “well-educated” he did not mean “possessing lots of degrees.” He meant something like “learned in the liberal arts.” That is understanding critical reasoning, logic, math, and the fact that these things are the language in which the universe is written. Modern universities do not teach this.

  55. @Curle

    Piss on National Review. It’s a haven for armchair commandos and Israel-Firsters.

  56. tbraton says:

    Markin, I came across this passage in a site I came across, which sheds some light on Reagan and the neocons (notice the reference to “an extraordinarily small number of people”):

    “In checking out the Israeli flight, Veliotes also came to believe that the arrangement between Ronald Reagan’s camp and Israel regarding Iran and weapons dated back to before the 1980 election.

    “It seems to have started in earnest in the period probably prior to the election of 1980, as the Israelis had identified who would become the new players in the national security area in the Reagan administration,” Veliotes said. “And I understand some contacts were made at that time.”

    Q: “Between?”

    Veliotes: “Between Israelis and these new players.”

    In subsequent interviews, Veliotes said he was referring to “new players” who came into government with President Reagan, now known as the neoconservatives, including Robert McFarlane, counselor to Secretary of State Alexander Haig, and Paul Wolfowitz, the State Department’s director of policy planning. According to the newly released documents, McFarlane and Wolfowitz were collaborating with Israel through a clandestine channel.

    One memo from Wolfowitz to McFarlane – regarding the Israeli channel on Iran – noted that “for this dialogue to be fruitful it must remain restricted to an extraordinarily small number of people.”

    P.S.–Also note this: “according to a memo from L. Paul Bremer III, who was then the State Department’s executive secretary and considered one of the neocons.” That might explain his much later insane decision to disband the Iraqi army because it was considered dominated by Baathists. At least that is one possible explanation for his utter stupidity in Iraq. But, as Hanlon’s Razor informs us, “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” As I recall, however, he was much criticized at the time for taking this action without informing anybody back in D.C. That would argue against stupidity.

    • Replies: @KA
  57. Jason says:

    Yes, I agree “Capital” is happy with cheap labor. But they don’t fundamentally drive long term immigration policy.

    • Disagree: Leftist conservative
  58. @woodNfish

    Marxism is just a variation of fascism.

  59. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    This is a good analysis of Trump-era politics, but I was hoping Goldberg would be called the ignorant slut that he is.

  60. KA says:

    Jay Garner ‘s detailed plan of ensuring smooth transition and preservation of Iraqi Army was approved as was heeded his warning of possible chaos . But within weeks of invasion Paul Brenner a protege ‘ of Henry Kissinger replaced Jay and countermanded Garner’s plans including deBathification.

    Brenner’s primary contact was Douglas Feith in Pentagon
    http:// Patrick Foy. May 04 ,2007
    Sunday Telegraph ( UK) Oct 15,2006
    State of Denial by Bob Woodward .

    Another ignored fact is that old murderer ant Iraqi anti Irnian Kissinger was the frequent guest to Cheney office . ( page 406 in State of Denial)
    He was the person who said years ago that he wanted both to bled to death and he was sorry because both can’t lose
    So what Brenner did was what was desired by Yoded Yinon,by Feith and above all by Kissinger.

    Kissinger is one of the figures against Iran negotiation( he might have changed his mind after the fact ) . He was instigating and gitating for aggressive posture against Iran
    ( Shmuel Rosner in HAARETZ .03/11/2006

    • Replies: @tbraton
  61. tbraton says:

    As I recall, the original plan was to preserve the Iraqi army. The plans of the Pentagon for a light footprint and quick withdrawal was based on the premise that the Iraqi army would remain intact and provide stability. Bremer changed that w/o notifying the Pentagon, or so we are told. Based on what you have laid out, I guess we have to conclude that it was the military which was kept in the dark. Kissinger met with Cheney, so we have to assume that Rumsfeld was in on the deal; Bremer reported to Feith. So one has to conclude that Bremer was sent to Iraq by certain elements in order to disband the Iraqi army. The dunce in the Oval Office, in the meantime, didn’t have a clue and was being led around by the nose by his hand-picked VP. Bremer, btw, in case your weren’t aware of the fact, had headed Kissinger Associates.

  62. KA says:


    Isnt it really astonishing that the very people who messed things up are still advising governments,running think-tanks,or have become TV hosts .They are invited with respect and adulation to serve e as expert and wise .They run free .

    There is something about them that tells us that they like trained religious leaders follow certain cook book written or endorsed or collected from multiple similarly driven sources decades ago. There the connection between this- “The only prospect that hold hope for us is the carving of of Syria… It is out task to prepare for that prospect .All else is purposeless waste of time”-Zionist leader Jabotinsky and the rest Ben Guiron , Yoded Yinon ,PNAC,and post invasion plan.

    These rascals also operate on the principle that given the size and busy schedule of the empire ,the Zionist can simply create chaos to their advantage and expect the empire to clean after them .
    Even some psychopath like Cheney admitted and indicated that US had to step up and clean the mess after Israel had attacked Iran.

    Well it has happened a few time .Now the empire is tired and worn out .
    Its moral and strength are sagging like the skin is under the chin of Kissinger

    • Replies: @Joe Franklin
  63. @KA

    The “empire” you’ve mentioned includes Israel.

    The US is united with Israel in a common cause, to transform the world into a Nazi-white-supremacist free zone.

    If the Jewish people can fool the US into fighting Nazi in WW2, they can certainly expect the US to fight Nazi-white supremacist all over the world.

    Toward that end and as would be expected, Jewish people have concocted a profile of a Nazi-white supremacist….


    The Jewish scheme here is to demonize people that fit this Jewish concocted profile of a Nazi, and artificially elevate people that don’t fit the Nazi profile.

    Using biased immigration policies, the Jewish scheme can insure that people not fitting the Nazi profile are always a super-majority of voters.

    Keeping a super-majority of voters that are anti-Nazi should adequately explain the Jewish fascination with national democracies in the US and Israel and the world.

    Jewish shysters and government agencies have used various euphemisms to refer to this anti-Nazi scheme in public, including the words diversity, pluralism, and multiculturalism.

  64. AndrewR says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    “nonwhites simply do not pay taxes”

    Lines like this get people put on my ignore list. I like nuanced thinking and you clearly are not prone to it.

Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Kirkpatrick Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement