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
On Groundhog Day: Conservatism Inc. Thinks It Can Move On with Marco Rubio—But It Can’t
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

In the film Groundhog Day (which Charles Murray thinks will still be remembered centuries from now) a selfish man is doomed to relive the same day over and over again until he understands what it is to lead a good life and is permitted by whatever cosmic force exists to move on to February 3.

The Beltway Right seems to think it will forever be 1980, and the same old hoary slogans and invocations of vaguely-defined “principles” will carry the day. After Iowa, Marc Rubio is their current candidate to do this.

But unlike Bill Murray’s character, the GOP won’t get a chance to do the election over again. The Left’s triumph will be complete—and the historic American nation will be decisively dispossessed.

Thus for Conservatism Inc., the Iowa primary wasn’t about selecting a Republican nominee or even stopping Hillary Clinton. It was about stopping Donald Trump. And when Trump was marginally stumped by the massive Evangelical turnout for Ted Cruz, the Beltway Right reacted with unconcealed gloating—despite that inconvenient fact that Trump still came away with six delegates to Cruz’s seven. [Conservative Twitter is ridiculously happy that Donald Trump lost in Iowa, by German Lopez, Vox, February 1, 2016]

John Podhoretz [Email him]seemingly
eager to confirm the most paranoid fears about neoconservatives, declared:

The consensus: Ted Cruz had “saved” self-proclaimed “conservatism” from Trump’s nationalist heresy. As David French at National Review hyperventilated (after his usual “Democrats are the real racists” virtue signaling):

[H]ad Trump won, we would even now be shuddering not just for the future of the conservative movement but for the future of a nation bounded and governed by constitutional principles.

[Ted Cruz, Triumphant, National Review, February 1, 2016].

(Yes, we all remember how that “conservative movement” that so values “constitutional principles” treated Ron Paul.)

What seems more likely: if Trump had won, the Beltway Right would be “shuddering” for the future of their useless foundations, nonprofits, and Political Action Committees, and, above all, consultants.

To take one example, one of the figures leading the rejoicing was Liz Mair, a self-described “pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-amnesty R who believes in global warming.” Mair is a political consultant heading up an anti-Trump PAC which ran ads telling Iowa’s Evangelicals that Trump is insufficiently conservative. [Exclusive: Anti-Trump PAC Launches Ad Warning Voters About Donald Trump, by Charlie Spiering, Breitbart, January 20, 2016]

But, all too obviously, the point wasn’t to defend Christian values that Mair herself doesn’t believe in—it was to turn Evangelical voters into useful idiots in order to stop Trump.

This kind of worked. Tucker Carlson said a few days ago: “Evangelicals have given up trying to elect one of their own. What they’re looking for is a bodyguard, someone to shield them from mounting (and real) threats to their freedom of speech and worship.” [Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar, and Right, Politico,January 28, 2016]. But while Trump obtained a respectable share of Evangelicals, entrance polls showed Cruz won a larger-than-expected Evangelical turnout. And the most important factor for a plurality of voters: supporting someone who “shares my values”. [Iowa caucus entrance poll results, by Lazaro Gamio and Scott Clement, Washington Post, February 2, 2016]

Cruz has actually been pursing something similar to the Sailer Strategy, focusing on turning out white voters who normally stay home. But Cruz’s strategy has an Evangelical twist: hence his calling for the support of the “body of Christ.” As he put it on his campaign website:

We know that if even a fraction of the Evangelicals who routinely don’t vote were to turnout and vote, Washington could be changed almost overnight.

The may have worked in Iowa. But there aren’t that many Evangelicals in states like New Hampshire. More generally, as Christian religiosity declines in America, such an approach could prove disastrous in a general election.

Which brings us to Marco Rubio, the current Main Stream Media darling. “Marco-mentum” is the Narrative being pushed by everyone from National Review to Fox News, after weeks of predictions of a Rubio surge that never quite took hold.[Fetch Happens, by Noah Millman, The American Conservative, February 2, 2016] Marco Rubio’s third-place finish was treated as a victory, even by the candidate himself in his euphoric speech.

As Michael Brendan Dougherty observes, nominating Rubio means the conservative movement doesn’t have to change anything [Rubio-mania is upon us, The Week, February 2, 2016]. Rubio’s neoconservative foreign policy and support for Amnesty may not be popular with the public, Dougherty notes, “but these are very popular with the GOP’s elites, and not hard to swallow for most conservative elites.”

Paul Ryan, among other leading Republicans, is quietly moving to support Rubio [‘If you don’t want Cruz or Trump as the nominee, you better get onboard with Rubio, by Jonathan Chait, New York, February 2, 2016]. And the donors are fleeing ¡Jeb! for Rubio as well [The Jeb Bush to Marco Rubio donor shift is real and it’s accelerating, by Katherine Miller and Jeremey Singer-Vine, Buzzfeed, February 1, 2016]

Rubio has Establishment support in South Carolina, recently winning the endorsement of African-American Republican Senator Tim Scott. [Marco Rubio Snags South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott’s Endorsement After Iowa Caucus, by Alexandra Jaffe, NBC, February 2, 2016] But Rubio faces a difficult race in New Hampshire, with fellow Establishment candidates Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kaisich all sniping at him. So the strategy seems to be to get a respectable finish in New Hampshire, drive other Establishment candidates out of the race, and then win South Carolina.


The race the Beltway Right wants is Cruz v. Rubio [A Cruz v. Rubio Fight Would Electrify Conservatives, by Eliana Johnson, National Review, January 13, 2016]. This means driving Trump out. And the Koch Brothers are building a network of plutocrats with the singular goal of doing just that [Koch Brothers’ Network Considering Anti-Trump Campaign, by Leigh Ann Caldwell, NBC, February 1, 2016]. If they are successful, Cruz will find the “strange new respect” he’s getting suddenly dissipate as Conservatism Inc. shepherds Republican voters behind the more “electable” Rubio.

Conservatism Inc.’s furious hostility to Trump and its voters shows that it still assumes America is a “center-right” country. It believe an “optimistic” Rubio (or even a lucky Cruz) can beat Hillary. Sanders can be brushed aside as a Socialist.

But America is changing. An astonishing 84 percent of Democratic voters between 17 and 29 supported Sanders, as well as a majority of those between 30 and 44 [The key to Bernie Sanders’s Iowa success? Young voters, by Sarah Kliff, Vox,February 2, 2016] Sanders is polling competitively with Rubio, supposedly the most “electable” of the GOP candidates.

“Socialism” is no longer a scare word to these voters. If Sanders can ever win over non-white Democrats, he may be far more formidable than Hillary.

There’s a key difference in mindset between the American Left and Right. Even after eight years of Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of the United States, the Democratic base is still pushing aggressively for its egalitarian goals. In contrast, the Beltway Right is concern-trolling its own voters and using faux opposition to ethanol and Eminent Domain as a way to purge dissidents on immigration, trade and foreign policy.

Beltway conservatives seem to believe they can continue to win elections by simply repeating condemnations of socialism and “Big Government.” But the center-right America of 1980 is gone—largely because of the Beltway Right’s cowardice.

More young people favor socialism instead of capitalism. The ever-increasing number of non-whites can be counted on to vote monolithically in support of Big Government. And the disastrous consequences of George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq (cheerled by the entire Beltway Right) convinced an entire generation that Republicans are too reckless to be trusted with foreign policy.

Trump offers a solution to the dying GOP—by rebranding the Republicans as a nationalist party with something to say to working class voters, the squeezed Middle Class, and that majority of white people who don’t actively hate themselves. Unlike Cruz, Trump has also proved his ability to change the political conversation and take the strategic offensive to retake lost ground.

Without Trump, immigration would not be an issue at all in the GOP primary and Jeb Bush might well have cruised to victory. And Ted Cruz, who rode Trump’s coattails for most of the campaign, would not have even been a contender.

But rather than seizing the opportunity, the GOP seems to almost hope for defeat by attacking its frontrunner, purging his supporters, and then screwing over its base the minute it can get away with it.

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

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
Hide 58 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Leftist conservative [AKA "GOD ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ"] says:

    Brilliant column. Kirkpatrick is easily the best political writer on the alt-right/dissident right, and maybe the best political writer in america. Ann Coulter is right up there, too.

    some quotes:

    The Beltway Right seems to think it will forever be 1980, and the same old hoary slogans and invocations of vaguely-defined “principles” will carry the day.

    Yeah, great description of what has really happened. And the GOP propaganda, just like liberal propaganda, has poisoned countless american minds. Every time I read the phrase ‘conservative values,’ I get nauseous.

    “Socialism” is no longer a scare word to these voters. If Sanders can ever win over non-white Democrats, he may be far more formidable than Hillary.

    So true. Socialism became a scare word for millions of americans because of the decades-long propaganda campaign waged by the establishment starting many decades ago. That campaign however, stopped about 2 decades ago. Young people have little or no memory of it.

    In a way, sanders looks like a good candidate. But although many non-diversity-related liberal positions sound good, when they are implemented, they just wind up making life more complicated and expensive.

    Beltway conservatives seem to believe they can continue to win elections by simply repeating condemnations of socialism and “Big Government.” But the center-right America of 1980 is gone—largely because of the Beltway Right’s cowardice.

    Yeah, that old GOP propaganda is played out, so played.

    • Replies: @guest
  2. DCBillS says:

    Best Kirkpatrick in ages. !Socialismo O Muerte! Get used to it.

  3. I guess Republicans will have to be content with congress and the state houses. They are much to stupid to win the only office that matters. Evangelicals are not useful. They are just idiots. If Cruz or Rubio is the nominee I will break out in bumper stickers and yard signs for the Democrats. Just for spite.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
  4. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Native Born White Americans are being rapidly race-replaced because they waged war against Russian during the Cold War. The passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act and the subsequent election of Barack Obama was a direct consequence of the Cold War waged against Russia. We had to show that we were better class of people than the RUSSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I blame the former Reagan Yoots such as Peter Brimelow and Steve Sailer for 2016 race-replacement policy.

    Hopefully Russia will nuke Muslim Turkey Sunday Feb 7 so the reset button can be pressed a few minutes later….

    This is my last post on Unz Review. Hillary Clinton will be elected POTUS….hopefully ,this will start a race war!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    So long folks…and thanks for all the Fish!!!!!

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    , @guest
  5. Rehmat says:

    Who’re the brains behind so-called “Christian Conservatism”? Let’s listen from the “Horse’s Mouth” – Israel’s largest circulation English newspaper, Ha’artez.

    “The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.”

    So don’t get surprised if the next president will use all his ‘constitutional power’ and beyond to protect Israeli interests in the region, including covering Israel’s terrorist activities on American soil and in the Middle East, and proxy wars run by ISIS/ISIL and other jihadi groups on behalf of the Zionist regime.

  6. iffen says:

    Evangelicals are not useful. They are just idiots.

    I can’t see what you wish to accomplish by using language like this. They have every right to vote in accordance with what they perceive to be their interests.

  7. Mr. Anon says:

    “To take one example, one of the figures leading the rejoicing was Liz Mair, a self-described “pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-amnesty R who believes in global warming.””

    Google up a picture of Liz Mair. Not only is she not a conservative. it is not obvious that she is even a “she”.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  8. Mr. Anon says:

    “Beltway conservatives seem to believe they can continue to win elections by simply repeating condemnations of socialism and “Big Government.” But the center-right America of 1980 is gone—largely because of the Beltway Right’s cowardice.”

    True. The America of 1980 is gone. It no longer exists. And it is never coming back.

  9. pvuk says:

    And I have every “right” to disparage them as idiots.

    • Replies: @iffen
  10. @iffen

    I apologize for the generalization. Of course they are not all idiots. And very few are complete idiots. But I maintain that their politics is idiotic and harmful in that they are taken in by the likes of Senator (Goldman) Cruz. And I resent their use of the government to force me to accept their beliefs and customs. BTW I never said that idiots do not have a right to vote.

    • Replies: @iffen
  11. iffen says:

    I was just thinking in political terms. If your moniker means anything then you should understand that a majority of Evangelicals are working class people. I think that you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that they are more likely to be “taken in” by the political criminal class than any other group. I don’t like their outsized influence either and don’t care for most of their priorities. Even so, I can’t envision a way to greater political power for working people that is used to benefit same without getting a significant chunk of Evangelical political support.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  12. 1) Polls showed Cruz ALWAYS leading Trump in Iowa.
    2) Trump STILL leads in the nation.
    3) Voters STILL don’t want any establishment republican.

    The GOP needs to return to their conservative roots, and their voters, or LOSE AGAIN.

    • Replies: @Unz Reader
  13. iffen says:

    Sure, you have that “right”. What does it accomplish?

  14. I support Trump but if Marco and his hookup friends from Grindr win the nomination I’m voting for Bernie. While Sanders is terrible on border security he’s no worse than Marco, and at least he’d keep us out of further entanglements in the Middle East. Maybe for laughs Bernie could appoint Marco as head of the FDIC, the first one in history with a credit score under 600.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  15. Rehmat says:

    Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t believe, “Evangelicals are not useful. They are just idiots.”

    He instead said: I know they’re evil doers but I don’t care as long as they are on our side.”

    Moscow-based American Jewish journalist Mark Ames’ article, Save a Jew, Save yourself! published at Jew York Press on October 12, 2004, explains the true agenda of Evangelicals’ support for Israel.

    “The 65 million American Zionist Christians support Israel not to save Jews, but hoping to bundle every hairy Jewish ass up, airfreight them to the West Bank and East Jerusalem (once those areas are cleansed of Muslims), and use the Jews as bait to bring upon the Rapture, as kindling in the Apocalypse, the final battle that will bring Jesus back to earth. None of this can happen until every last Jew is penned into the occupied territories (here),” Ames said.

  16. @Mr. Anon

    Liz Mair is a liberal feminist, even if she “identifies” as a Republican. But then, given that Bruce Jenner “identifies” as a woman with a penis and of course, White Rachel Dolezal “identifies” as Black and even better, BLEACH White Liz Warren “identifies” as Native American, I suppose Liz Mair’s deceptions aren’t so wretched by comparison. Meanwhile, Liz Mair is a twat. Scott Brown fired her for disparaging comments she made about Iowa early-on last year, maybe late 2014 when he was doing the exploratory routine in advance fo a decision to run or not. These days, Liz “identifies” as a communications and new-media “expert”. I doubt she gets many phone calls in return these days, except from suckers. She ain’t that bright. But that’s the Republican Party these days.

  17. @iffen

    Stop making me think.

    Yes the majority of evangelicals are working class. Likewise the majority of Catholics. And the majority of black, white, brown and all other colors of people. And the majority of women and the majority of homosexuals. And the majority of Democrats and the majority of Republicans. If you asked any demographic included under the heading “working class” whether they preferred work and wages over war and welfare they would chose the former. Except for the evangelicals who would answer “outlaw abortion”.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    , @iffen
  18. @WorkingClass

    If Trump isn’t the stoopid party nominee I’ll vote for Sanders out of spite, like you. If neither Trump nor Sanders is running, I’ll stay home and practice my marksmanship just in case a real third party doesn’t finally form and a civil war seems likely.

    The evangelicals are behaving like idiots. If the borders and the native-born middle class and working class of this country aren’t secured, the evangelicals can forever kiss good bye to having any political influence in this country. Trump is their last political hope whether they realize it or not. He may not share their views on many issues but Trump is the evangelicals’ and social conservatives’ last forlorn hope that those views will ever again be allowed politically viable expression.

    • Agree: nickels
    • Replies: @tbraton
  19. @WorkingClass

    If you asked any demographic included under the heading “working class” whether they preferred work and wages over war and welfare they would chose the former. Except for the evangelicals who would answer “outlaw abortion”.

    LOL! And I’m a paleo social conservative. I just understand that issues have priorities and the number one priority now is to secure this country’s borders, native-born working and middle class, and the economy which the native-born support and upon which they subsist.

    • Replies: @iffen
  20. iffen says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    I’m a paleo social conservative

    I’m not sure who their gatekeeper is, but have you checked to see if your membership is up to date? I am of the impression that most pscs would be very likely to deny the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
  21. tbraton says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    “The evangelicals are behaving like idiots. If the borders and the native-born middle class and working class of this country aren’t secured, the evangelicals can forever kiss good bye to having any political influence in this country.”

    I have been saying for years that I didn’t understand the quiet acceptance of mass immigration by the black community since it was the principal part of our population that was adversely affected by those foreigners taking their jobs and depressing their wages. I blamed their plight on the sell-out by their leaders, their elite. Over the past decade, I have been wondering the same thing about the white community, especially the part most affected by the foreign invasion. Any American who was not bothered by the story this past year about those Disney employees losing their jobs to Indian workers that they had to train doesn’t deserve to be called an American. And that was just the latest of a long line of similar incidents. I was just listening to Carly Fiorina being interviewed on Fox News, and she was bemoaning the fact that many Americans were still looking for jobs or more work. Apparently, this supposedly bright women couldn’t draw a connection between the fact that Americans were looking for jobs or more work and the fact that the U.S. was admitting more than a million foreigners legally each year. A basic question I keep asking is why the third most populous country in the world after China and India, with a population of 330 million needs to allow more than an a small number of immigrants each year.

  22. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    If you think a high credit score is an indicator of success with money, then you may not be all that bright either. A credit score rewards borrowing and paying back lots of money over a long period of time.

    A wise and sensible person simply endeavors to borrow no money at all.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @Bragadocious
  23. iffen says:

    Politically, they punch above their weight like the Jews or the NRA.

    In terms of coalition building, I don’t think that it would be wise to go out of ones way to antagonize Evangelicals and force them to make the abortion issue the only issue upon which they make decisions. You are talking about a lot of people and they all don’t think exactly alike. Just like all other groups they look at icons and litmus tests.

    I am pro-choice, however, if one really believes that life begins at conception, it really is murder.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    , @CanSpeccy
  24. MarkinLA says:

    Not really. As long as the markets swing wildly up and down there is way more money to be made trading rather than buying and holding, and leverage is a useful part of that scheme. However, you could lose everything. Since we no longer have debtors prisons or debt peonage it is not nearly as bad as it once was.

    All the rich guys I know knew how to use leverage.

  25. @Anonymous

    “A wise and sensible person simply endeavors to borrow no money at all.”

    Right, and how will a person enter the property ladder without borrowing money, you financially astute fellow you? Borrowing wisely is a time-honored savvy financial move, especially when it involves real estate, where the interest is lower, and deductible. Only a moron would suggest all borrowing is bad.

    • Replies: @guest
  26. @iffen

    Yes, it’s murder. In some cases, justified. Even though the fetus is completely innocent.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  27. @iffen

    And what makes you think that I have any respect for the Roe v. Wade position? My point is that if politicians’ opinions on abortion are going to be your sole criterion when voting then you’ve adopted a strategy which ensures that abortion on demand will be a permanent fixture in this country. OTOH maybe this is the motivating strategy behind encouraging the less sophisticated elements of the population to focus on this issue and ignore border security and the economic downfall of America’s native born working and middle classes.

    • Replies: @iffen
  28. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Most commentary on the US presidential nomination contests is based on some totally ridiculous conception of the meaning of the word conservative. There’s nothing conservative about corn-belt envangelism. The true evangelicals, i.e., Christian conservatives, are the Christian Scientists. They truly believe what the gospels repeatedly state that Jesus did miracles and that with faith you can too. So if you’re going to apply a religious test of conservatism, you’ll find a lot more Conservatives in Boston and probably throughout new England than anywhere as far south as Iowa.

    As for Rubio, what the Hell’s conservative about abolishing the democratic nation state? Most Americans want the rule of law and the preservation of national borders. That’s a conservative position. Calling Trump a nationalist doesn’t alter the fact that patriotism, though it may the last refuge of a scoundrel, is nevertheless of the essence of Conservatism. The NeoCon drive to abolish America, while inviting the Third-World to occupy the territory is simply treason. Only a moron could mistake that for conservatism.

  29. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    if one really believes that life begins at conception, it [abortion] really is murder.

    Well of course life begins at conception. When else would it begin?

    But abortion is not necessarily murder.

    Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

    In most, if not all, Western jurisdictions, killing a foetus is not unlawful, therefore, it is not murder.

    But abortion is still the premeditated killing of one human being by another.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Wizard of Oz
  30. nickels says:

    Not once we instate a minimum IQ of 85 to vote.

  31. iffen says:

    Let’s put it a 86; I don’t like the idea of you being able to vote.

    • Replies: @nickels
  32. iffen says:

    Evangelicals consider it to be murder. They want to align criminal law with their interpretation of God’s law. But go ahead and tell them that it is not murder; they might just forget the whole thing.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Wizard of Oz
  33. iffen says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    You make good points. One of which is that most people don’t put a lot of time into thinking about for whom they should vote.

    Like it or not, the Evangelicals are doing pretty good for themselves. They have a real chance to elect the next president (Cruz) and get Roe v. Wade overturned.

  34. @Neil Templeton

    No it’s not murder which is a long established legal concept and “murder” is only tendentiously and confusingly used as part of an assertion of one’s moral position on abortion as a kind of tribal identity marker. Curiously it is so used by evangelicals who put great store in the words of the Bible despite the fact that the only reference to abortion in either Testament is one in the Pentateuch which refers to a son causing one of his father’s wive’s to have a miscarriage.

    The manufactured sanctity of life argument has several problems. One is simply that “life”doesn’t begin at conception if that is thought relevant: life is continuous. But what is meant usually is something like “a (human) person” mustn’t be aborted which runs into more fairly obvious problems.

    1. Who uses language so that a foetus is a person?
    2. Where apart from one’s personal arbitrary choice does one get the correct definition of the time of personhood? Not only do many, if not most, Jews have a tradition that there is no human person until after a baby is born (indeed seven days after is one tradition) but even the Catholic Church has been all over the place thanks to God taking so little interest in abortion that he didn’t explain the facts of life to his Vicar on earth. (The Catholic Encyclopaedia pre WW1 held that the male foetus was ensouled – became a person – 40 days from conception and the female foetus after 90 days so a chap could become a priest even if he had procured his girlfriend’s abortion 40 days after he unbuttoned his fly).
    3. Murder is historically – and of practical necessity – made a crime which the sovereign state prosecutes because it is needed to preserve law and order among adults and near adults. Objections to abortion (unless one wishes to farm babies for the Führer) are a matter of taste like objections to homosexual conduct which is not publicly flaunted. It surely has no more claim to be made part of the criminal law which preaerves law and order than any other matter of taste which is beyond proof on utilitarian or any other grounds.

  35. nickels says:

    Okay, how about we deal with the fact that Chiliasm and millenialism (the basis of Evangelical Zionism) was early on declared Christian heresy.
    Evangelicals are funding and worshipping the very peoples who are doing everything they can to destroy Christianity.
    So 86 sounds fine. That will weed out the Kantians, Marxists and other philosopher types as well.

    • Replies: @iffen
  36. @CanSpeccy

    Agreed except for your question begging last paragraph. Do you remember the jolly Monty Python song “you’re a Catholic the moment Dad came
    Because every sperm is sacred
    Every sperm is great
    Every sperm that’s wasted
    Makes God get quite irate”.

    Actually that goes just a little too far because, when the church actually learned in the 20th century the facts of life which God hadn’t bothered to include in his instruction manual it became clear that conception led to zygotes, blastocysts and embryos which could not possibly be individually ensouled human “beings” because until about the tenth day you couldn’t even be sure that the embryo wouldn’t divide into twins or maybe quads – or on the other hand reverse course and abort the twinning to produce one individual. And let’s not mention the natural destruction that God unleashes on millions of embryos and foetuses each year….

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  37. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    Agreed except for your question begging last paragraph.

    Said paragraph was:

    But abortion is still the premeditated killing of one human being by another.

    I don’t understand why you call that question begging. It’s just a statement of fact. A zygote is a totipotent* human organism, albeit parasitic.

    *Totipotency is the ability of a single cell to divide and produce all of the differentiated cells in an organism. A zygotes is an example of a totipotent cell.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  38. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Evangelicals consider it to be murder.

    If they’re thinking clearly and understand the definition of murder, they cannot consider abortion to be murder, although I acknowledge that they would like the law to consider abortion to be murder, as in that case abortion would be murder.

    The differentiation between the killing of a single-celled human organism, i.e., a zygote, and a new-born child seems rational to me. But if that is accepted, it is necessary to make a more or less arbitrary decision as to when this difference arises. To say that it arises only after the moment of birth, means approval of partial-birth abortion which is an atrocity in the minds of many. Hence the difficulty of the abortion question.

    And the abortion question has other aspects. For example, Americans like the Europeans, have a below replacement fertility rate and thus, by virtue of mass immigration, they are progressively replacing themselves by people from elsewhere. A complete ban on abortion would raise the fertility rate to the replacement rate, thus giving Americans the prospect of an enduring posterity. This no doubt explains, at least in part, the evangelical position — a position based on the correct understanding of the old fashioned religious notion that the wages of sin are death.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  39. guest says:
    @Leftist conservative

    “That campaign however, stopped about 2 decades ago.”

    Yes, and in the meantime they’ve successfully gone after “liberal”and “progressive.” “Socialist” is a bit hardcore, and not all of them are willing to go that far. But generally they have less qualms about switching labels. They know who and what they are, whatever they call themselves. Unlike conservatives, who among other things like to conserve tired, old election tactics, including mere words. What’s truly conservative? I don’t know or care.

  40. guest says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    The connection between the Cold War and our immigration policy seems farfetched, except insofar as everything in that era can be explained by fighting the Russkies. It holds for the interstate highway system, for instance.

  41. guest says:

    “how will a person enter the property ladder without borrowing money”


  42. iffen says:

    I am not interested in dealing with it. They can deal with their heresies as they please.

    My input was purely on the political questions. They have as much right as anyone else to push their views. I think it aggravates people because they have been relatively successful in recent times.

    I just look at the political angles. Just like your comment. I consider universal suffrage a foundation stone and push back against anyone who goes in the other direction.

    BTW, the Jews are not be all and end all of political dis-function.

    • Agree: nickels
  43. Faustina says:

    After watching what the GOP and Conservative Inc. did to Ron Paul supporters I came to that conclusion 4 years ago. They don’t care about winning. They want to retained their think tank jobs and air of respectability.

  44. @CanSpeccy

    Perhaps I can best explain why by suggestiing that you contrast the words you have used with an alternative formulation, namely that “abortion is the (usually) premeditated destruction of a collection of cells of possibly viable human tissue that might have otherwise accumulated nutrients inside a womb and eventually emerged as a potential sentient interacting member of a human family or wider community”. Doesn’t press a lot of buttons does it?

  45. @CanSpeccy

    The problem with any attempts to get women to have the needed number of children to replace themselves starts with the characteristics of the women who are likely to be motivated by any measures that PC politicians are likely to come up with. The IQ 90 receptionist might have three or four children at average age 24 while it doesn’t shift the IQ 115 theatre sister from her two at 31 or the IQ 125+ surgeon from her 1 at age 36. And that leads to a dumbed down population when the supply of smart Chinese and Indians dries up – or earlier if the other immigrants are dumb.

    A totally secular society wouldn’t wait for utopian genetic engineering to be perfected, available and accepted but would encourage dim women to become extra wombs for the high IQ healthy energetic women and nannys’ assistants to fulfill any natural pleasure in the company of young children.

  46. @iffen

    Whence do the evangelicals claim to get their interpretaion of God’s word which makes them regard abortion as a grave sin (and murder)? It isn’t mentioned in the Bible and Christians didn’t know any more than Aristotle about zygotes, embryos, viable foetuses etc until the 20th century so one would have thought that the usual inferences applied by lawyers and sny intelligent person would apply and the absence of clear instructions from God meant that it wasn’t something He cared much about.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @iffen
  47. iffen says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Well I can’t help you with that. My guess would be that they think that when God takes that soul off the shelf and pops it in at conception you’ve got yourself a person. What I can tell you is that it has grown over the years and I am not sure that today you can be an Evangelical if you are not an ardent anti-abortionist. There is probably scholarly material out there that would trace its evolution and give us the facts. I think that it started to grow about the time that the politico-religious operatives like Richard Viguerie and Ralph Reed came onto the scene. I was raised as an Evangelical and as best as I can remember it was not a big deal 50 years ago. An issue like this is tailor made for exploitation by the politico-religious types. These religious and cultural totems and taboos have a life of their own and I am not the best hand at sorting out their genesis and development.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
  48. iffen says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Something that should have been completely obvious to me was that it kicked off in 1973 at Roe v. Wade. Opposition was then picked up by the politico-religious types and folded into their arsenal and the rest is history.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  49. @iffen

    Thanks. Good to find someone on the same wave length without obvious cantankerous kinks

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @iffen
  50. Someone should tell John Podhoretz (yet again perhaps since his Dad first warned him) that such irony is not safe outside sophisticated NYC circles and then only orally. After all Disraeli wrote without irony of the importance of race in two novels and that was used by Hitler 50 to 100 years later against Jews and others.

  51. @Wizard of Oz


    Smiley emoticon removed by Ron’s software…

  52. joe webb says:

    I am unclear on the GOP rules at their convention. Can delegates change their votes from the candidate they supported if given permission by their candidate? etc.

    Lots of old guard GOP types will be twisting arms and Rubio is their snake. Furthermore how much will this election reconstitute the GOP?


    • Replies: @iffen
  53. iffen says:
    @joe webb

    Good question, Joe, as it could well come down to that scenario. It will be different rules by each state. IIRC, some states let them go after the 1st round, more on the 2nd, etc. Some delegates are hand-picked by the candidates and some are not, so there will be a wide variation in their “loyalty.” At some point they each get to vote their “conscience”. Now isn’t that hilarious.

    It looks like it is going to be a 3 way among Trump, Cruz and establishment (Bush or Rubio). I am interested in seeing which way Cruz will bend if the decision goes to the convention. I bet on establishment.

  54. iffen says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Thanks. Nice to know that they are not obvious.

    I usually read your comments. One reason being that you respond to and dialogue with quite a few that I have on CTI. I can’t see how you are able to slog through some of that stuff.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  55. @iffen

    Indeed I sometimes wonder how much pop-psychology can explain about my behavior. I think “displacement activity” counts as helpful:-)

    Sometimes my CTIs pop up anyway – depending on browser and of course email notifications – and I can’t resist pedantry or minor brutality especially where it is easy and quick to show them up as ridiculous.

    On CTIs I have a puzzle which emails to Ron haven’t resolved. A number of commenters I find treated like the CTIs so I have to click on Show to read them although they are not in my CTI list. Carthage and Charles Martel come to mind as two of them. What do you know about that?

  56. iffen says:

    especially where it is easy and quick to show them up as ridiculous

    Yes, and some of them take two or three pages to do it.

    I know that I make some stupid and uninformed comments, but I pride myself on being able to do it in just a few sentences.

    Show Comment – CTI – not on CTI

    Yes, I think it may have gone away. A Karlin always showed as blocked, on his page and when he commented at others, but now his show up.

  57. @boogerbently

    What does “conservative” even mean anymore? Is it conservative to want to pave the planet? Is unending war a conservative value? The National Review has embraced gay marriage and supports whichever Republican candidate who most wants amnesty for illegal aliens. Does conservatism mean supporting the Constitution? If so, why did Conservatism, Inc. so hate Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012? I notice that a basic litmus test for “conservatism” these days is that you must ignore the increasing evidence for global warming and continue to insist that it is all a hoax. There is nothing left of conservatism, so it matters not to me whether we get a candidate who is a “conservative”. I want someone who will enforce immigration law. I don’t care if Conservatism, Inc. disavows him.

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