The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 PodcastsGregory Hood Archive
‘National Review’ Fails to Defend America — Pathetically
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
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

National Review is “defending America” in its latest issue. Unfortunately, its cowardice about race makes its defense a laughable failure.

Editor Rich Lowry’s introduction tries to negotiate the terms of surrender. He is appalled to find that “we’ve gone from a debate about the status of Confederate statues to the toppling defacing, and removal of statues of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt.” It’s way too late to have noticed that. The “slippery slope” may be a fallacy in logic, but it’s the rule in politics. Mr. Lowry also says there were some “potentially worthwhile police reforms” we could be discussing because of the George Floyd case. Why should conservatives discuss reforms at all before the trial of Officer Derek Chauvin?

Contributor Richard Brookhiser says we must understand “America’s Founding.” He argues that egalitarianism is central to both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The ban on kings and aristocracy and the tributes to equality limit power, he argues, because they remove the argument that a “different, superior order of being” can “annihilate another’s” power. He admits that the Founders accepted slavery, though many questioned it and wanted it abolished. However, he is relieved that the Constitution didn’t specifically recognize and sanction slavery.

Mr. Brookhiser concedes that when the Founders said “all men are created equal,” they might have meant “men like themselves — white men.” “This was the argument advanced by racists, south and north in the 19th century,” he writes, “and oddly by BLM protesters today.” He argues that the question was answered “in every generation” by men like Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King Jr. “who asserted that the founding documents were freedom documents, setting a standard against the day when it might be met.”

This is historically illiterate. First, the Declaration had a specific purpose: to justify revolt against the crown. No one, especially not Jefferson, thought it laid out principles of government. Once the Declaration had served its purpose and the United States was independent, the document had no particularly revered place in American mythology. It became a holy relic only later — and only in the minds of strident egalitarians — because of those five fateful words: “all men are created equal.” There is nothing else in it that people care about today.

Second, the Founders clearly didn’t think all groups were equal, which is why they restricted the vote to white, male property owners. They took America’s white identity for granted. Frederick Douglass said in 1852 that the Declaration and the Fourth of July were “yours” (whites) not “mine” (blacks.) Black protesters tearing down Lincoln statues are right when they claim Lincoln was a white nationalist who pushed to expatriate blacks. Opposing slavery for white nationalist reasons made sense to Lincoln and virtually all abolitionists; they didn’t like slavery, but they didn’t want to share the country with blacks. Why anyone evokes Martin Luther King as an authority on anything escapes me, but he was not a Christian in conduct or belief — which matters a lot, since he cloaked himself in spiritual authority. In any case, he didn’t believe in colorblind law and would clearly be on the side of Black Lives Matter today.

Mr. Brookhiser’s argument is not conservative. What kind of conservative claims his nation is based on a dream of equality? There has never been equality and never will be. Since this “standard” can never be met, the nation is forever illegitimate. So long as we don’t have this impossible state of equality, why not dismiss corrupt institutions, flawed heroes, or outdated symbols that don’t meet that standard and don’t appeal to the new, non-white America that clamors so insistently for the impossible? What grounds are there to oppose Black Lives Matter?

Another contributor, David French, says America “has a long history of brutal and shameful mistreatment of racial minorities,” but is still a great nation. Mr. French is on firm conservative ground when he says man is fallen and imperfect. However, he then also praises “universal principles” and a “trajectory” of expanding freedom from beyond “white male property owners” to everyone else. We are told “we have far to go” to cash the “promissory note of freedom” and says “the best part of the American story is yet to be told.” Can he really believe that? This is a magazine that once claimed to be “standing athwart History crying ‘Stop!’”

When will we have finally paid off this “promissory note?” If simple legal equality is the goal, we’ve had that for decades. The regime even discriminates against the whites. If the goal is absolute socioeconomic “equality,” then we’ll have to become communists. Even with the most procrustean egalitarian measures, the country will always need ever more elaborate, preposterous explanations for racial inequalities in a country that already offers non-whites race-based privileges.

Mr. Lowry, Mr. French, and Mr. Brookhiser all implicitly exclude Southerners from the “American story.” Mr. French celebrates the Union Army at Gettysburg and the 54th Massachusetts’s charge at Fort Wagner for their “defense” of the Founding. Blacks were “rising up to seize their inheritance.” Do they believe George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Mason, or any of the other Founders from the Old Dominion would have sided with Union General George Meade rather than Robert E. Lee? If not, why celebrate one group of slaveholders and condemn another?

“Washington as a Farmer at Mount Vernon,” Junius Brutus Stearns, 1851.
“Washington as a Farmer at Mount Vernon,” Junius Brutus Stearns, 1851.

Philip Magness explores some interesting legal ground in “Slavery and the Constitution,” arguing that the Constitution didn’t specifically defend slavery. He says the 1772 case of James Somerset, an American slave who was freed by a British court, set a legal precedent that eventually led to abolition. The Founders’ views on slavery were nuanced and they regarded it, at best, as a necessary evil. The New York Times’s “1619 Project” claims the colonials fought the Revolution partially out of a desire to keep slaves. That is wrong. Britain did not free the slaves in its empire until 1835, and the Founders would have had to be prophets to fight a war to forestall something that was still 59 years in the future.

We get similar silliness in essays on George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln.

Noemie Emery makes the remarkable claim that Washington was “in his essence a Northerner, one who believed in the egalitarian, freewheeling, immigrant-friendly culture of the Northeast.” He was the “world’s first and only Northern Virginian, which is why we revere him today.” That will be news to historians and, again, implies that the South wasn’t part of America.

Jefferson was a son of the South, but National Review turns him into a champion of the Enlightenment. It praises him for creating the University of Virginia and using the phrase “the pursuit of happiness.” To author Myron Magnet’s credit, he does not concede that Thomas Jefferson slept with Sally Hemings (there is strong evidence that he did not). Mr. Magnet also argues that UVA students who revile him today don’t appreciate what he gave them. Still, these are liberal arguments for defending Jefferson. Given the mischief made with the phrases “all men are created equal” and “the pursuit of happiness,” it would have been better if Jefferson had simply written about “life, liberty, and property.”

Portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Edward Percy Moran, 1916.
Portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Edward Percy Moran, 1916.

Finally, there’s Lincoln. Author Allen Guelzo manages to state the obvious: Lincoln freed the slaves; the slaves didn’t free themselves. “It was actually a surprise to many Northerners that the slaves did not use the Civil War as an opportunity for insurrection,” he wrote, though he explains this by saying slaves were afraid. I’d argue that blacks’ attitude towards abolition may have been more complicated than many believe today; surviving slaves interviewed in the 1920s had positive things to say about slavery. Mr. Guelzo also contradicts himself, arguing that Lincoln was eager to allow freedmen the vote, but also that slave runaways “had no voting rights, and thus no way to influence Lincoln’s decision on emancipation.”

Lincoln was a canny politician. It’s hard to believe he couldn’t predict that freed blacks, if they stayed in the country against his wishes, would become a GOP base in the conquered South. Mr. Guelzo concludes that Lincoln was neither an extreme white racist nor a hapless leader forced into action by blacks’ “self-emancipation:” “If we have lost the mutuality that Lincoln represents,” he said, “we may very well have lost ourselves, black and white, together.” Lincoln was, by today’s standards, a frothing white supremacist, and doing contortions to argue otherwise concedes our argument: The idea of “ourselves, black and white, together” was utterly alien to Abraham Lincoln. Trying to force an artificial identity is futile and tyrannical.

Robert VerBruggen apparently thinks it’s neither futile nor tyrannical. He writes in “On Systemic Racism” that we need to wage “a war on local zoning regulations” to “make it easier for poor families to live in thriving neighborhoods.” (Zoning is not “racist;” it recognizes only that different people want different kinds of neighborhoods.) Of course, once that happens, they probably won’t be “thriving” anymore. We also need “school choice.” And let anyone into private schools? Does Mr. VerBruggen really think this kind of thing will help any more than “midnight basketball” or enterprise zones? Mr. VerBruggen actually says that “address[ing] racial inequities and speed[ing] our agonizingly slow pace of integration” should be “conservative priorities.” Why? What is conservative about forcing people to do things they don’t want to do?

Yuval Levin has some useful things to say in “Immigration and Our National Crisis of Confidence.” He says mass immigration has created pockets of mass ethnic poverty. However, he also says President Trump’s rhetoric is too hard on immigrants. He wants a “compromise” with Democrats on immigration — whatever that might be — rather than immigration law enforcement. Finally, he predicts the COVID-19 pandemic will slow immigration and give us time to debate the issue. That isn’t true. Illegal immigration surged 40 percent in June and could be driving the infection rate in the southwest. Illegals are coming north for COVID-19 treatment. And 1965 is when we really should have debated immigration — honestly rather than in the underhanded way boosters of the Immigration Reform Act slipped it over on us.

In “America, Warts and All,” Joseph Epstein says: “Because of political correctness, one dare not speak the truth about race, not even certain obvious facts: that the wider success of African Americans will come about not by falling back on government programs, or through protests or reparations, but by relinquishing victim status and relying on one’s own efforts — in the same way that any other group in this country has managed to flourish, through strong family ties, hard work, saving, future-mindedness.”

That’s as far as Mr. Epstein manages to get with his “obvious facts” that are truly forbidden. He dares not say that the current status of blacks is what you would expect from racial differences in intelligence. Without affirmative action and other government programs, the black middle class would be smaller, and those programs don’t much help the larger black population. Strict policing, immigration restriction, and social conservatism would probably do them a lot more good. However, Democrats will do them no favors, and Republicans are increasingly afraid to propose anything that would actually help.

Dan McLaughlin defends America for its successful republicanism in his “Exceptional First American Century.” He, too, is defensive about slavery and the “brutal wars against Native Americans.” Mr. McLaughlin praises America because it’s “democratic, republican, liberal, and constitutional.” America’s misdeeds must be understood in historic context. America survived, and so now liberal democracies dot the globe.

However, the reason these National Review essays even had to be written is that American identity is under attack. America’s liberal democratic principles are arguably leading to self-destruction. If that’s so, what good are they? What’s more, if America leads the West and has imposed its principles on other white countries, isn’t America leading our entire civilization to annihilation? If the status quo is where liberal democracy leads, we would have been better off if the first war for independence had failed and the second (for Southern independence) had succeeded.

In essay after essay, “conservative” after “conservative” makes much the same argument: America is worth saving because it advanced classically liberal principles and human equality. However, Thomas Jefferson himself wrote that the world “belongs exclusively to the living,” and so any written constitution or political order can and should be changed every generation. America was a settler colonist state built by exploration, conquest, and war. Why should egalitarians honor that? And why is it the job of conservatives to convince liberals to be patriotic?

The real conservative case for America is simple. We love America because it’s ours. We built it. We live here. We are a race of pioneers, settlers, and conquerors. Our nation existed before the Declaration of Independence, and it will continue to exist if the government in Washington D.C. (or whatever it will be named by then) fails completely. If we have to justify our existence to our opponents, we’ve already lost. If conservatives can’t defend America except in universalistic terms, they were never serious about fighting for it in the first place.

(Republished from American Renaissance by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 152 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. NR passed out of relevance a long time ago. Thanks fr reading it and sparing us the trouble. Not that we would have bothered…

  2. anon[290] • Disclaimer says:

    The National Review is a joke. Hunter Wallace has a good explanation of how we got to this point: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/07/10/the-anti-racism-crisis-explained/

    • Replies: @jack daniels
    , @Thomasina
  3. Piss on The National Review. It’s always been a neocon, chickenhawk, Israel-First rag.

    • Agree: vot tak, hu_anon, Bill Jones
  4. How about National Review saying that, given the history of US ‘racism’ and ‘genocide'(against Indians), the US should stop supporting Zionism that did ‘genocide’ on Palestinians and practices apartheid in West Bank? And what about that crazy Albright saying it’s worth it to kill half a million Arab kids for the sake of Israel?

    But of course, NR is just a cuck-zine to Jewish supremacists.

    But then, so is American Renaissance of Jared Taylor, that worthless cuck to Jewish Power who won’t allow comments on his site that are critical of Zionism or express sympathy for Palestinians.

    Difference between Lowry and Taylor is, thus, a matter of degrees.

    In some ways, Taylor is more pathetic and wretched. After all, Lowry and his ilk have been well-rewarded for cucking to Jews. In contrast, for all the cucking Taylor has done to Jews, they utterly destroyed him and his reputation. Taylor can’t use twitter and youtube, and can’t use financial services. But he still cucks to Jewish Power and purges voices on his site that dare mention the JQ.

    Taylor is a vermin through and through.

  5. northeast says:

    Great job breaking this down…it’s depressing, but the reality is modern “conservatism” is dead…if it was ever alive.

    • Agree: Old and Grumpy
  6. The authors appear to be a mix of typical neocon Jews with some flabby Catholics thrown in. The first group doesn’t want to ‘conserve’ America so much as turn it into a version of Brazil that sends cannon fodder to fight Israel’s wars. The latter pretty much lost the culture battle when they were unable to stop the Jewish lobby from overturning obscenity laws.

    (American Renaissance won’t let you talk about Jews and their penchant for subversion, however).

    All this talk about ‘equality’ is explicitly anti-conservative and diametrically opposed to the cultures of the European peoples. Not that I claim much knowledge of history, but it appears safe to assert that the European peoples lived in largely hierarchical societies. I can’t recall the Greeks bothering much with ‘equality’, and I seem to remember that the vote in Athens wasn’t given out to anyone who could fog a mirror.

    • Agree: Ace
    • Replies: @animalogic
    , @Anonymous
  7. @Priss Factor

    ” In contrast, for all the cucking Taylor has done to Jews, they utterly destroyed him and his reputation. Taylor can’t use twitter and youtube, and can’t use financial services. But he still cucks to Jewish Power and purges voices on his site that dare mention the JQ.”

    Yep, he’s an example of ‘educated yet idiot’.

    Smart guy, but absolutely clueless about the nature of the enemy.

    There is no such thing as an ‘ally’ to Jews. Look at how they have treated the British, who lost countless men in the fight to secure Palestine and to defeat Hitler. The Jews in England sit back and chortle as their Pakistani imports rape the local girls. Not a hint of gratitude for giving them a safe haven from which to carry out all their nefarious deeds, just complete contempt for the indigenous.

    Taylor was foolish enough to assume that by treating Jews as just another ‘white’ group they wouldn’t turn their baleful eyes upon him. He was wrong, and now he’s about as relevant as a floppy disk.

  8. @Brian Reilly

    Andrew McCarthy writes useful legal commentary that I haven’t seen in other places.

  9. ATBOTL says:

    What is NR’s circulation like these days. Didn’t it lose something like 20% of its subscribers from 2015 to 2017 over the Never Trump thing?

    • Replies: @dvorak
  10. Gregory, what did you expect, anyway? I mean, it’s the National Review over there. Look, just have a beer or something and quit agonizing already.

  11. vot tak says:

    Well the national review represents zionazi-gay interests, like all rightwing propagandists in the zionazified capitalist west. Don knee pads and suck away, the israeli line for the colonies way…

  12. Isn’t the National Review some sort of Neo-Con organ?

    Why should anyone expect anything good from it?

  13. Z-man says:
    @Brian Reilly

    Exactly.
    All you have to know is that the traitor William F. Buckley started that magazine and he betrayed conservatism and became a cuck of the Jooz.
    His betrayal of a close associate Joe Sobran is part of the historical record.
    RIP Joe Sobran.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @jack daniels
    , @WhiteWinger
  14. Noemie Emery makes the remarkable claim that Washington was “in his essence a Northerner, one who believed in the egalitarian, freewheeling, immigrant-friendly culture of the Northeast.”

    Well, he did say even Mohammedans could make good Americans, if they worked hard. Of course, Arabs don’t work any more than blacks, which is why their oilless territories, such as Yemen, are such pits.

    However, he did spill the beans about how blacks never worked when no one was there to watch them. The “peculiar institution” certainly was peculiar– “Nobody’s working, yet we’re all rich!” It’s like the informercials and four-hour workweeks promised today. Scams, all.

    Nobody dares come out and say that the quality of life in a state is directly proportional to its white percentage.

    What kind of conservative claims his nation is based on a dream of equality? There has never been equality and never will be.

    Calhoun and Stephens argued for equality among whites. That’s fanatical, too. Take blacks out of the mix, and Southerners vote for pinkos like FDR. Start to include blacks, and suddenly they’re Goldwater libertarians.

    However, Thomas Jefferson himself wrote that the world “belongs exclusively to the living,” and so any written constitution or political order can and should be changed every generation.

    This is the polar opposite of GK Chesterton’s view that democracy is the tyranny of those who happen to be walking around at the time. We have ancestors, and we have descendants.

    for Southern independence

    I think of it more as independence from the South, and their psychotic demography. The leadership on both sides consisted of race traitors. The free states were 98% white, and the Confederate ones somewhere south of 60%. (A couple south of 40%!) It’s clear that the side that would “win” would really be the loser.

    Without northern and western cities to dump their low-quality “workforce” onto, an independent Confederacy would be a mulatto banana republic today.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @Forbes
    , @Sya Beerens
  15. I thought NR went under long ago…..

    Well….they certainly DESERVED to go under long ago.

  16. Treemain says:

    Vot talk iss dis? Such filthy.

  17. kuraudo says:

    Correction: The author incorrectly claims the statue issue is a slippery slope fallacy when it is a perfect example of a non-falacious slippery slope.

    “Slippery Slope” is only a fallacy if the slope from A to B doesn’t make sense. For example, it’s a fallacy when you say that “if we give into demands to fund the space program, christians will demand megachurch funding next!” As should be clear, there is no relation between the two; in other words, the A to B slope can’t be established (there is no slope).

    A valid slippery slope is “If you give into homosexual demands about not classifying them as a mental illness, next they will be demanding gay marriage.” The causal relationship between A and B is clear in this case and therefore it is a valid, or “non-falacious,” slippery slope.

    Similarly, “if you allow them to tear down Confederate statues, they’ll go after slave owners like George Washington next! If you allow that, they’ll go after all white statues after that!” The relationship from A to B to C is clear and therefore non-falacious and a perfectly valid logical argument.

    Not that it should matter: tearing down statues is inherently anti-civilizational, but I digress.

    • Agree: Uomiem, AceDeuce
  18. Biff says:

    Why should conservatives discuss reforms at all before the trial of Officer Derek Chauvin?

    Because the State is way too big, way too expensive and extractive, and way too abusive – it’s called liberalism and it’s out of hand!

    The rest of the essay is just as awful.

  19. @jbwilson24

    “I can’t recall the Greeks bothering much with ‘equality’, and I seem to remember that the vote in Athens wasn’t given out to anyone who could fog a mirror.”
    Interestingly, the Romans did give the vote did give the vote to all citizens — however, (depending on the particular voting forum) they had sophisticated ways of “biasing” the vote in favour of the upper orders (ie Centuriate Assembly).

  20. “we’ve gone from a debate about the status of Confederate statues to the toppling defacing, and removal of statues of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt.”

    When you even start discussing which statues “deserve” not to be torn down, you’ve lost the war, you’ve conceded that tearing down statues is a legitimate form of political expression.

    So there’s a bully in your school yard who goes around punching smaller kids, but, as he explains, he only punches assholes, so that’s all right. Are you going to argue with him about which kids are actual assholes, which kids he can legitimately punch?

    It’s not about Lee, Davis, Washington or Jefferson, it’s about fuck white people.

    • Agree: AceDeuce
  21. Dumbo says:

    Who cares? If anything, those dumb cucks are the “defenders” only of their own pockets. No dignity.

    It should be renamed “National Whoreview”.

  22. A few random shots at the author.
    “Why should conservatives discuss reforms at all before the trial of Officer Derek Chauvin?”
    Why ? Because Police kill hundreds of whites as well as blacks per year ?
    Because the Police are the leading edge of the Executive’s power to control its citizens ? Any State repression will begin with the Police & Police spy agencies such as the FBI.

    “There has never been equality and never will be. Since this “standard” can never be met, the nation is forever illegitimate”
    Illegitimate” ? Utter nonsense. Only children & antifa types actually believe that “equality” refers to some existing objective reality. “Equality” here has numerous meanings. In part it is aspirational — ie a kind of “flattening of the curve” in terms of class, power, opportunity etc. Never to be reached in any absolute sense but worth having it as a “goal”. Further, “Equality” refers to essentially legal status: (He says it himself — “if simple legal equality is the goal, we’ve had that for decades.”) ie that people should have the same rights & obligations etc (Inother words, also fairly aspirational”)

    “Strict policing, immigration restriction, and social conservatism would probably do them [Blacks] a lot more good.” Absolutely correct re “immigration restriction”. All of the 99% would be better off with stricter restrictions on immigration.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Nietzschad
    , @Loup-Bouc
  23. “Conservatives” are liberals.

    “Liberals” are lefties.

    Rich Lowry has all the manliness of an 11-year-old girl.

    David French can’t string three words together without virtue signaling.

    I couldn’t care less about people who worship Lincoln, Freddy Douglas, or Martin Lucifer King (and he can stick his “dream” up his ass.)

    The ultimate victims of slavery were Americans, and the ultimate beneficiaries of it, blacks.

    As for the injuns? Well, I used to have some sympathy there. But now that I’ve seen that it’s kill or be killed, and every people for itself, my sympathy is gone like a fart in the wind. All I care about now is that my people vanquish their enemies.

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
  24. National Review would probably not be in business but for being bankrolled by some sort of Zionist entity. I seriously doubt they make enough in subscriptions and ad revenue to keep the lights on all by themselves. They are as relevant as a bag full of rabbit pellets.

  25. GMC says:

    National Review – National Interest – No Thanks. But Yes, we were supposed to be a mostly white country from Europe and a Select few other places and our Laws and founding folks wrote it – this way. Fact !!! Ok – what happened ? We got sucker punched by the international banks, corporations, jews, zionists, communists, bought off politicians, and every other swingin dick that saw the dollar sign, a great hideout with 2 oceans for a moat and the laws could be written – for their advantage. Of course , this would be hard to do with a mostly 70% white populace, so the NY zionist jews, lobbied for the open ,unlimited, free for all heintz 57 population , that broke the white European immigration that was 80% a year. Take out the Zionists, their employed pledge of allegiance to Israel traitors – just as ruthlessly as they did America – and start over.

    • Replies: @Usura
  26. I subscribe to NR and find a lot to appreciate in it. BUT Gregory Hood has a valid point about NR’s generally PC attitude about race. Ultimately there is very little “conservative” about it. Until NR apologizes to John Derbyshire and invites him back, I will read it with abundant skepticism. P.S. I agree with Chrisnonymous about Andrew McCarthy; excellent analysis of legal matters.

  27. Why anyone evokes Martin Luther King as an authority on anything escapes me, but he was not a Christian in conduct or belief — which matters a lot, since he cloaked himself in spiritual authority. In any case, he didn’t believe in colorblind law and would clearly be on the side of Black Lives Matter today.

    MLK was useful while he was useful, preaching non-violence. Once he joined forces with Eugene McCarthy and Bob Kennedy preaching to Blacks against Vietnam he had to go. He went to his grave right along with Bob Kennedy, except they kept Kennedy around just long enough to wreck McCarthy as a national candidate. By RFK’s primary win in California in June, 68, they knew Kennedy was inevitable and McCarthy exposed as a weak old poet, his campaign against the war unheard and insignificant. The government then took care of RFK and the path to cooperation in the war was assured via either Humphrey or Nixon, pick one. MLK was barely an afterthought by then. And of course, that’s the case today where BLM has little use for the old icons, especially those who preached non-violence. BLM is all about violence today, and further, nearly as I can tell, their roots are inspired by the ANC.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
  28. Franz says:

    Everyone takes a look at National Review to find out what the traitor agency types want their drones to believe, or at least pretend to believe, on any given issue. And that’s it.

    And it started out that way: Buckley was a CIA stooge, a Yale Bonesman, and an FBI snitch when he was still in high school. He ran National Review carrying a deficit for years so he wouldn’t miss out on lavish parties, yachting club meetings, and… his other activities.

    Expecting anything with a shit weasel like Buckley in charge to be useful was insane.

  29. We are a race of pioneers, settlers, and conquerors

    Apparently no more!

  30. I used to get National Review for a year or two in the late 1990s. By the end of that period, I’d realized that Florence King was the only writer on there worth reading. I couldn’t pay \$25 per year just for that. Bill Buckley was a sell-out from the get-go.

    • Agree: Charon, Old and Grumpy, fish
    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  31. the Constitution didn’t specifically recognize and sanction slavery

    South Carolina enjoyed a profitable business importing slaves. Virginia was in the business of breeding slaves (Pres. Jefferson, for example). This was an issue during the formulation of the U.S. Constitution, 1787. The parties agreed to a compromise: S.S. could continue to import slaves for another 20 years, and no longer.

    Article 1, Section 9:

    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,

  32. ‘Guff’ from the N.R..

    “Although it cannot of course be proved, one nevertheless feels about America — and about Americans generally — an essential decency. We may have our pathetic snobberies and cultural inadequacies; injustices doubtless linger throughout our social institutions. But we also live by a set of definably American ideals, believing in equal opportunity, in encouraging ambition, in an ultimate fairness for all. As national ideals, these remain admirable and go a long way toward making America the country it is.”

    https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/07/27/america-warts-and-all/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

    “Decency” for the ‘plutocrats’? “Ultimate fairness” for the plutocrats?

    “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
    Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
    Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “
    https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

  33. SafeNow says:

    Thank you, commenter #2, for that link. This is a superb essay on the subject of “What the hell happened? What is wrong with these people?”

  34. Realist says:

    ‘National Review’ Fails to Defend America — Pathetically

    NR is a shit rag…what’s the point?

  35. Equality IS possible. All are equal before the law. That doesn’t mean all should have assets of the same value, or should be paid the same or be equally successful. But they should have equal opportunity in life. Only socialism can deliver that.

    • Replies: @Biff
  36. The real conservative case for America is simple.

    How about, “Show me one prosperous, harmonious, diverse, liberal country in the world a New United States can emulate to improve its lot.”

  37. CBTerry says:

    Does anybody still read National Review? It was created after World War II to justify preserving and continuing the total state, a point Murray Rothbard proved early-on by merely quoting NR’s supposed founding father, CIA agent William F. Buckley, Jr. (I say supposed, because there is evidence that pointed to James Burnham being the true force behind the founding, with Buckley being more of a front-man).

    Buckley, a sophisticated gentleman who spent his final days amusing himself by tossing his urine at passing cars, denigrated Rothbard for the rest of his life and wrote a famously nasty obituary of him.

    The only reason to have read NR in my lifetime was the brilliance of Joseph Sobran, who was famously purged for being an antisemite. Buckley supposedly defended Sobran in a meandering issue, “In Search of Antisemtism,” which as Sobran pointed out never even tried to define antisemitism. Sobran showed that Buckley’s own published correspondence indicated that Norman Podhoretz was effectively editing the magazine at that point. Eventually Sobran was fired for quoting Buckley sounding like Hillary Clinton talking about deplorables.

    http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/download/writers/SobranHowIWasFired.htm

  38. Once the Declaration had served its purpose and the United States was independent, the document had no particularly revered place in American mythology. It became a holy relic only later — and only in the minds of strident egalitarians — because of those five fateful words: “all men are created equal.” There is nothing else in it that people care about today.

    Certainly not the part about the “merciless savages”!

    • Replies: @CBTerry
  39. Biff says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Equality IS possible. All are equal before the law.

    In America, equality means I can buy your world right out from under you. I have equal rights to all the best land, the best resources, I can buy the best politicians, the courts, the state houses, and equal rights to all the media you’ll ever see. My equal rights is gonna have you right by the balls!

    Beware of equal rights.

  40. @Brian Reilly

    I used to subscribe back when I was young and stupid.

    Those were the days when I thought WFB Jr. really had retired from the CIA. 😉

  41. The future name of the capital will be New Jerusalem, D. Z. (District of Zion) and the head of the government won’t be president but Nasi, (prince), as in Judah ha Nasi!

    • Replies: @Francis Miville
  42. Moi says:
    @Brian Reilly

    But weren’t most of our founders genocidal maniacs when it came to the Native Americans….

  43. CBTerry says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    Actually the text is “the merciless Indian Savages” lest there be any doubt to whom it was referring.

  44. jadan says:

    It became a holy relic only later — and only in the minds of strident egalitarians — because of those five fateful words: “all men are created equal.” There is nothing else in it that people care about today.

    Had to stop here. This may be the most colossally ignorant statement I have ever read about the Declaration. It was a political bombshell in the 18th Century not simply because it announced the revolutionary egalitarian political intention of the newly declared political entity called the United States of America, but also because it asserted the “unalienable Rights” of individuals within this political union. People of today, especially libertarians such as Ron Paul, very much care about this unambiguous statement of the primacy of the God given rights of the individual. This is the essence of political conflict today.

    You are a stupid man, Gregory Hood. This is Ron Unz’s concept of freedom of the press, the defense of the unalienable rights of stupidity.

  45. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:

    The real conservative case for America is simple. We love America because it’s ours. We built it. We live here. We are a race of pioneers, settlers, and conquerors. Our nation existed before the Declaration of Independence, and it will continue to exist if the government in Washington D.C. (or whatever it will be named by then) fails completely. If we have to justify our existence to our opponents, we’ve already lost. If conservatives can’t defend America except in universalistic terms, they were never serious about fighting for it in the first place.

    There you go. The blockquote is a foundation upon which something could be built. When everything else rots away, you’ll still have that foundation.

    There is no reward for trying to compromise with groups trying to genocide your society. The strength of the Left is that they realize that and most of the rest of us don’t. The weakness of the Left (shown in 1990s USSR) is that it cannot govern, which is about to be even more graphically shown in the cities and suburbs (which depend on the cities and also have no natural monopolies, hence no economic base). Use that inability to govern to destroy the Left.

  46. Saggy says: • Website

    First, the Declaration had a specific purpose: …… There is nothing else in it that people care about today.

    How can anyone write such an idiotic sentence? Did he forget …

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    This is supposedly the essence of the US government.

    Of course, it is rendered absurd by the military draft, where the US govt. preempts the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of its citizens and sends them half-way around the world to kill and be killed.

    We live in a dream world, and we need to wake up.

    • Replies: @Poco
  47. @Z-man

    IMO Buckley’s behavior had 3 sources: 1) His wife was a prominent Manhattan socialite; 2) Buckley felt socially more comfortable among urbane liberal Jews than reactionary Catholics; 3) “If you can’t beat ’em join ’em.”

    • Replies: @Z-man
  48. @Dumbo:

    ‘National Whoreview’–great, just great!

    Folks, there’s only one way out, and we all know it–secession by whites.

    The South is now the most cucked part of the US, so forget about a ‘Southern’ secession movement; LOS (League of The South) has been around since the mid nineties, and has accomplished–NOTHING AT ALL.

    FWIW, I look to the plains states, north of Texas, along with the northern Rocky Mountain states–Idaho, Montana, Wyoming–as the most likely center of resistance, but they are land-locked. We will need a path to the Gulf or the Atlantic–Pacific is out–too leftist.

    • Replies: @SC Rebel
    , @Neuday
  49. Rich says:
    @animalogic

    Except that the argument has nothing at all to do with police excesses, it’s an attack on ALL Whites. Kneeling Whites who march next to crazed black rioters are only assisting in the murders and rapes of their own people. It’s a weird syndrome I can’t understand. No one riots when a black cop does something illegal, only when Whitey does. Wake up.

  50. @anon

    Hunter Wallace’s piece is tedious and fatally flawed by his unwillingness to discuss the main cause of the phenomenon under discussion, which is that secular Jews support it. The whole ‘anti-Hate’ meme is a creation of ADL and like-minded Jewish orgs and has been cultivated since the 60’s, to momentous effect.

    • Agree: E_Perez
  51. What do you expect from a zionist controlled publication.

  52. Poco says:
    @Saggy

    We volunteer for that shit now. The draft ended 47 years ago.

  53. Usura says:
    @GMC

    But Yes, we were supposed to be a mostly white country from Europe and a Select few other places and our Laws and founding folks wrote it – this way. Fact !!!

    B-b-but post WWII propaganda they made me watch in schooool claims otherwise!

    Sung by Lori Lieberman; care to guess her ethnicity? Lyrics and music written by Lynn Ahrens; care to guess hers?

    Best youtube comment: “Wait, Lady Liberty…she’s eating us!”

    • Agree: WhiteWinger
    • Replies: @CBTerry
  54. SC Rebel says:

    This whole fixation on the phrase “all men are created equal” reminds me of the frequently quoted passage in the Bible “judge not, lest ye be judged”.

    Both cuckservatives and liberals misuse and interpret these phrases incorrectly and out of context.

    Guys like David French for instance are a part of what they call Christianity and yet prior to the 20th century, the people who were Christians would not recognize what passes as Christianity these days. In fact, I dare say they would think it is the work of Satan instead and they would be correct.

    For the liberal, they like to use the Bible and great historical documents when it suits them, while at the same time reviling the documents themselves and the authors. Satan knows scripture and uses it, yet he hates scripture. It seems as though they are just doing his bidding in all of this.

    Neither one of these groups really believes in anything of substance other than the pursuit of hedonism. The left has their brand and the so called right has theirs and yet both are depraved and both go against the laws of God.

    I’ve said this before and I will say it again, the false Right has done far more damage than the blatant Left. Because the false Right pretended to be something they were not and it fooled a lot of good people, including myself.

    We all need to understand that these NR types are not on our side and I don’t think ever will be.

  55. Mefobills says:

    Given the mischief made with the phrases “all men are created equal” and “the pursuit of happiness,” it would have been better if Jefferson had simply written about “life, liberty, and property

    Jefferson did write property:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/07/04/international-dimensions-1776-and-how-an-age-reason-was-subverted/

    __________

    the fact is that the great abolitionist Ben Franklin guided the writing of this document from start to finish. Over 40 corrections to Jefferson’s drafts were made by the old statesman including the erasure of Jefferson’s desired wording of “property” derived from his love of John Locke for the higher Leibnizian idea of “happiness” preferred by Franklin.
    _____________

    Free labor often doesn’t own property, or at least does not own large ranches or farmland. The idea is that free labor converts its labor energy into money. At the beginning of the colonies, there were plenty of “aristocrats” who wanted to enclose all of the land, and then impress formerly free labor.

    The civil war can be thought of as a move by European Aristocrats (and their fellow traveling Jews) to return lands of America back to the colonial system and under European Aristocratic control. European Aristocratic Control is code for London and the Bank of England.

    The revolutionary war was to throw off the yoke of domestic and european land grabbers and bank of england which had thrown the colony’s into depression. There were also plenty of white debt slaves at the time, who were “property” till their debts were paid, and sometimes that was never.

    http://jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/theywereslaves.pdf

    Free white men of the colonies were equal to “aristocratic” white men of England. Free white men of the colonies were also equal to scheming Jewish stock owners of the Bank of England, who in turn coerced King George to make colonial script illegal.

    • Replies: @Franz
  56. @Priss Factor

    “Taylor is a vermin through and through.”

    A little harsh. Taylor is focused on one single symptom of the disease rather than the disease itself. Just because you’re being treated for cancer doesn’t mean your doctor shouldn’t also address your nausea or your depression. It’s true that these latter two will never cure you, but their amelioration will dramatically improve your quality of life in the meantime.

    In my “Sorting Hat” question: “is the Holocaust a hoax?” Jared fails. But he and Taki guided my early progress toward enlightenment, and I’m grateful.

    NR is elementary school. Jared and Taki are high school. Unz is college.

    • Agree: mark green
  57. SC Rebel says:
    @YourOldMan

    Start taking over Washington. Enough people go there, especially Eastern Washington and the balance can be tipped. Especially ripe after that fiasco in Seattle. Even the normies aren’t liking it.

  58. anon[191] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m amazed that anyone reads vile rag anymore? They should change the name from national review to national retreat.

  59. polistra says:

    Buckley was CIA. That’s all I need to know.

    • Replies: @mark green
  60. Mefobills says:

    surviving slaves interviewed in the 1920s had positive things to say about slavery.

    And why not? Black slaves were considered “above” white slaves. Black slaves of that era had pride in their social status.

    Example:

    (from they were white and they were slaves)

    In the course of an 1855 journey up the Alabama River on the steamboat Fashion, Frederic Law Olmsted, the landscape architect who designed New York’s Central Park, observed bales of cotton being thrown from a considerable height into a cargo ship’s hold. The men tossing the bales somewhat recklessly into the hold were negroes, the men in the hold were Irish. Olmsted inquired about this to a mate on the ship. ‘Oh, said the mate, ‘the niggers are worth too much to be risked here; if the Paddies are knocked overboard or get their backs broke, nobody loses anything.” (Frederic Law Olmsted, A Journey to the Seaboard Slave States, pp. 100-101; G.E.M. de Ste. Croix, Slavery and Other Forms of Unfree Labor, p. 27).

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  61. “Why should conservatives discuss reforms at all before the trial of Officer Derek Chauvin?”

    Your question explains the surrender, if that’s what it is. The questions regarding civil war memorobilia has been around ice the 1970’s and has gradually picked up steam that such icons have any impact on criminal justice requires so nuance, but if you think police reform is soley about Mr. Floyd —

    then you are in the wrong park and playing the wrong game.

    Because criminal justice reform including extra judicial police behavior has been in discussion since the late 1960’s and with the advent of the internet and the exposure of whites “getting the treatment” that too is becoming a matter of concern. Your question makes very little sense ion light of the record.

    Or perhaps, you think the governments tactics with Gen Flynn are just dandy or the tactics used against the executive. They are 80 years late to game. And you seem unaware of what the game is.

  62. @Achmed E. Newman

    I subscribed from 1985 til 1994 and dropped it due to the leftward drift even then. It still had good writers in the 1980s and early 1990s – Joe Sobran and Peter Brimelow come to mind, along with carrying ads from the South African Board of Tourism when Whites still ran the country – but the neocons took over and I bailed.

  63. NatRev is bad, and I haven’t visited in years. But let’s remember they’re just the most obvious bellringer for Conservative, Inc.

    • Merely including the word “Jew” in a comment will get you auto-banned at Godlike Productions.
    • Including “nigger” in a comment will get you banished to the cornfield everywhere.
    • “Naming the Jew” gets you permanently banned at Breitbart (hi fellow reprobates!)
    • Questioning the Holocaust or 9/11 or saying “Moochelle” kicks you outta Ace of Spades HQ.
    • Everybody had a ‘RACIST” pile-on at DB Daily Update when I expressed admiration for the peacekeeping efforts of the KKK in the antebellum South. Persona non grata.
    • Discussing the JQ pulls your comment at American Thinker.
    • Trump is God Emperor and Jews are our best allies at Anonymous Conservative.
    • For some reason I’m also banned at Life Site News. Never figured that one out exactly.

    Unz and Daily Stormer. I guess that’s it, and the misogynistic comments at the latter are positively toxic (“all women should be raped”). Slim pickin’s out there.

    P.S. I recently tried to sell a Toyota Highlander on Facebook Marketplace, but the ad was initially rejected because it “didn’t meet community standards.” I’ve never posted to Facebook in my life, so I suspect these sites talk to one another and I’m in a file.

    • Thanks: Mefobills
  64. CBTerry says:
    @Usura

    Do not underestimate the significance of Schoolhouse Rock. There is probably not an Antifa protestor around who did not grow up watching it. It was ubiquitous on Saturday mornings when I was young. I couldn’t stand it — I thought the songs were awful — but then my musical tastes were always unusual. My far more normal sister liked it so much that she bought me a VHS tape of them as an adult. My mother, whom I don’t think ever actually listened to any, thought they were great because they were “educational”.

    One part of your comment with which I take issue: did they really make you watch any in school? Propaganda is most successful when people want it, and people I knew wanted Schoolhouse Rock. If there is one thing our ruling class understands, it is propaganda.

    Looking over Wikipedia, it seems that Schoolhouse Rock was started with the aim of helping children with multiplication.

    So it is interesting that within a few years they were putting out songs by Jews promoting multiculturalism. I bet there is an interesting story in there that will never be told.

  65. @Mefobills

    Before the Civil War, a railroad was built in South using Irish labor instead of slaves because slaves were more valuable. The joke was if an Irishman dies it’s just an addition to the Kingdom of Heaven, but if a slave dies it’s \$1200 dollars. A large sum in those days.

    A wise friend explained why in his opinion slavery was doomed:

    You own a car and take care of it. If something goes wrong, you get it fixed. That’s what Black slaves were – valuable property.

    You have an employee. If he gets sick (points to the door). Employees were often paid just enough to prevent starvation.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  66. Anonymous[127] • Disclaimer says:
    @jbwilson24

    with the way things are going, you’d be very lucky for america to turn into brazil

  67. Z-man says:
    @jack daniels

    Yeah, he sold out all right and denied and betrayed his associate Joe Sobran.

    • Replies: @DCThrowback
  68. neutral says:

    American conservatism is nothing more than accepting white genocide with politeness.

    • Agree: 3g4me
    • Replies: @Anon
  69. @jbwilson24

    Smart guy, but absolutely clueless about the nature of the enemy.

    I can understand Taylor’s position many years. Same with Bill Buckley.

    For a time, it seemed some Jews were having a change of mind. Many Jews had been on the far left in US history, but with the rise of Israel and fading of communism and with rising Jewish success in every field, it seemed as though Jews would become more patriotic and conservative. Also, the Neocons initially discussed more about fighting communism and domestic policy than US empire for Israel-First interests.

    But boy, did Buckley and others turn out to be wrong. Paradoxically, Jewish success and dominance(made possible with white support and even submission) made Jews even more anti-white. Also, the fall of communism made Jews even more radical. Not in the direction of leftism but ‘culture wars’ or ‘culture schwarz’. Just like the fading of communism in China necessitated the vilification of Japan to bolster a new nationalism, Jewish power sought justification by endless war on whiteness as the source of all evil. This way, the Jewish tool of Diversity could be united against whitey. Also, fixation on whitey meant fewer people would notice US is really run by Jewish Power.

    Also, if whites thought Jews would be nice to them cuz of white cuckery, they were wrong. People despise weakness. Such contempt was bound to be stronger among Jews because they see the world in terms of us versus them, We Jews versus them Goyim. And Jews nurse long resentments and hatreds toward Christians and Muslims. So, when Jews get the upperhand, they don’t hesitate to use whatever means to destroy millions of Muslims in the Middle East & North Africa and destroy the White West and White Race and, of course, Christianity that has been vandalized with globo-homo ‘gay’ colors. Indeed, outright destruciton of churches are less harmful than adorning them with ‘gay’ colors. A destroyed church underwent physical desecration, not a spiritual one. But a church that accepts ‘gay’ colors has spiritually sold itself to the devil, and it seems the new Jewish covenant isn’t with God but with satanic forces.

    So, while Buckley and Taylor’s hopes for Jewish-white alliances around the time of Cold War’s end was understandable, it no longer is. When Jews treat Taylor like Zionists treat Palestinians, you’d think Taylor would finally wake up and man up and side with Palestinians. But no, the cuck is so much like Sal in THE GODFATHER who sucks up to Barzini. Deep down inside, Taylor is not a man of honor or principles. One of the dark sides of conservatism is mindless submission to authority and hierarchy. Since Jews are smartest and richest, Taylor cucks and cucks like a dog before the master, even when the master kicks him in the ass. Even though Jewish Power cuts off free speech and financial services to Taylor just like Zionists in W. Bank cut off water to Palestinians, Taylor’s shtick is “I stand with Israel and screw those Palestinians.” This man is beneath contempt. He is utter vermin. He is what Dirty Harry says of some punk:

    If people like Taylor really want to fight, they need a bit of cynicism. Instead of putting themselves only in a defensive position by invoking free speech, go on the moral offensive by naming and shaming Zionism as evil hate speech against Arabs and Palestinians. Attack globo-homo stuff as not about ‘gay rights’ but ‘Gay Rites’, a neo-pseudo-‘spiritual’ war on true morality and spirituality. LGBT lost its secular creds long ago when (1) it demanded that churches adopt homo colors and (2) demanded people be witch-hunted and destroyed for not bending over to homo-mania. Secular liberalism is about free speech for all. Globo-Homo is about mandatory worship of homo ass-cendancy.

    In diplomacy, you can negotiate with all sides. In war however, it’s us versus them. There is a Jewish War on White. Negotiation is no longer an option. When Jews are in war mode in the Culture War while whites like Taylor and Buckley were in negotiation mode, guess whose side was gonna win? But then, the problem goes deeper than Buckley and Taylor. The white liberal establishment ruled the US after WWII, and they ceded not only power but moral authority to Jews, and that meant Jews could revile and condemn whites but not vice versa.

    Still, whenever the vile neocons made demands on Buckley and others to purge the Paleos, the cuckeroos did so in the hope that, “Gee, maybe if we dump Sobran or Buchanan, the Neocon Jews will finally be appeased and be partners of good will.” Instead, Neocons saw weakness and craven wussiness and made more and more demands. It even came to demanding that conzos cuck to ‘gay marriage’ and dragqueen story hour.

    The odd thing about Taylor is he refused to cuck to Jews on so many key issues like black crime and IQ differences. He stuck to his HBD guns. He defied so many Jewish demands but still cucks to Jewish Power. But how can this work out? It’s like a dog that defies all the orders of the master but still being loyal to the master. Does the dog think the master will show it any favors? No, the master will see it as a bad dog and treated it accordingly. The only option for a disobedient dog is to leave the master and turn into a proud wolf that howls the truth than barks on command. Taylor won’t play fetch but still rolls over before Jewish Power. So pathetic.

    Taylor is like the character Vic(Arthur Kennedy) in MAN FROM LARAMIE. In a way, Vic is the most reasonable and sensible man in the movie as he tries to get along and compromise with everyone: With the father, the son, with James Stewart character, and with the Indians. But because lacks core loyalty and tries to friends with all sides, he ends up betraying and being reviled by all sides. You can play such game from the position of power but not from position of weakness. If you’re weak, you must stick with one side or band together with others to form a core unit of power. And this is true especially in a war when it’s kill or be killed. At this point, there should be no doubt that Jewish Powers is out for Mitzvah, the hunt, to destroy whiteness. It’s either white power or Jewish power. Whites didn’t ask for this, but Jewish Power insisted on this sick game.

    If Taylor wants to suck up to Jews and appease them, he should be like David French or Rich Lowry. Go whole hog as whole dog. But, the fact is he has displeased Jewish Power greatly to the point where it has utterly censored and deplatformed him. Yet, he still tries negotiate a way out and gain favor with Jews by supporting Zionism and Jewish supremacism over Palestinians.
    At this point, the white race should do a big mea culpa on what was done to the Palestinians. By helping Jews to destroy another people, whites thought Jews would be nice to them… only to discover that whites were the next Palestinians in the eyes of Jews. Still, even if Jews had reciprocated with appreciation for white support of Zionism, it was a terrible thing to do. Palestinians did NOTHING bad to Americans or Europeans, but they were destroyed. Also, for some perverse reason, Palestinians had to pay the wage of guilt for what Europeans had done in WWII. It doesn’t get any fouler than that.
    Jewish Power is all the more disgusting because, even as it denounces whiteness for its history of ‘racism’ and Jim Crow and apartheid, Jews are doing all such and even worse to Palestinians and Arabs. How many blacks were lynched in 100 yrs compared to how many Arabs died as the result of Wars for Israel? (And how many Slavs died at the hands of Jewish Bolshies?)

    On sucking up to Jewish Power, there is no difference between Taylor and National Review. The NatR cucks yammer on and on about the problems of ‘racism’ in US history, but they NEVER mention that NatR totally endorses Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. David French supported IDF killers shooting women and children in Gaza. And Taylor is the SAME WAY. ‘Muh Israel’.

    Now, this doesn’t mean Taylor can’t have Jewish friends or Jewish allies. It means he should give up all hope on Jewish Power. In the end, it’s the power that matters. German Jews had German friends who were anti-Nazi, but German Power under Nazi rule as resolutely anti-Jewish and Jews could not hope for negotiation. People like Paul Gottfried and Robert Weissberg don’t have any power and they have zero sway with Jewish Power. If Taylor wants to keep in touch with them, that’s all fine and well, but he should never think that having such Jewish friends will lead to change of heart in Jewish Power.

    Also, if people like Taylor(and Trump) think Jews will be flattered by whites visibly praising Israel to high heaven all the time, they are gravely mistaken because Jews are anxious to hide their power. They want Jewishness to be invoked as something deserving of sympathy, not mindless awe(which would imply Jews are masters of the world). Furthermore, Jews aren’t entirely wrong in distrusting white good-will. After all, consider the times whites broke their word and contracts with American Indians and other peoples. Anglos too have a long history of dirty tricks. Jews also sense that much of white cuckery has to do with craven opportunism that genuine love of Jews, especially because Jews know that their kind isn’t very lovable. Even Jews often can’t stand other Jews.

    • Replies: @Geowhizz
  70. Agent76 says:

    Jul 10, 2020 How Do You Know What You Know?

    That question is a lot more important than most people assume, and the recent ridiculous spectacle surrounding Covid-19 is a shining example of that.

  71. Mefobills says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    And yet white people continue to have programmed guilt rattling around in their noggins.

    https://store.amren.com/product/racism-guilt/

    While we are goofing on cuck-servatives for being idiots, below is an excerpt from above link at amren:
    ___________
    Dr. Braun has found that like American whites, most South African whites are incapable of talking sensibly about race. Like American whites, they now even take a perverse joy in applauding their own dispossession. He describes the tempestuous enthusiasm of white audiences for the anti-white South African movie “Cry Freedom,” and writes, “the positive joy with which they cheer their own demise is quite amazing, isn’t it?” He speculates that this joy stems from “a fatal flaw in the white race: the capacity for self-flagellating, exaggerated and unwarranted guilt and the self-hatred that seems to underlie it.”

    This self-hatred is at the heart of the white man’s increasing insistence that he is a miserable racist who is to blame for the black man’s failures:
    _______________

    Self hatred and pathological altruism is behind some of white people dysfunction. You and I can point out how slavery conditions for blacks were actually not that bad, but self deceived and propagandized whites will go into denial and self flagellate themselves.

    And Dr. Braun points out that Blacks are different than whites (News flash to cuckservatives and liberals):

    Ultimately, as Dr. Braun recognizes, his observations illuminate the terrible flaws in the white man. Without constant urging from liberal whites, virtually all Africans would be content to put their fate in the hands of a race that they recognize as smarter and more fair-minded than their own. Dr. Braun puts it this way:

    “(1) Blacks cannot manage a modern industrial democratic society; (2) blacks know this and would never think of denying it were it not for white liberals insisting otherwise; (3) except for those black elites who hope to take power, black rule is in no one’s interest, especially not blacks; (4) blacks know this better than anyone and are terrified of black rule.”

    A white patriarchy is the natural order for white civilizations. God over Man. Man over Woman. Woman over Children.

    White patriarchs cannot be cuck-servative apologists who twist reality to fit their a-prori narratives.

    Whites need to pull head out-o-rectum, and understand that blacks actually want and like a rigid hierarchical civilization (as in the old south), as blacks evolved in a tribal structure.

    • Agree: WhiteWinger
  72. Emslander says:

    Abraham Lincoln explained himself fully in the “House Divided” speech of 1858 in Springfield, Illinois. It’s a masterpiece of policy, principle and prophesy. You can’t read any of Lincoln’s heartfelt deliveries, especially this one, without realizing that he not only redefined the United States of America for its transition from an agrarian to an industrial nation, but also reformed the use of the English language.

    When he said, “I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free,” he said it all. Stephen Douglas won the 1858 election for Senator from Illinois, for which Lincoln’s speech was the manifesto of his campaign, but Lincoln won the ages.

    He didn’t trouble himself with questions of how things would look after slavery ended. He just wanted slavery to end and the Union to prevail. With that idea, after losing nearly every election he ever stood for, he was elected President and the South, knowing what he meant, tried to secede. The rest, of course, . . .

    If you have Faith and stay inside yourself, working honestly and recognizing your status as a mere creature of God, someone some day will, like Lincoln, come along to explain it all to us clearly and the country will be set on its next course.

  73. Anonymous[737] • Disclaimer says:

    Another contributor, David French, says America “has a long history of brutal and shameful mistreatment of racial minorities,”

    Just to say, every nation in the world – bar none – has, “a long history of brutal and shameful mistreatment of racial minorities,” it’s what nations do to ensure social integrity.

  74. Forbes says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Agree. Button already used.

  75. One doesn’t change history by erasing it.

    Maybe one can use the above concept as part of refreshing story line and write a book about it, titled: “2020” – A catch that zeroes in on Reality.

    Lessons can [and should be] learned, but going after statues instead of the 0,00001% that got ‘you’ into this mess isn’t a way forward.

    Cui bono…?

  76. ” If we have to justify our existence to our opponents, we’ve already lost.”

    As I’ve said before, the Right needs to ditch all these ideological hobby horses (America because… Evola! Spengler! Vatican I!) and base themselves on Max Stirner: my preference for a White nation requires no justification other than my ability to create and sustain it from enemies foreign and domestic.

    Once we give in to the need to “justify” ourselves, we have already lost. Our opponents will never admit “say, your argument is sound, I guess I was wrong; sail on, White man!”, and the average citizen won’t understand or accept our fancy intellectual constructs (Kali Yuga! Original Sin!, etc.) either.

    • Agree: Whitewolf
  77. National Review has long been the nation’s premier cuckservative publication. This is right in line with their proud tradition of negrolatry.

    • Agree: Z-man
    • Replies: @GazaPlanet
    , @Bill Jones
  78. Neuday says:
    @YourOldMan

    Idaho has a seaport; the Port of Lewiston. About 10% of all US wheat gets shipped down the Snake to the Columbia and out to sea.

    Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington are not at all like the coastal counties.

  79. Anonymous[305] • Disclaimer says:

    NR is Zionist occupied territory.

  80. Truth3 says:

    What did you expect from the (((National Review)))

  81. @polistra

    I avidly watched William F. Buckley’s ‘Firing Line’ on PBS for years. It was generally an excellent program. There was nothing like it. Buckley was brilliant and he had class. For American TV, Buckley was in a class by himself. Firing Line had many of the leading intellectuals of his day on as guests. Buckley challenged many of them as well as the liberal shibboleths of that era. Buckley was a breath of fresh air during this time (circa 1965 – 1995). He was America’s leading conservative intellectual during that era and he (pretty much) deserved that status, despite his flaws.

    Towards the end, Buckley threw in the towel. Though he was genuine Catholic, Buckley was increasingly surrounded by Jews and Firing Line received funding from them. It was the slow, stealthy infiltration of ‘conservativism’ by neo-conservativism that ultimately killed National Review. The neocons finally upended paleo-conservativism altogether, making it safe for Israel. But Buckley as well as Fring Line did some important and excellent work in the early days. This includes some tough discussions (by TV standards) on Israel.

    I think I spotted Joe Sobran once on Firing Line and Buckley gave Cuddahy time to discuss his anti-Jewish book called ‘The Ordeal of Civility’. Buckley was ahead of his time but he was still a great resource back in that era, long before the internet came into being. Buckley may have been a flawed and overly-ambitious man but he taught me a lot.

  82. “Just to say, every nation in the world – bar none – has, “a long history of brutal and shameful mistreatment of racial minorities,” it’s what nations do to ensure social integrity.;

    The point is that we are supposed to have been different. Unique.

    A signing city on a hill. To decide we are merely like everyone else is admit the enterprise a failure.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  83. @kuraudo

    … and after the white statues will come that which they represent – us.

    Clear as a bell, that slope, and we’ll be at the bottom of it surprisingly soon.

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
  84. Franz says:
    @Mefobills

    the fact is that the great abolitionist Ben Franklin guided the writing of this document from start to finish

    Good points, just as an interesting addition:

    Ben Franklin may have been a guide, but for many years Tom Paine was considered the actual author, or at least the “ghost writer” of the main document.

    James Perloff wrote a brief overview of Paine’s possible involvement, based largely on his own reading and Joseph Lewis’ 1947 study which Perloff cites:

    https://jamesperloff.com/2016/06/30/the-american-revolution-part-ii-who-wrote-the-declaration-of-independence/

    For the grandaddy of them all there’s Junius Unmasked or, Thomas Paine the author of the Letters of Junius and the Declaration of Independence. That one is free on Kindle at Amazon and several other places online.

    Franklin might have been a hardcore abolitionist, but Paine was a fanatic. Reading Junius makes it difficult to believe that Paine didn’t have a hidden paw in the document.

    But it’s strictly a theory. Perloff’s introduction to it is comprehensive and interesting.

    • Thanks: Mefobills
  85. @mark green

    conservatism is about ‘conserving’ something…, the question, in this case, is ‘What?’ The Status Quo?

    • Replies: @mark green
    , @vot tak
  86. lloyd says: • Website

    A hundred years in the future, people will find baffling that millions of successful hard working Americans suddenly were “sold down the river” having contacted a serious illness. The rest of the developed world had socialised medicine. I hope Americans won’t start tearing down statues of late twentieth century leaders solely for that reason.

  87. the neo-con Jews used carrot and stick to bring Buckley into line.

    carrot: his show on public TV

    stick: homosexual blackmail.

    now why would anyone expect a Zionist Jewrag like NR to “defend America”? It’s purpose

    is using White America to keep Israel-in-Palestine on the map while

    Palestine’ing Whites in America.

  88. Anon[386] • Disclaimer says:
    @neutral

    LOL

    Exactly so.

    Thanks.

  89. @Old Palo Altan

    … and after the white statues will come that which they represent – us.

    Already happening.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/heavy.com/news/2020/07/jessica-doty-whitaker-dead/amp/

  90. dvorak says:
    @ATBOTL

    What is NR’s circulation like these days. Didn’t it lose something like 20% of its subscribers from 2015 to 2017 over the Never Trump thing?

    They lose 10% of their subscribers every year to the Reaper.

  91. @mark green

    Agreed.

    One has to be over 70 to remember that National Review began very well, and was a haven for serious (i.e. European) conservatism: people like Molnar and Kuehnelt-Leddihn. It was after NR ran a viciously negative review of Molnar’s The Counter-Revolution in 1969 that I stopped taking it seriously.

    Firing Line was better, and for longer. Buckley was indeed a serious Catholic and thus both disgusted and unnerved by Vatican II, but he remained true to its perennial truths and rites (he had a priest come to his house on Sundays to say the old Latin Mass for him, right up to his death) He interviewed serious people, often on topics which NR itself rarely addressed, and had always done his homework beforehand. Almost all of the debates are well worth watching today.

    As for his distaste for his fellow Catholics – don’t forget that he was partly educated in England, at Beaumont, the most expensive of the Jesuit public schools. A stone’s throw from Eton, it consciously modelled itself on that venerable place, and attracted the sons of both the old Catholic aristocracy and the mostly Irish nouveaux-riches. For the rest of his life Buckley identified with the former of these two quite distinct groups, which made life in his native country always something of a trial (I remember a Firing Line which he did with students from Eton, and they were very impressive in precisely the ways which would have appealed to a typical American Anglophile).

    I never met Buckley myself but I knew well a number of his friends, and they all agreed that it was his wife who was the socialite. It was she who made it clear that their invitations would grow fewer if the articles about the Jewish question, in any case always rare and never more than oblique, did not cease, and that quickly.

    He bowed to her needs.

    • Replies: @Catiline
  92. The nature of current PC nuttery can be understood from “Both Sides Now”, Judy Collins song composed by Joni Mitchell.

    Consider the lyrics.

    [MORE]

    Rows and floes of angel hair
    And ice cream castles in the air
    And feather canyons everywhere
    I’ve looked at clouds that way

    But now they only block the sun
    They rain and snow on everyone
    So many things I would have done
    But clouds got in my way

    I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
    From up and down, and still somehow
    It’s cloud illusions I recall
    I really don’t know clouds at all

    There’s the happy dream of clouds and the reality of rain and snow.

    Still, “it’s cloud’s illusions I recall”.

    Moons and Junes and Ferris wheels
    The dizzy dancing way you feel
    As every fairy tale comes real
    I’ve looked at love that way

    But now it’s just another show
    You leave ’em laughing when you go
    And if you care, don’t let them know
    Don’t give yourself away

    I’ve looked at love from both sides now
    From give and take, and still somehow
    It’s love’s illusions I recall
    I really don’t know love at all

    She sees both sides of love. The initial romance and hope and then what happens when love rubs against reality.

    But., “It’s love’s illusion I recall”.

    And so, BLM has life because it’s an illusion. Many Americans know of the brutal reality of race, but reality is… unpleasant. So, it’s back to the dream over and over and over and over.

  93. @Ray Caruso

    National Review was once sympathetic to segregation.

  94. @mark green

    Buckley was amusing and smart–but he was “controlled opposition”.

    He wanted to you calm and comfortable while the sociopath elites placed you in a boiling pot and very slowly turned up the temperature.

    • Agree: GazaPlanet
  95. Catiline says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    Buckley’s Anglo-mania was the source of his deficiencies. His inadequacy with regards to the Jewish question was it’s derivative. His wife Pat was an Anglo-Protestant Canadian. Very pretty lady.

  96. vot tak says:

    A couple of sentences in and it was clear this article is simply more zionazi-faggotry designed to promote white supremacism and race conflicts in the usa. This is bottom rung psywar in the service of israel to keep people emotional, stupid and attacking each other, rather than joining together to eradicate the zionist power configuration/new world order oligarchy running the west.

    BTW, national review, like almost all far right propaganda organs works to promote zionazi-gay psywar. Very, very little rightwing media in the west is not an extension of zionazi faggotry.

    • Replies: @Poco
  97. @Daniel Rich

    conservatism is about ‘conserving’ something…, the question, in this case, is ‘What [did Buckley conserve]?’

    Good question. It requires a complex answer. Buckley revered many of the cultural norms and traditional icons of historic America. In brief: he wanted to preserve/conserve pre-Sixties America. This touches on a host of subjects, mores, and ‘equality’ movements that began to erupt during that era.

    America was a segregated culture at this time, Why?–because Whites were still allowed to live among other Whites exclusively and that’s how they liked it. White Americans preferred homogenous White neighborhoods. This is a totally normal predisposition. On the other hand, what we have to today regarding race mixing is abnormal and artificial. Watch is fall apart.

    America was still (relatively) free from the grip of the Zio-Jewish lobby during this era (before LBJ). After the assassination of JFK, things began to change rapidly. The US Supreme Court played a pivotal role in many of our nation’s cultural disruptions.

    Buckley was a Cold Warrior. He saw communism (and its variants) as a real menace. He was suspicious of Big Government but he did support an imposing military (at least, when the USSR was still standing). Buckley defended Sen. McCarthy from liberals who laughed at the idea that commies had penetrated Washington and Hollywood in the 50s. Buckley was ultimately proven correct on this point.

    Implicity, Buckley also rejected many of the underlying assumptions of the ‘civil rights movement’. He was, to put it mildly, not an enthusiastic supporter of school integration. He also opposed school bussing as a solution to ‘segregation’. Buckley opposed Roe v. Wade and other judicial fiats, including the gag order on religion that was discovered and imposed by the SCOTUS in the early 60s.

    Buckley wrote over a dozen books and many hundreds of articles. He was prolific and very well informed. As the host of ‘Firing Line’, Buckley navigated the turbulent, liberal waters on PBS for decades. This was no small feat for an anti-liberal intellectual.

    Buckley was very leery of the sexual revolution that began to percolate during the sixties, as well as many other anti-traditional movements that emerged during that time. I did not read Buckley’s first book, ‘God and Man at Yale’, but it created a lot of waves when it was published way back when. Buckley certainly helped launch the modern conservative movement.

    Throughout his life, Buckley was described as a ‘traditional Catholic’. I presume that this was roughly accurate. Buckley was a great wit and he easily held his own with the likes of Dershowitz, Norman Mailer, Gore Vidal, Christopher Hitchens, Timothy Leary, Henry Kissinger, Noam Chomsky and dozens of other intellectual luminaries. Sadly, Buckley rolled over for the neocons as time went along, preferring to preserve his status over his erstwhile cause. Despite his flaws, Buckley is still a towering figure.

    It was Patrick Buchanan who eventually assumed the position of America’s foremost conservative towards the end of the 20th century IMHO. Sadly, as far as I know, Buckley never invited PJB on his program. This was likely due to Jewish pressures at PBS.

  98. vot tak says:
    @Daniel Rich

    The zionazi-gay status quo. I’m not sure what unites these freaks. Their extreme selfishness, their zombiefied sheep mentality (note: not just sheep, but sheep that have been taken down several steps further and zombiefied) or their fecal fetish. Probably all 3 plus other toxic influences and degeneracies.

  99. @animalogic

    In part it is aspirational — ie a kind of “flattening of the curve” in terms of class, power, opportunity etc. Never to be reached in any absolute sense but worth having it as a “goal”.

    Why would you orient your civilization around an “aspirational goal” that’s acknowledged to be impossible? That’s madness. Nor is it what this country did.

  100. ‘National Review’ Fails to Defend America

    Mission accomplished.

  101. Geowhizz says:
    @Priss Factor

    Yeah. A Jewish friend mentioned to me “I don’t like those people.” Jews. Weird.

  102. @mark green

    Cuddahy on Firing Line . question asked at 17:45

    • Thanks: mark green
    • Replies: @Hibernian
  103. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green

    buckley (puny b) foremost in purging truthers,
    eg Joseph Sobran, and elevating Yid.

    Conservatives, the few real ones remaining,
    should have a day a week for pissing on buckley’s memory.

    https://www.jpost.com/opinion/columnists/in-the-diaspora-william-f-buckley-and-the-jews

    • Replies: @mark green
  104. @anon

    Interesting. Thank you. Let me say that Buckley wasn’t quite the pro-Israel lap dog that the Jewish author of this article wishes he was. This Jerusalem Post tribute is after-the-fact Jewish propaganda. Jews love to claim extraordinary gentiles as unconditional allies. Only it’s not generally true.

    Unfortunately, yes, Buckley did throw Joe Sobran overboard (and perhaps, others) as he took the less difficult route; namely, go with the flow when it comes to distancing himself from intellectuals who were too far ahead of their time vis-a-vis organized Jewry. Nevertheless, I read some extraordinary anti-Israel articles in National Review when Buckley was its editor (written by Sobran, usually). I also saw a few no-holds-barred exchanges on Firing Line with Arabs complaining about Israeli terror and human rights abuses. This was bold television that the Jews did not appreciate. So Buckley deserves some credit. Buckley also regularly published and praised dissident film critic, John Simon. Simon was also on the edge when it came to the Jews. Buckley called John Simon “the greatest film critic of the 20th century.” I agree.

    Unfortunately, WFB ultimately buckled and went with the Jews. He was never however as slavishly pro-Zionist as George Will and countless other ‘conservatives’.

    All things considered, Firing Line was probably the best talk show in TV history. The best (for intellectuals). Only Crossfire (with Buchanan and Kinsley) was close to being as intense, deep, and robust.

    I also recall seeing more than one extended Firing Line debate on illegal immigration. This was back in the 80s! Peter Brimelow was on Buckley’s team in this extraordinary debate. It was just one of many.

    Below is just one example of what you might find on a typical Firing Line. It was almost always an exhilarating intellectual exchange. There’s nothing on TV now that comes close to Buckley’s ‘Firing Line’ or CNN’s ‘Crossfire’ when Buchanan/Kinsley hosted it and the network was owned by Ted Turner. But those days are long gone.

  105. “Pioneers, Settlers and Conquerors” hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, right, because crying like a bunch of closet homosexuals on a fucking neo-nazi site like this about losing your wealth, land and women to Asians, Jews, blacks and Latin Americans is the epitome of “conquest”. The only real conqueror that Europe ever produced, a man who fought against powerful, well organized non-European societies and not seminude “natives” of Africa and the Americas, was Alexander III of Macedon. He was also a faggot and a proud race-mixer and if he could see this modern atrocity called “Murica” he would be scandalized by the cowardice, weakness and immaturity of the vast majority of white Americans. A people stupendously degenerate that rely on Jewish intellect for their wealth creation and on Latin American labor for the very food they eat. I just imagine if he could read about “Muricans” “bravery” in the Korean and Vietnam wars, ouch.

    • Replies: @Emslander
    , @Hibernian
  106. William F. Buckley needed a loan for a yacht. He had some new boat shoes, don’t you see?

    Who gave him that loan with great terms? Can you guess?

    Destroyer, your name is Judah.

  107. Thomasina says:
    @anon

    That was an excellent article by Hunter Wallace. Great synopsis, and he touched on so many good points. I hope he writes more on this topic.

    Hitchens (last video clip in the article) blames it on the communists and says they must be commended for how they’ve pulled it off. He said they realized it couldn’t be done by violent overthrow, so they had to do it slowly. So for the last 40 years communists have infiltrated U.S. institutions, taken over the media, TV, publishing houses, telecommunications, academia and changed school curriculum all on their own, by stealth? Yeah, right!

    I think the people behind this would like us to “believe” that it was the communists, just as they want us to believe that Black Lives Matter and Antifa’s recent emergence was just a spontaneous reaction (and not planned and organized well ahead of time). How many Antifa and Black Lives Matter arsonists have been arrested?

    The graphs depicting the escalating use of words like “diversity” and “political correctness” and “racism” in print media (notably the New York Times) was an eye-opener. I can’t even remember all of the words now, but somebody definitely has an agenda here.

    I agree with the 40 to 50 year time line. I just don’t agree with Hitchens that it’s just some communists who have done this, all because they believe they’re right and they’re doing it for the good of humanity. Nobody works for 40 to 50 years for the good of humanity.

    What has a more truthful ring is it’s being done for power, control and wealth.

    But good article by Hunter Wallace!

  108. @Ray Caruso

    But, if he is to be believed, we have the Cuckery of NRO to thank for the Z-man blog.

  109. Black patron live calls Dallas restaurant under BLM protest, “more nafarious, more insidious than it seems…”

    https://www.instagram.com/tv/CChuSeWJxm5/?igshid=f4htjzbk4tdi

  110. Emslander says:
    @Anti-White

    A people stupendously degenerate that rely on Jewish intellect for their wealth creation and on Latin American labor for the very food they eat.

    Be patient. Your disability check is in the mail.

    • Replies: @Anti-White
  111. I am shocked, shocked I tell you that National Cuckview is surrendering to the woke Mobs… There is your conservatives of Willie Fraud Buckley.

  112. KenH says:

    This is historical cucking by the National Review. They conveniently airbrushed the confederacy out of the national story and are rewriting American history to make it more palatable to the radical left while virtue signaling at the same time.

    Reading summaries of the articles one would think most of our great men of the past were actually partial social justice warriors.

    Adn writers named Yuval Levin and Joseph Epstein? Great, Jews lecturing white American goys about their history. But it’s evidence that NR has been hijacked by Jews and is now being used to further their interests at our expense.

  113. @mark green

    For many of us boomers, Buckley will always be best remembered for his clashes with Gore Vidal during their series of debates during the two conventions in 1968. In one debate, which took place at the DNC Convention in Chicago a night after clashes between police and protesters, an exasperated Buckley said to Vidal:

    “Now listen you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in your goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered.”

    If Buckley had made the same remark today (the debate was on ABC and moderated by Howard K Smith), it would have been censored before airing, and “Firing Line” would have been cancelled by PBS.

    Both Buckley and Vidal were intellectual giants compared to the mainstream TV talking heads today.

  114. Or maybe, when declaring that “all men are created equal,” the Founders simply meant men like themselves — white men. This was the argument advanced by racists, south and north, in the 19th century

    Quite amusing that the establishment still tries to pretend that Jefferson & co were racial egalitarians. How convenient.

    A key problem with the establishment left/right creation of egalitarian Jefferson is that we have something called the internet:

    Comparing them (Blacks) by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. It would be unfair to follow them to Africa for this investigation. – Thomas J.

    Conservative Inc is truly ridiculous. As with liberals they seem in total denial that they can no longer lie about race and history. But unlike liberals they don’t offer anything to the masses. What does Conservative Inc even stand for? No one knows and no one cares. Conservative Inc is a weird offshoot of race denial and corporate worship that tries to compete against liberalism. Race doesn’t exist AND too bad if you are poor in America. What a heart warming combination. Ruthless libertarian economic policy combined with liberal race denial. Just can’t see why it isn’t more popular.

    I noticed that NR article had a whopping 3 comments. What a joke of a publication. Huge sections of Minneapolis were burned to the ground by leftists and NR is trying to convince us that Jefferson was a really swell guy and not racist at all.

    • Replies: @Sya Beerens
  115. @follyofwar

    I recall Vidal had a far better recollection of history while Buckley was more focused on ornate language.

  116. Agent76 says:

    January 6, 2016 Neocons at National Review: ‘Stop Calling Us Neocons!’

    When pondering the intellectual decline of political movements, it is hard not to call to mind the former flagship publication of the Buckleyite wing of conservatism called National Review.

    http://antiwar.com/blog/2016/01/06/neocons-at-national-review-stop-calling-us-neocons/

  117. Anon[350] • Disclaimer says:

    The National Review’s sole purpose is to put forth the propaganda necessary to prevent the Right from fighting the Left with a strong enough platform.

    Any failure to completely refute the National Review and its broader politics has the only outcome of assuring the Left’s total victory.

    The National Review is the wedge in the open door for communism. Given the communist ideological roots of the people currently associated with it, this should be expected.

    Any other characterization of the National Review, and more specifically the Irving and Bill Kristol Trotskysists associated with it, is misleading and damaging to conservatism and this nation.

    • Replies: @Robert Bruce
  118. @Emslander

    Did “hubby” pay your late rent already? If not, I send you the check!

    • Replies: @Emslander
  119. @Z-man

    How could you leave out he preferred the company of men?

    That led to the CIA compromise imo

    Just wonder if they found out during his time at Yale or after

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  120. Emslander says:
    @Anti-White

    Snappy comeback fail! Sorry. Not even funny. No make sense.

    • Replies: @Anti-White
  121. @Emslander

    Learn English, it helps! “No make sense” LOL

    • Replies: @Emslander
  122. @kuraudo

    A valid slippery slope is “If you give into homosexual demands about not classifying them as a mental illness, next they will be demanding gay marriage.”

    As with removing childbearing as the fundamental reason for marriage. And its sacramentality. Same-sex weddings are at the bottom of these slippery slopes.

    (Which is why they’re consummated in the bottom!)

    Not that it should matter: tearing down statues is inherently anti-civilizational, but I digress.

    Even tearing down the enemies of civilization, e.g., Lenin or Ceausescu?

    AT LONG LAST, LENIN STATUE TOPPLED IN ROMANIA

    Not that what’s replaced them is much of an improvement.

    7 Controversial Statues in Bucharest That Everyone Hates

  123. @DCThrowback

    When I read the posts here about how WFB Jr. was a “devout Catholic” I have to chuckle….should I ruin it and explain the humor?… 🙂

  124. Emslander says:
    @Anti-White

    I figured it was your regular idiom.

  125. NR, since at least the 60s, has been there to “police the Right”

    That is to say, if you were going to say things that spread ideas potentially threatening to the power of Jews (who are forever pushing Left), you were out. National Review cannot be called conservative anymore than Francis can be called someone who believes the Catholic Faith. They are more than willing to attack anyone who holds to the system of values that prevailed among conservatives in America a few decades ago, just as Francis is hell-bent on attacking anyone who believes what the Church has perennially taught.

  126. National Review has long been a joke at least since the death of W.F. Buckley and probably since they threw the John Birch Society under the bus… Whence why the Derb was scrubbed and has a home at the Unz… He speaketh too much truth!

    • Replies: @GazaPlanet
  127. @VinnyVette

    John “10th Amendment is our shield” Derbyshire. Is definitely part of the problem, was he actually so clueless that he thought that a warning to children against going into dangerous black neighborhoods would be tolerated by the homosexuals receiving their paychecks from the zhids?

  128. Poco says:
    @vot tak

    White Supremacy eases racial conflict.

    • Replies: @vot tak
  129. @mark green

    Buckley revered many of the cultural norms and traditional icons of historic America. In brief: he wanted to preserve/conserve pre-Sixties America.

    I’ve watched some of his debates and I’m not impressed.

    He reminds me of Fox news talking heads that try to defang the left while pretending that race doesn’t exist. Sure he is far more articulate and versed in history but he uses the same strategy.

    It’s arguing with one hand behind your back.

    I admire the intent but it doesn’t work.

    If you fall back to “we just need more capitalism” then you have to explain racial inequality if race isn’t a factor. That just gives the argument back to the left because you don’t have one. Then on top of it you have to suppress anyone that is anti-liberal that openly talks about race. So what you end up with is an establishment right and left that agree on suppressing critical thought related to race.

    • Replies: @mark green
  130. @EliteCommInc.

    That’s a refreshing observation. Each time I hear that the US is somehow a special place with important lessons to teach the world, I want to puke. That is the ideological door that opened the floodgates to people like Emma Lazarus n tens of millions of hostile colonists n occupiers, all braying that they have a right to be here. A people need no ideology to resist invasion n protect its borders. America does not stand for anything at all. It does not represent any idea. America preexisted the Constitution n the present government n will survive their passing. So America is a country of immigrants. So what? That’s like saying the sky is blue. Every nation is ultimately a nation of immigrants. So what? We have the same right as any other people to slam the door shut, preserve our heritage, expel troublemakers, n take care of our own, n we don’t need any ideology to justify this. Anyone who calls this racist is part of the problem. Too bad. No justification is needed to deal with those people as well.

  131. @follyofwar

    “Talking heads”? “Sock puppets” is more accurate.

  132. @John Johnson

    William F. Buckley v. Christopher Hitchens. There’s nothing on TV today that compares.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  133. @mark green

    William F. Buckley v. Christopher Hitchens. There’s nothing on TV today that compares.

    Sure nothing on TV today compares but it is still establishment friendly intellectual blabbering that the National Review would undoubtedly approve.

    No discussing the rhino in the room as usual. They mention LBJ but there is no discussion of why his massive welfare spending didn’t fix Black cities. Can’t talk about that of course so let’s just debate Vietnam or Communism.

    This type of playtime coffee talk debating doesn’t do anything to defeat liberalism.

    It’s just intellectual masturbation.

    Yawn.

    • Agree: Justvisiting
  134. I still appreciate intelligent conversation by very well-informed people. This makes ‘Firing Line’ a classic program, still worth viewing. Ditto on CNN’s Crossfire when Pat Buchanan was its co-host.

    As for the usual suspects and the ironclad taboos that protect them, yes these restrictive taboos existed during Buckley’s era and they still do. Please note that Tucker Carlson and Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter all tow the line on never using the J-word in any negative context on TV even today. This unpleasant and enduring fact doesn’t mean that we should completely stop watching TV.

    Oops! Here’s one memorable exception to that taboo:

  135. Hibernian says:
    @Anti-White

    When, as a straggling band of militiamen using guerrilla tactics, you defeat the greatest Empire on the Earth, you might have something on the ball.

    • Replies: @Anti-White
  136. Hibernian says:
    @Houston 1992

    The past (my own college years) is a different country. Cuddahy was a professor at Hunter College! Today he’d be cancelled in a heartbeat, probably would have been since about 2005. Isaacs is very moderate by today’s standards.

  137. @Hibernian

    Nice try spreading your American Folklore, asshole. Britain in the 1770’s was not in any way, shape or form the “greatest empire on Earth”, in Europe itself, France was still the strongest state even if not by much and Spain, albeit a power in deep decline, still controlled more territory than the British. Remember, this is the 18th and not the 19th century. And guess what, it was exactly France that came to save your sorry Yankee asses in 1776 and they accumulated so much debt helping your cowardly American colonists that some historians point to this as one of the primary causes for the French revolution itself. In 1812 you didn’t have French help and the British burned your capital to the ground and occupied parts of your territory almost unopposed in a time when Britain was already dragged in a major European war and could not reallocate significant resources to the Americas.

  138. Rosie says:

    The “slippery slope” may be a fallacy in logic, but it’s the rule in politics.

    I’m not convinced it’s even a fallacy in logic. What argument can one use against Confederate statues that cannot also be used against the Founding Fathers?

  139. Anonymous[399] • Disclaimer says:

    When NR fired Joe Sobran, who tried to reveal what Jews were up to, it showed who runs NR and who runs America, unfortunately.

  140. @Really No Shit

    In case you wouldn’t know, that’s been the case right from when Washington’s plan was drawn and first stone was laid : the city was built not as a city of America, but of Israel (which was then a virtual country, postulated as a masonic replacement for Britain so as for the English common law to apply still), with the result among others that an inhabitant of the DC, which is Israeli territory, cannot vote in the US presidential elections, but can in the Israeli election if he is a Jew as per the law of return or asks for a temporary citizenship as a non-Jew. New Jerusalem is indeed an official title given to that city (like the new Rome which is an official title of Moscow) but the problem is that other cities in the world vie for it, especially Paris, and that is was also given to the whole of America by the Puritans. The latinate term of president, which up to then had never been given to any Western head of state, is a literal copy of Nasi’ : “throner”. The reason DC has lost quite a bit of its former perfect square ground is that Golda Meir wanted no negroes on the territory of her nation except for a short visit, and that the government of the US needs black delinquents to stalk and intimidate the civil servants working there when their sense of honesty grows counter-productive. Never forget that there was an even higher proportion of Jews (sephardic and concentrated in the South) among the founding fathers that exerted real decisional power than among the first Jewish soviet of Petrograd.

    • Replies: @Really No Shit
  141. @Anon

    Best description of why NR and Conservative Inc are nothing more than ideological cul de sacs and total wastes of time and effort. The GOP needs to be discontinued as it has been infiltrated by progressives in drag who love war(neocons). Conservatives tend to be histories big losers as change is constant as systemic failure via corruption that demands new directions.

  142. Loup-Bouc says:
    @animalogic

    We have argued, you and I, not infrequently. Always you have lost.

    But in this case, your points withstand the replies of @Rich and @Nietzschad.

    @Rich’s reply is part White supremacist tripe and otherwise stupid.

    @Nietzschad’s reply is just stupid.

    But your points would be closer to redoubtable if you refined them a bit, with some historical facts supported by valid, reliable evidence.

    Cheers.

  143. Loup-Bouc says:

    Rarely do I read Unz review comment-threads in which no comment posters transmute an article’s utterly non-Jewish-related topic into a premise of an anti-Jew tirade. This thread is not an exception.

    Though rather unrefined, even a bit disheveled-discursive, the subject article’s (Gregory Hood’s) topic submits, reasonably, to being perceived as being, or including substantially, (other than National Review bashing) something like this question: whether America’s putative democracy — even any putative democracy — is, or could have been, a “democratic” society — if “democracy” connotes legal equality, more than a semblance of equal economic opportunity, and a wealth-distribution-curve that leaves no one dirt poor. (One might substitute the question whether America, or any nation, is, or could have been, a substantially Benthamian utilitarian state.)

    True, the article’s writer (Mr. Hood) swirls into his topic muddy questions that embrace equally muddy notions of racism, Blackness, Whiteness, conquest, greed…….. But the cause and effect is not Jew-love, Jew-hate, antisemitism, Zionism, or anti-Zionism.

    Yet, rather than address the question(s) the article addresses expressly or by necessary or fair implication, numerous comment-posters misappropriate many inches of comment-thread to a blathering of idiotic antisemitic rants.

    Do not misread my objection. I am an active anti-Zionist. I contemn the religion of Yahweh and its followers — whether they are religious Jews or simply psychopaths who would have joined Joshua in his destruction of Jericho and the Kingdom of Ai and the slaughter of every human and non-human animal there. If a Jew perceives himself one of Yahweh’s “Chosen People” and presumes to act accordingly, his behavior will tend to be gravely evil, if he possesses sufficient intellect and moxie.

    But one need not be a “Jew” or keep Yahweh’s covenant to pursue evil. Ample proof obtains from the conduct of FDR (and Churchill and Hitler and Mussolini), and Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Nixon, the first Bush, the Clintons, the second Bush, Dick Cheney, Obama, Biden, Trump, and the many evil corporations’ non-Jew CEOs and investors.

    One is not borne evil because one’s DNA includes Hebrew genes. And many Jews are not Hebraic (descendants of the Jews of Judea).

    Treat each person according to the person’s actual conduct, not according to whether the person, or someone else, calls the person “Jew.”

    Cease your grievously tiresome injection of antisemitism into every topic however unrelated to anything Jewish.

    Like observations fit Unz Review comment-posters penchant of interpolating anti-Black bigotry into virtually every comment-thread, despite the subject article bears zero content related to anything Black. Grow up. [In Mr. Hood’s article’s case, Blackness is involved; so I do not express or imply that this thread’s anti-Black bigotry blather is off-topic (though is it both stupid and disgusting).]

    Do not misread my last-previous paragraph. I am NOT Black (but pure Finno-Ugric); and I dislike Black “culture,” even despise some of it. Still, the only legitimate matter is the actual conduct of each individual Black — NOT his “race,” but solely his conduct.

  144. everything this moron just said is historically illiterate not correct and lacking any real historical insight…

    jews and masons ran the slave trade and the slave states down south they openly dominated this liar needs to read some fact based history not bullshit reification models he invents in his head

  145. @Priss Factor

    But of course, NR is just a cuck-zine to Jewish supremacists.

    But then, so is American Renaissance of Jared Taylor, that worthless cuck to Jewish Power who won’t allow comments on his site that are critical of Zionism or express sympathy for Palestinians.

    Yes, just like the John Birch Society.

Current Commenter
says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments 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 Gregory Hood Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Hidden Information in Our Government Archives
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement