jew Rothbard on the "betrayal" of the American right

http://mises.org/store/Betrayal-of-the-American-Right-The-P434.aspx

According to Rothbard, the corruption of the right began in the ten years after the end of the Second World War. Before then, a strong movement of journalists, writers, and even politicians had formed during the New Deal and after. There was a burgeoning literature to explain why New Deal-style central planning was bad for American liberty. They also saw that central planning and war were linked as two socialistic programs.

The experience of war was telling. Prices were controlled by central edict. Businesses were not free to buy and sell. Government spending went through the roof. The Fed's money machine ran constantly. The war was a continuation of the New Deal by others means. They learned that a president dictatorial enough to manipulate the country into war would think nothing of ending liberty at home.

There were wonderful intellectuals in this movement: Frank Chodorov, John T. Flynn, Garet Garrett, Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, and dozens of others. This movement didn't want to conserve anything but liberty. They wanted to overthrow the alien regime that had taken hold of the country and restore respect for the Constitution. They believed in the free market as a creative mechanism to improve society. They favored a restoration of the gold standard, decentralized government, and peace and friendship with all nations (as George Washington wanted).

Murray Rothbard recounts all this, and then enters into the picture. He was a central player in the unfolding events. As a young man, he first encountered the new generation of people on the right who departed dramatically from the old. They were the first "neoconservatives." They favored war as a means. They were soft on executive dictatorship. They considered economics rather trivial compared with the struggle against international foes.

They found new uses for the state in the domestic realm as well. They like the CIA, the FBI, and no amount of military spending was enough for them. A leader of the movement—William F. Buckley—even called for a "totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores" so long as Russia, which had been an alley in the war, had a communist system.

They were the first "neoconservatives." They favored war as a means. They were soft on executive dictatorship. They considered economics rather trivial compared with the struggle against international foes.

They were... ex-Trotskyite jews.

They were... ex-Trotskyite jews.

How would Trotsky's views coincide with (or lead to) Neoconery?

[from comment at alt-right blog]

A rarely noticed aspect of what happened in the wake of Buckley's purge of traditionalists from National Review was the rise of a form of Evangelical Christianity which embraces globalism, multiculturalism, "anti-racism", and other doctrines taken from Marxism. Thus was the Bushevik movement born, whose only actual differences with leftist Gramscian corporatism are over abortion and gay marriage - what Larry Auster as accurately described as an unprincipled exception to their generally leftist worldview. After the collapse of the effort to impeach Bill Clinton, Jorge W. Busheron and Marvin Olasky emerged as early examples of this re-vamped "family values" movement, whose recent star is Rick Warren, described (brilliantly) by Thomas Fleming as the "Gantry-in-Chief of P.T. Barnum's Church of America." The so-called Randians have likewise been hijacked by those who subscribe to leftist ideas like "anti-racism" - a doctrine Rand herself would have
immediately recognized as totalitarian in nature.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/altright-/-old-right/

[from comment at alt-right blog]

A rarely noticed aspect of what happened in the wake of Buckley's purge of traditionalists from National Review was the rise of a form of Evangelical Christianity which embraces globalism, multiculturalism, "anti-racism", and other doctrines taken from Marxism. Thus was the Bushevik movement born, whose only actual differences with leftist Gramscian corporatism are over abortion and gay marriage - what Larry Auster as accurately described as an unprincipled exception to their generally leftist worldview. After the collapse of the effort to impeach Bill Clinton, Jorge W. Busheron and Marvin Olasky emerged as early examples of this re-vamped "family values" movement, whose recent star is Rick Warren, described (brilliantly) by Thomas Fleming as the "Gantry-in-Chief of P.T. Barnum's Church of America." The so-called Randians have likewise been hijacked by those who subscribe to leftist ideas like "anti-racism" - a doctrine Rand herself would have
immediately recognized as totalitarian in nature.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/altright-/-old-right/

Hmmmm. . .

Kind of all over the place, but with some meritorious points.

Wouldn't it be simpler to say that the new, Catholic-led "right" (exemplified by traitor Buckley) promoted a version of Protestant politics that they were comfortable with--denutted, as it were? The unnecessary (but spot-on) quote by Fleming is ironic in this light.

But the whole "conservative" curve was shifting during this period, not just Protestant politics. Take National Review itself as a prime example. Every observation made above applies to it and the rest of these jokers. Corporatist Marxists all.

And this ("family values" schtick) began years before the Clinton impeachment (which was not a failed effort strictly speaking, given that he was indeed impeached). More like during the early Reagan years, if not somewhat earlier. The writer also fails to (at least in this snippet) identify Olasky and Auster as jews, or to tie in the jewish manipulation that brings to the fore a goof like Warren.

From what I saw in my brief time in Washington inside the professional conservative ranks, it works like this:

All political magazines lose money. They need to be subsidized with grants from foundations in order to pay their bills and keep printing magazines.

The foundations that fund the publication of the main conservative magazines are usually NOT jewish in origin (Bradley, Scaife, Olin), but jews are usually the middlemen between these foundations and the magazines proper. The publication, for example, may get a grant of $80k or $250k or $100k, for a year, say, but the bills add up quickly, and the publisher is more or less continually having to reapply for grants, seek new foundation funds, and keep trying to scrape up genuine commercial advertisements from corporations with very little interest in right-wing intellectual readers.

The magazines themselves are kind of like formal politics: the formal politician, the titular head, like the president, is usually a WASP, or in the case of the magazines, a Catholic is the editor. But the agenda being pursued is always and only the jews' agenda. Much of the editorial staff may even be Catholic, but since this staff is always small, the real guts of the magazine are its flock of paid contributing writers - and in my experience, no matter the politics of the magazine, no less than half of the writers actually getting a check for their work end up being jews. The practical effect of having an in-house editor and managing editor who are Catholic, but 10 of your top 20 writers being jews, is to make the reader think the publication is Catholic, but in fact it is jewish underneath the Catholic veil. Believe me, this veil is enough to fool 19 out of 20 white conservatives. They will accept what they are told like the good little faithful Christians they have been raised to be. Yet another reason I hate that cult. It's like the religion was designed to make a virtue, if not an art form, out of unsophistication and gullibility.

Anyway, the bottom line is that conservatism is a thoroughly jewish milieu. If a non-jew editor decided to buck the system, to fail to support a neocon war, or to disagree with the race line, the jews would have many easy ways to cut him down. They would simply shut off his foundation funding, or have their writers do hit pieces on the strange new anti-semitic wind blowing through the pages of X magazine.

What I describe is, in url terms, System/right/neo-paleo-just-plain-conservatism.

The only piece left to describe are the readers, and many of them come from the same demographic as WN folks - rural and Southern protestant Americans, and ethnic urban Catholics who share the same politics and social concerns, for the most part. These people are intelligent, often, but not overly sophisticated or nearly suspicious as they ought to be, hence it is easy to fool them.

Goyim, particular those of Anglo-Christian background, are particularly prone to allowing the personal to blind them to the political. They get to liking this or that person, and they simply lose sight of the principles involved. This is why I've always said we will never win until we adopt a more, for lack of a better term, German or ideological or jewish or marxist approach, where rigid ideological lines are drawn. That is not the conservative way, but it is a way that is simply unavoidable for anyone who wishes to fight the jews with any chance of winning.

Alex,

What is the pressure point that jews have a lock on in this foundation/magazine dynamic? Is it physical printing/distribution on the front end? Investment management on the foundation back-end? Is it just lack of backbone?




From what I saw in my brief time in Washington inside the professional conservative ranks, it works like this:

All political magazines lose money. They need to be subsidized with grants from foundations in order to pay their bills and keep printing magazines.

The foundations that fund the publication of the main conservative magazines are usually NOT jewish in origin (Bradley, Scaife, Olin), but jews are usually the middlemen between these foundations and the magazines proper.

The magazines themselves are kind of like formal politics: the formal politician, the titular head, like the president, is usually a WASP, or in the case of the magazines, a Catholic is the editor. But the agenda being pursued is always and only the jews' agenda. Much of the editorial staff may even be Catholic, but since this staff is always small, the real guts of the magazine are its flock of paid contributing writers - and in my experience, no matter the politics of the magazine, no less than half of the writers actually getting a check for their work end up being jews. The practical effect of having an in-house editor and managing editor who are Catholic, but 10 of your top 20 writers being jews, is to make the reader think the publication is Catholic, but in fact it is jewish underneath the Catholic veil. Believe me, this veil is enough to fool 19 out of 20 white conservatives. They will accept what they are told like the good little faithful Christians they have been raised to be. Yet another reason I hate that cult. It's like the religion was designed to make a virtue, if not an art form, out of unsophistication and gullibility.

Anyway, the bottom line is that conservatism is a thoroughly jewish milieu. If a non-jew editor decided to buck the system, to fail to support a neocon war, or to disagree with the race line, the jews would have many easy ways to cut him down. They would simply shut off his foundation funding, or have their writers do hit pieces on the strange new anti-semitic wind blowing through the pages of X magazine.

What I describe is, in url terms, System/right/neo-paleo-just-plain-conservatism.

The only piece left to describe are the readers, and many of them come from the same demographic as WN folks - rural and Southern protestant Americans, and ethnic urban Catholics who share the same politics and social concerns, for the most part. These people are intelligent, often, but not overly sophisticated or nearly suspicious as they ought to be, hence it is easy to fool them.

Goyim, particular those of Anglo-Christian background, are particularly prone to allowing the personal to blind them to the political. They get to liking this or that person, and they simply lose sight of the principles involved. This is why I've always said we will never win until we adopt a more, for lack of a better term, German or ideological or jewish or marxist approach, where rigid ideological lines are drawn. That is not the conservative way, but it is a way that is simply unavoidable for anyone who wishes to fight the jews with any chance of winning.

Alex,

What is the pressure point that jews have a lock on in this foundation/magazine dynamic? Is it physical printing/distribution on the front end? Investment management on the foundation back-end? Is it just lack of backbone?

It's guys like Michael Joyce. Look up that name. He's the guy at the foundations deciding who gets the money. This is the stuff EMJ starts to get into re the jews/neocons getting "front" catholics to push their positions as Catholic postions to the lay fools out in flyover. The jews do this stuff on all fronts at all times. That's why you have to be extremely careful that what you are reading or hearing was not first vetted by jews - hence VNN's "No Jews. Just Right." What you read here has not first been vetted or paid for by a jew, it is my honest opinion. But 100% of the shit you read from the conservatives has in fact been bought outright or self-curtailed out of fear of the jews.

See, there are plenty of rich goyim out there. But they don't have the background in politics or the connections that jews do, just an interest in politics. So when a right-wing guy of, say, German-American background, Christian religion, makes a billion - let's call that guy

Coors (beer)
Koch (oil)
Anschutz (telecom+)

when this guy makes a bundle, he wants to start playing in politics, who do you think are the people he meets with? The jews. They control DC. Doesn't matter whether your politics are left or right, they're standing ring around the beltway to meet and greet or beat into retreat you.

Like any other gang.

They're just more verbal-legal than mashy-bashy like the wops the FBI dragged in last night.

So then these billionaires set up foundations, and the foundations come to be run by a subset of these jews I describe. And if not jews, then people who have been trained by or hired by jews - directly parallel to the jew-goy milieu at the magazines. The jews are far better connected than any other group in Washington, and they see to it that all monies are directed into their houses, their coffers, their causes, and in pursuit of their agenda.

You can try to work through and around all this, but it is difficult, as Pierce found when the jewed courts refused to give his 501c religious organization legal status that any other racial religious church would receive as a matter of course.

This is how the world actually works, as opposed to the theory of neutral legal and democratic machinery available to all on the same terms.

Basically the jews are the boss gang, and they run the henhouse. Anyone who wants to beat them, has to see the system for what it is, and build up a more powerful competing gang.

Foundation people are leftist. Just like teachers or any other liberal-arts subset. It's a truism that over time, foundations set up by right-wing men come to push the agenda of left-wing women.

[on michael joyce, who died in 2006]

By: Peter Collier
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, March 01, 2006

We lost a friend over the weekend. David Horowitz and I. And the conservative movement, or at least that forward-looking part of it seeking to engage the Left at the key checkpoints where it controls our cultural institutions. And America herself. We have all lost someone that meant our country well and did well by it even if he did not always do well by himself.

This friend was Michael Joyce, who died on February 24 at the age of 63. He worked in philanthropy but he shuddered at the idea of being called a “philanthropist.” I think he would like to be remembered as an artist (perhaps a trapeze artist, because he worked, ultimately to his peril, without a net) of social change. He loved football and was pretty good at it himself in his youth—one of those tough little guys who play the cornerback position like heat-seeking missiles. And he started off, in fact, as a high school football coach. But he had one of those relentless Catholic minds that gets hold of ideas and shakes them. In Mike’s case, the ideas had to do with America, its founding, and its essential nature; and how America had been debased by enemies within and how it might recover its identity. These ideas got him into a different game.

A summary of Mike’s career in philanthropy can be found in John J. Miller’s excellent book, A Gift of Freedom. He did a warm up at the Morris Goldseker Foundation in Baltimore. While there he came to the attention of Irving Kristol. Mike himself was a former bien pensant liberal who, because he’d read the classics of American thought and had an instinct for intellectual trench warfare, was actually a neo con waiting to happen. He always called Kristol “the Godfather,” referring to his role in founding the neo conservative movement. But I got a feeling that Irving really was a paternal figure for Mike. He was certainly one of the few people for whom Mike, who could be thoughtlessly cruel about others, spoke of with awe. And as for Kristol himself, when I once joked to him that his nickname would have to be changed to “The Great Godfather,” because Mike Joyce himself had taken over his role, he gave an eloquent shrug and said, “Why not?”

A one man talent agency, Kristol played a role in getting Mike a promotion to the Institute of Educational Affairs, and then to the John M. Olin Foundation in 1979. About the move to Olin, his predecessor there, Frank O’Connell, once told me that the final two candidates for the job were Mike and Bill Bennett, and Mike was hired because he was more impressive. If so, Joyce equalized things when he worked on the Reagan transition team in 1980 and helped get Bennett selected to head the National Endowment of the Humanities.

Olin was a proving grounds for what he would do later at the Bradley Foundation, beginning in 1985. Created out of the industrial fortune amassed by two remarkable brothers, Lynde and Harry Bradley, the foundation might easily have devoted itself largely to hometown Milwaukee matters if not for Mike. A Midwesterner himself (he grew up in Ohio), Mike himself became a transplanted Milwaukeean and came to love the city with a fierce parochial pride. A good part of the Bradley Foundation’s largesse was earmarked for civic concerns—a first rate museum, music and theatre, and above all for Mike, several million to keep the Brewers in town. But he also believed that the Bradley Foundation had to play a national role. It seemed improbable: At $600 million or so, Bradley was small by comparison with Ford, Rockefeller, and other of the other liberal foundations that were postmodernizing America. But Mike felt that by leveraging its money with the neo conservative worldview, he could multiply the effect of the Foundation’s smaller resources and make it a player. And this was what happened during his 15 years at Bradley. The Foundation, a mere David in comparison to the leftish philanthropic Goliaths, hit them squarely in the forehead with programs that countered their far more expensive own.

A fan and supporter of Charles Murray’s Losing Ground, Joyce got Bradley involved in the Wisconsin’s welfare reform movement, model and laboratory for the nation’s reform policy. He made Milwaukee the seedbed of the school choice movement and gave black kids the opportunity to escape failing and violent public schools. Bradley’s emancipation proclamation put a finger in the eye of the left-wing racists whose policies are designed to keep blacks on the liberal plantation. Mike understood very well that the school choice movement had taken aim at the unholy alliance between the Democrats and the National Education Association, America’s most disgraceful union since Dave Beck’s Teamsters, and black hustlers like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, all of whom collaborated for their own cynical reasons to keep black kids in bondage.

Mike also helped touch off what would become compassionate conservatism. He was a Tocquevillian who believed that the genius of America was in its coming together in voluntary associations to create its future. Mike’s fingerprints were all over dozens of organizations where Bradley’s venture philanthropy made a difference. One small personal example: In 1998, Mike heard that my wife Mary had formed a non profit called the Friendship Club to help at risk girls in the small community where we live in the California foothills. He arranged for a modest challenge grant that the community matched. The Friendship Club has now served hundreds of girls in a community of a few thousand. Almost all of them have gotten through school against horrific odds. It is fully funded by the community the Bradley grant challenged. This story has been repeated, I reckon, in many other places. Such things add up.

He hated the Left and what it had done to this country. In the mid-1980s, when David Horowitz and I were looking for funding to start a Second Thoughts Movement to bring together the handful of others who were also refugees from the ‘60s Left, we stopped in Milwaukee to see Mike, who had just recently begun at Bradley. He supported the Second Thoughts movement and kept supporting us without hesitation in endeavors like the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and Encounter Books. And we were not the only ones.

I once asked him how he saw himself. “As the owner of a really good restaurant,” he replied. “I can’t cook myself, but I know how to hire great chefs.” These chefs have been preparing an abundant repast for the American political table for the last 20 years.

Mike was an odd and opaque person, not easily fathomable. The following are perceptions from the outside.

Mike was a little guy, a scrapper with a chip on his shoulder ready to fight friends, it sometimes seemed, as well as foes. He was capable of acts of incredible impulsive generosity that set one back. He was a heavy smoker and drinker and at times a fascinating non-stop talker; he was always thinking, always watching and plotting, not always altruistically—“deep devising,” as Homer says of Odysseus. He was a strong and faithful Catholic whose highpoint came when attended a private Mass with John Paul II; but sometimes he seemed to be a man who felt his own way to grace was blocked.

Mike seemed to live in a cerebral bubble, unconcerned with the impressions he made, particularly if they were bad impressions. He had contempt for people who had been born better off than him. (Hillel Fradkin, who worked with Mike for many years, once told me that he was the only person he’d ever known who continued to use a word that died in the early 1900s, “swells,” to describe such people.) This class prejudice, for that was what it was, was a blind spot. It kept Mike from appreciating people who he assumed had gotten with ease what he had gotten only by sheer doggedness.

He had contempt for what he derisively called “the Irish thing” and for poseurs like Tom Hayden who discover their Irishness and discontents as a cause in the middle of their Americanness. Yet he was more Irish than he knew—black Irish in mood and a little in appearance; truly Joycean, it always seemed to me, not only in the artistic pulling of many strings, but also in the silence, cunning and exile he practiced, particularly after he left Bradley in 2000 under unpleasant circumstances that were of his own making.

For all those years he had been the grand restaurateur of ideas and organizations. Now, nobody knew where he was or what he was doing. He was the bright star in the cosmos of ideas and action that suddenly flamed out. People wondered if he would find another place, if there were bridges left that he had not burned, if there was a second act in this American life. In the infrequent sightings, Mike himself always encouraged speculation that things were great and he was ready to go to the next step.

Friends of mine who ran into him were struck by his deteriorating appearance over the past few months. To them, he said that indeed he had been sick but was getting better. As recently as a couple of weeks ago a friend who saw him in New York said he was shrunken and gray and looked like someone who had just stepped out of a death camp. Mike told him blithely that he’d had a serious liver disease but was on the mend.

Perhaps he was in denial. More likely, he was doing it his way. I hope that when his end came he knew that whatever else had happened to him, in the one thing he had staked his intellectual life on—putting an army in the field so that conservatives could put up a fight in the culture war—he had succeeded very well.

Peter Collier co-authored seven books with David Horowitz, including the widely read Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the ‘60s. He is also the author of many other books including, biographies on the Fords, Rockefellers, and Kennedys.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5392

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Joyce_Michael_1942-2006

Michael Joyce, who passed away in early 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the "godfather of modern philanthropy." Joyce was a key financial booster of the modern conservative movement as the head of a number of right-leaning foundations, including the Bradley, Olin, and Goldseker foundations. Joyce also engineered several right-wing policy campaigns and supported various neoconservative advocacy groups, including the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), founded in 1997 by neocon scions William Kristol and Robert Kagan.

During his 15-year tenure as head of the Bradley Foundation, Joyce turned the foundation into one of the most powerful conservative funders in the country. He supported two of William Kristol's outfits, PNAC and the Project for the Republican Future, which helped spearhead the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.

Before his early retirement from the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation in 2002, Joyce created Americans for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise to build support for President George W. Bush's controversial faith-based initiative. According to the Washington Post (June 25, 2001), "The administration has also been working behind the scenes to build support for the plan. Michael S. Joyce, a proponent of school choice who has been developing the intellectual framework for faith-based efforts for 12 years, said Bush asked him at a Rose Garden ceremony May 10, 'Did Karl call you yet?' Joyce said Karl Rove, Bush's senior adviser, phoned later that day and asked Joyce 'to undertake a private initiative to help get this legislation through.' . On June 1, Joyce opened Americans for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise with a stable of consultants and lobbyists and an office on Pennsylvania Avenue. . 'For a lot of people, this conjures images of serpent-handlers and speaking in tongues,' Joyce said. 'We're busy convincing centrist Democrats that allowing equal access to public resources is not establishing a religion.'" Other members of the now-defunct organization (including the affiliated Foundation for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise, led by his wife Mary Jo) included Richard John Neuhaus, William Bennett, and William Kristol.

According to Milwaukee journalist Barbara Miner, Joyce, who grew up in a Democratic family from Cleveland, first got involved in national politics and philanthropy after he moved to New York City in 1978 and began working for the Institute for Educational Affairs, "a neoconservative organization started by right-wing trailblazer Irving Kristol and William Simon, secretary of the treasury for presidents Nixon and Ford. The following year Simon asked Joyce to head the Olin Foundation." Fewer than 10 years later, in 1986, the Atlantic Monthly called Joyce one of the three most important individuals behind the success of the conservative movement (both quotes cited in Media Transparency profile of Michael Joyce).

During his time at Olin and Bradley, Joyce refined the strategy of waging what he called a "war of ideas" to change the course of U.S. policies. The strategy has been replicated by conservative foundations and think tanks across the country with enormous success. In a speech at Georgetown University shortly after he retired from Bradley, Joyce said: "At Olin and later at Bradley, our overarching purpose was to use philanthropy to support a war of ideas to defend and help recover the political imagination of the [nation's] founders-the self-evident truth that rights and worth are a legacy of the creator-not the result of some endless revaluing of values" ( Newhouse News Service, September 18, 2003).

But according to some critics, what Joyce called a "war of ideas" was really "more about selling ideas than thinking them," as Bruce Murphy wrote in an obituary on his Milwaukee Magazine blog Murphy's Law (March 7, 2006). There was also a fair bit of disciplined and targeted funding priorities. While at Olin (from 1979 to 1985), Murphy wrote that Joyce "simply shipped the money to the usual suspects: conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institution, and Hudson Institute." Other conservative foundations quickly followed suit, helping increase the impact of the giving, according to Murphy. "Some 50% of the universities funded by Olin under Joyce were soon being funded by the Bradley Foundation. Typically, it was not just the same university but the same department, and in some cases, the same scholar. The net effect was a kind of intellectual cronyism, in which a select group of conservative individuals and groups get all of the money and do all of the thinking. Joyce argued that there was a liberal bias at many foundations, which might have been true, but it was not a systematic bias that carefully ruled out any scholar who didn't fit a list of buzz words and concepts. In a war of ideas, you naturally funded the people who were on your side, and you made sure they were warriors who expressly aimed to influence government, the media, and public policy. But ideological soldiers are rarely the same as great scholars."

In a National Review obituary, the magazine hailed Joyce as being "responsible for tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of spending on conservative ideas and causes. His name will long be linked to the rise of school choice, welfare reform, and faith-based initiatives." The obit quoted James Piereson, head of the defunct Olin Foundation, who said: "Mike was an inspirational leader. He basically invented the field of modern conservative philanthropy-it existed before him and he didn't do it alone, but he made it far more successful than it had been."

So you see, Joyce is not actually a jew, but he's trained and placed by the founder of neoconservatism itself, Irving Kristol.

This is how D.C. works. Very few white men have any real principles (even those you would think might, since they're 1) interested in politics, 2) intellectuals, and 3) often believers in religion and religious absolutes) that will stand against even a 5mph wind of self interest. These guys come to DC, they see where the power lies; what plays and what doesn't, what their boss likes and is looking for. If they fit in and meet the standards, they acquire friends, a patron, a benefactor, a mentor - they sing his tune, and he tutors, trains, mentors, and opens doors for them - puts them in position as part of his puzzle. He is using them, and in return they receive salary, benefits, emoluments, connections and respectability. They are team players. Some of these know what they actually are, as they have changed their position on the important things for money and status, but heck, that's how the world works, who are they to question it? And of course Team Jew feeds them a continual stream of flattery with all the tuff-manly-military metaphor-adjectives it can ladel, the better to cover up the essentially feminine domination and submission that's actually going on.

I hardly need explain why Catholics are particularly good underdogs for the jews.

Foundation people are leftist. Just like teachers or any other liberal-arts subset. It's a truism that over time, foundations set up by right-wing men come to push the agenda of left-wing women.

Yeah, the mentality of these people sickens me. TIAA-CREF's commercials do too, but I think they get it absolutely perfect for their target audience.

YouTube - TIAA-CREF feat. David Sylvian - Somewhere

So you see, Joyce is not actually a jew, but he's trained and place by the founder of neoconservatism itself, Irving Kristol.

This is how D.C. Very few white men have any real principles that will stand against even aa 5mph wind of self interest. These guys come to DC, they see what plays and what doesn't, they meet a "friend," a "patron," a "benefactor," they sing his tune, and he mentors and helps them, puts them in position. He is using them, and on some level they know it, but he builds them up with all the tuff-manly-military metaphor-adjectives, to cover up the essentially feminine domination and submission.

I hardly need explain why Catholics are particularly good underdogs for the jews.

Same story everywhere. Mormon Jon Huntsman (of the chemical company/Utah political dynasty) had a jew "adopt" him when he was a young adult, evidently grooming him for their purposes.

A cancer survivor, the University of Pennsylvania graduate continually funds his cancer institute and the Wharton School at his alma mater. [...]. I (Jon Huntsman--L.R.) mentioned in my book that my father was a rural schoolteacher, and I'm not Jewish, but a wonderful Jewish family gave me a scholarship to the Wharton school.

http://hyelog.blogspot.com/2005/11/jon-huntsman-and-armenia.html

Notice the thick scum of IRCs around the neocon jews. The Bennetts, Joyce... I had forgotten that aspect - it's ok to be Irish and talk about how great it is to be Irish. That's part of the cultural aspect of pro conservatism. But it's a superficial thing, in no way racial. Anything racial is horrible-German and competely off limits.

Notice the thick scum of IRCs around the neocon jews. The Bennetts, Joyce... I had forgotten that aspect - it's ok to be Irish and talk about how great it is to be Irish. That's part of the cultural aspect of pro conservtism. But it's a superficial thing, in no way racial. Anything racial is horrible-German and competely off limits.

The Bennetts stuck out to me, too. I've always wondered what their "in" is to big-time Republican politics, since they don't appear to the casual observer to bring anything to the table.

The Bennetts stuck out to me, too. I've always wondered what their "in" is to big-time Republican politics, since they don't appear to the casual observer to bring anything to the table.

They're smart, aggressive, rich lawyers. Who can blow this way or that, like many people in DC. "It was all a game; a way of making a living."

EMJ is great on this stuff. This is not about Joyce, but about this type and more. The point is that until proven otherwise, you should assume that ANY, yes, ANY figure raised to public prominence on the right is a jewish sockpuppet.

http://www.culturewars.com/2010/Unity.htm

Professor George did not spring full-blown from the mind of Zeus. He may be, as the Times claims, the intellectual heir of Richard John Neuhaus, but Neuhaus could just as easily be described as the intellectual heir of William Buckley, or Michael Novak, or Deal Hudson, former editor of the now defunct Crisis, a magazine which came into existence ten years before First Things. All of these men claimed to be Catholic spokesmen for reformist political movements, but were in reality creations of Jewish money men like Marvin Liebman, or foundations like the Bradley Foundation, or think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, and their careers—but more importantly, their ideas—were a function of the money those institutions disbursed. “He who pays the piper calls the tune” has more relevance in the realm of foundation-backed ideas than it has to music.

Now you would think, theoretically, that men concerned about their everlasting souls would be the last to sell out, but you'd be wrong. In the real world, they're the first.

They're smart, aggressive, rich lawyers. Who can blow this way or that, like many people in DC. "It was all a game; a way of making a living."

Well, whadayouknow? I looked up that quote, came up with Sobran/Grant Havers, and came up with this:

http://takimag.blogspot.com/2008/04/grant-havers-paleocon-coward.html

EMJ is great on this stuff. This is not about Joyce, but about this type and more. The point is that until proven otherwise, you should assume that ANY, yes, ANY figure raised to public prominence on the right is a jewish sockpuppet.

http://www.culturewars.com/2010/Unity.htm

Professor George did not spring full-blown from the mind of Zeus. He may be, as the Times claims, the intellectual heir of Richard John Neuhaus, but Neuhaus could just as easily be described as the intellectual heir of William Buckley, or Michael Novak, or Deal Hudson, former editor of the now defunct Crisis, a magazine which came into existence ten years before First Things. All of these men claimed to be Catholic spokesmen for reformist political movements, but were in reality creations of Jewish money men like Marvin Liebman, or foundations like the Bradley Foundation, or think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, and their careers—but more importantly, their ideas—were a function of the money those institutions disbursed. “He who pays the piper calls the tune” has more relevance in the realm of foundation-backed ideas than it has to music.

Now you would think, theoretically, that men concerned about their everlasting souls would be the last to sell out, but you'd be wrong. In the real world, they're the first.

With this post I'm finally ready to get and read Jones' Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. 'twas the epiphi-tease I needed.

BTW, i implied Bradley, Olin and Scaife are non-jew names/foundations, but that may not in fact be the case.

With this post I'm finally ready to get and read Jones' Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. 'twas the epiphi-tease I needed.

I would get the other tome first: libido dominandi. but both are great, and there is some overlap. i mean, shit, all jones's stuff basically says the same thing.

Wow, it's cool that's still up, I had totally forgotten about it. But yes, Haves is the conservative type: a true beliver and a Ph.D. But no balls. There's something particularly shameful about his type. I don't know how they can look at themselves in the mirror.

[jew Gottfried in 'AlternativeRight.com discussing the jewing of conservatism by neocons]

Exactly how the neoconservatives, who came from the left, managed to do this has been the subject of numerous studies. The most important fact to note here is that those who imposed their will were entirely successful. They were able to remold a generally pliant movement, which had run out of real leaders and "conservative" ideas. But that eroded movement had lots of professional conservatives who needed jobs and direction; and the neoconservatives were able to supply both.

One puzzling aspect of what might be considered a generally friendly takeover is the bullying way in which the neoconservatives went after the already marginalized forces on the right. Although this opposition could have mostly been bought off with random acts of kindness or by occasional flattery, the neoconservatives, as witnessed by their treatment of Mel Bradford, were determined to crush what remained of opposition to their rule. They not only smeared the hapless Bradford when they decided to oppose him at the NEH, partly in order to put that agency under the control of one of their vassals. They also worked to keep this Southern literary scholar out of a post as Librarian of Congress, a compensatory post that Bradford sought after being turned down at NEH. They also made sure through their snide attacks, put into the national press, that his name would become synonymous with Southern bigotry.

There were lots of similar cases. And as someone who suffered in one of them, I spent years thinking about what seemed gratuitous nastiness. Why couldn't the neocons have left small pockets of reactionaries untouched in the movement they were taking over? Another leftist, Lenin, paid non-Marxist Hegelians to teach in universities after the Bolsheviks took over Russia. And a victorious Christianity waited almost two hundred years after it had become the imperial religion to shut down the pagan Academy in Athens.

Obviously the neocons were more serious about achieving democratic centralism overnight -- including unanimity of thought. They have also persisted in their exclusionary practices down to the present, as shown by the continued exclusion of Old Right thinkers and journalists from anything they oversee. As late as a year ago, when a neoconservative Mackubin Owen succeeded the paleoconservative James Kurth as editor-in-chief of the foreign policy journal Orbis, anyone identified with the Old Right was unceremoniously purged from the editorial board. I and several other contributors saw commissioned articles of ours bumped, because they failed to reflect the new ideological line.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/neoconned/

The jews are a team, as jew Gottfried shows. That's how they were able so easily to takeover the right. To beat them requires a counter-team. But those who might form that team can't even grasp the need to exclude jews and jew-enablers as a principle of the counter-group's formation. Very, very basic stuff, but more than Kevin MacDonald, to pick one of a dozen examples, can grasp. You can't build a team to fight the jews when you're full of praise for jew Gottfried and jew frontman Jared Taylor. All that does is confuse people who need leadership.

CompassionateFascist

Very good, informative piece by Paul G., but doesn't quite plumb the ethnic depths of the situation. Basically, organized Zion completed its takeover of the Democrat Party during the pre-election months of 1947-48....when the partition of Palestine was in question at the UN, and Truman desperately needed big Jewish money and media traction. As far as Zion was concerned, though, Republican Party still a rogue elephant, as witness Eisenhower's 1956 crackdown on Israel's Suez aggression. Gottfried somewhat elides the essential ethnicity of the neo-con movement, but his description of the vicious neo-con takeover of formerly conservative institutions, magazines, etc. is masterful, as is his definition of the neo-con hijacking of the Republican party. In essence, our national politics is now no more than a struggle over power, pork, and patronage between two half-corporate, half-socialist, 99% Zionist-globalist bandit gangs.

Saluting James Piereson

By GARY SHAPIRO | April 8, 2005

'Looking around the room," said master of ceremonies, William E. Simon Jr., "I don't think there has been so much brainpower in one place since the time Karl Rove got stuck alone in an elevator." The event, hosted by the Washington-based Philanthropy Roundtable, was a dinner honoring James Piereson and the John M. Olin Foundation.

Mr. Piereson joined the Olin Foundation in 1981 and became its executive director four years later. He worked with the foundation's late president, William E. Simon Sr., and its board in supporting a remarkable array of initiatives to buttress the economic, political, and cultural institutions upon which our liberty and private enterprise are based. Industrialist John M. Olin (1892-1982) intended that the foundation be eventually phased out, and its work will end with the close the year.

The founder and director of the James Madison Program in American ideals and institutions at Princeton University, Robert George, gave the invocation. He was filling in for the Reverend Richard John Neuhaus, who was described as "otherwise occupied" - in Rome for the funeral of Pope John Paul II.

The editor of the Weekly Standard, William Kristol, read a note from his father, Irving, who was unable to attend. The note began, "Having been present at the creation of Jim Piereson as a philanthropist, I take special pleasure in witnessing, if from a distance, this dinner in his honor. It is such occasions that give an incomparable sweetness to longevity."

William Kristol described becoming friends with Mr. Piereson at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Their offices were next door to each other, and the scholars became friendly as conservatives in a liberal department. Speaking of Mr. Piereson's move to the Olin Foundation, Mr. Kristol said, "Penn's loss is the country's gain. It was a good trade." He cited Mr. Piereson's intellectual curiosity, saying he never lost interest in the ideas he was funding.

The foundation's chairman, Eugene Williams Jr., said that John Olin had been concerned that the foundation not morph into something different than the he wished. "We all know what has happened to the Ford Foundation," Mr. Williams said.

"Tonight we are feting Jim Piereson but fretting that he has worked himself out of a job," said the American Enterprise Institute, president Christopher DeMuth. "We don't know who the next John Olin will be nor whether he will be smart enough to hire someone like Jim." He said an epitaph for the Olin Foundation might be "Organization Has Consequences" (echoing Richard Weaver's book title "Ideas Have Consequences"). He said its lessons have been to invest in institutions, people, and big projects: "They concentrated on sustaining institutions with reliable management and proven performance, and on bankrolling individuals of singular talent such as Allan Bloom, Irving Kristol, and Heather MacDonald, and a long line of postgraduate fellows."

The final speaker was Mr. Piereson himself, who noted, "John Olin set this foundation in motion in 1975 - a year when the prospects for the future seemed darker than at any time since the Great Depression. American power was in retreat around the world; Soviet power was on the march. Socialism, indeed, or at least some form of it, seemed the wave of the future. Our cities were ungovernable, it was said; perhaps it was true of the nation as well. Our institutions and very form of government, some said, were inadequate to the challenges of modern times. Our economy was burdened by both inflation and unemployment. Americans were told by experts that they must adjust to a declining standard of living. The American Century, as Henry Luce had called it, was over."

"Today, thirty years later, as the foundation closes, the conventional wisdom of that period has been turned on its head. The experts were wrong about every important issue of our time. The historic events of recent decades are familiar to us all, from the fall of communism to the rise of free markets and the spread of liberty and democracy around the globe. Today, in contrast to the past, there are complaints that the United States is too powerful in the world, that the economy is too strong and efficient, that Americans are too proud and self-confident about themselves and their institutions. This is an exchange that John Olin would have gladly accepted."

Mr. Piereson went on to say, "In some small way, perhaps, the modest foundation that [Olin] established contributed to this historic turnabout," and it was in the world of ideas where the Olin Foundation made its mark.

He cited Robert Frost's preference for revolutions by half or "semi-revolutions." Mr. Piereson said what is called a conservative revolution was more a renewal - "a renewal of faith in American institutions, a deepened respect for the past, a recognition that a free and prosperous future must be built on our inherited institutions and ideals. And because it was a renewal rather than a revolution, it could draw on the varied currents of the American experience, could proceed from many directions in different fields, in different kinds of institutions, and through the efforts of people with different views."

"Perhaps the best way to think of the John M. Olin Foundation is not as a charitable foundation, but as a source of venture capital for the conservative movement," wrote National Review political reporter John Miller in the program booklet that evening. (He is writing a book about the foundation, tentatively titled "A Gift of Freedom.") Mr. Miller cited the 1982 conference of law students that was the springboard for the creation of the Federalist Society; a grant that helped Allan Bloom write an article for National Review that became the basis for the best seller "The Closing of the American Mind"; support of a John M. Olin fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Dinesh D'Souza, to write "Illiberal Education"; Francis Fukuyama's delivering his "end of history" lecture at Allan Bloom's Olin Center in Chicago and being criticized by Samuel Huntington (known for "The Clash of Civilizations"), the long-time head of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic studies at Harvard.

Among those present at the event were Philanthropy Roundtable president, Adam Meyerson, who gave welcoming remarks; Roger Kimball and Hilton Kramer of the New Criterion; Daniel S. Peters of the Ruth & Lovett Peters Foundation; the Wall Street Journal editorial page editor, Paul Gigot; Olin senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Max Boot; William F. Buckley Jr.; Norman Podhoretz and Neal Kozodoy of Commentary; the Manhattan Institute president, Lawrence Mone; the pollster Frank Luntz; the executive director of the John Templeton Foundation, Charles Harper; the president of the Hoover Institution, John Raisian; the president of the Federalist Society, Eugene Meyer; and publisher Alfred Regnery Jr.

Looking on the crowd at the reception before the dinner, author Diane Ravitch said, "The counterculture is all here."

http://www.nysun.com/on-the-town/saluting-james-piereson/11959/

As far as Zion was concerned, though, Republican Party still a rogue elephant, as witness Eisenhower's 1956 crackdown on Israel's Suez aggression.

Suez was the last time the jews failed to get everything they wanted on an important issue. Eisenhower’s position was the work of John Foster Dulles, who famously tried to conduct a foreign policy “not approved by the Jews (http://www.codoh.com/review/revattach.html).” Dulles was a prominent WASP Wall Street lawyer at a time when WASPs on Wall Street of course worked with the jews, but could also work without them (i.e., on the more staid deals), which they can’t today. Perhaps that gave the GOP a power base at least partially independent of jewish influence, which it obviously doesn't have today. Interestingly, Dulles was despised by his fellow WASPs like Dean Acheson. It seems his fiery anti-communism (“massive retaliation”) was much too crude for their tastes. Granted Dulles was a CFR globalist and no friend of ours, it’s still telling that the one WASP who rolled up his sleeves and played the same rhetorical game the jews play routinely, made the other WASPs so terribly uncomfortable.

Memo To David Frum: The GOP Is “Extreme” Because You Helped Purge Its “Extremists”

By James Kirkpatrick on November 28, 2011

David Frum has recently argued in New York Magazine that the Republican Party has “lost touch with reality.” [When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?, November 28, 2011] With new GOP Presidential “front runner” Newt Gingrich expounding on the glories of child labor, Herman Cain worried about China acquiring nuclear weapons, and Rick Perry enjoying a spectacular meltdown in front of millions of people, Frum advances what I think is a compelling case that the late-phase Establishment conservative movement/ Republican Party (to the extent that the two can now be distinguished) no longer produces credible political leaders or policy options.

Frum gives several examples. The Republican Party has openly turned its back on the poor, calling them “lucky duckies” who don’t pay taxes. It’s hard to argue with Frum’s charge that “[the] party’s economic ideas seem to have shrunk to just one: more tax cuts for the very highest earners.” Historically Republican-supported economic policies, such as a stimulus program that contains tax cuts or the Federal Reserve’s keeping interest rates low, are now called “socialism” or “treason” respectively.

I think Frum is also correct when he explains that, because of the Republicans’ failed strategy of outright confrontation over Obamacare, the country is probably forever saddled with an expensive and deeply flawed entitlement program that has no chance of being repealed absent the deus ex machina of a court ruling.

Unlike sausage-making and legislation, the race for the Republican nomination is conducted perforce in full view of the public. I believe Frum is essentially correct when he argues that “these tea-party champions provide a ghoulish type of news entertainment each time they reveal that they know nothing about public affairs and have never attempted to learn.” Every week brings a new catastrophe as a “conservative” leader says something remarkably ignorant or stupid. Even controlling for left wing media bias, a number of the leading candidates for one of the two major parties in the country seem to have no idea what they are talking about.

More ominously, liberal media criticism seems have the perverse effect of reinforcing “conservative” credentials, guaranteeing that “conservative” leaders can essentially say anything, regardless of how absurd, and have a guaranteed mass following.

Frum identifies three major reasons why this kind of insularity is not going away:

•First, conservative constituencies (the wealthy, the elderly, the rural, and veterans) benefit from federal largesse, even as they rail against big government.

As a result, their interests are in conflict with their ideology, creating more “suspicion that shadowy Washington elites are playing tricks upon them.”

•Secondly, in Frum’s words, “White America has been plunged into a mood of pessimism and anger since 2008.” Most whites believe their children will have a harder life than they had.

To Frum’s great credit—not for the first time on the immigration issue, although his new Main Stream Media friends don’t appear to have noticed—he points out that white workers are not being irrational, because “in post-recession America, employers seem to show a distinct preference for foreign-born workers.” (The figures he cites are drawn, unacknowledged, from one of Edwin S. Rubenstein’s National Data columns for VDARE.com)

•Finally, and most importantly, Frum writes, “conservatism has evolved from a political philosophy into a market segment.” An entire “alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, [and] its own laws of economics” has been created.

As a result, huge percentages of the population will continue to believe in even demonstrably untrue assertions (such as that the United States is unique because it has no rigid class system) regardless of the facts at hand. Frum is also completely accurate when he notes that today’s “conservative movement” leaders (and more critically, funders) really do believe their own propaganda.

Frum complains that criticizing this trend has cost his career a great deal. He was dismissed from the American Enterprise Institute for (he says) criticizing the Republican Party’s position on health care. Speaking slots on television and radio were canceled when producers realized Frum would not give the standard conservative line. His speechwriting work for Republican candidates must now be secret, lest the employer be instantly discredited by association with him. Within a conservative movement that has gone crazy, Frum claims that he has become persona non grata.

So Frum is significantly correct on all of his points. But he is also responsible for much of the problem. He helped ensure there is no effective Right Opposition on the most important questions of the day.

David Frum is best known as the commissar directing National Review’s most recent purge of the American Right. In his infamous cover story Unpatriotic Conservatives (March 19, 2003), Frum castigated Patrick Buchanan, Robert Novak, Sam Francis, Jude Wanniski, Joe Sobran, and others for “hating their country” because of their opposition to the Iraq War.

But the bulk of Frum’s polemic actually had nothing to do with foreign policy. It was an attack on traditionalist conservatives for being, allegedly, racist and anti-Semitic. Murray Rothbard, Kevin MacDonald, Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell, Chronicles Magazine—and even VDARE.com in a cameo appearance although it takes no position on foreign policy!—were all woven together as part of a reactionary movement that was inadmissibly hostile towards the more, ah, “vibrant” practices of our multicultural and diverse utopia.

As a result, Frum called for all right-thinking conservatives to “turn our backs on them.”

This kind of attitude is an essential characteristic of the late, degenerate “conservative movement”—what Paul Gottfried has called “Goldbergism”. Frum’s column was only one salvo in National Review’s long war against conservative champion Pat Buchanan, who predicted and campaigned against the ruinous consequences of mass immigration, profligate spending, unilateral surrender in the cultural wars, and globalism. Similarly, Sam Francis was fired from the Washington Times because of Dinesh D’Souza triangulated against him to gain cover for his own timid book The End of Racism. Peter Brimelow and John O’Sullivan were removed from National Review for being premature immigration patriots at a time when California (and perhaps conservatism) could have been saved. Kevin Lamb was fired from Human Events for repeating positions that the National Review of the past would have regarded as common sense. The list could go on.

Unlike David Frum, none of these men were received with open arms by the New York media, or given a platform by liberal talking heads delighted to attack the Right. There is always personal benefit in attacking the Right. There is no surer way of creating instant respectability, a sudden reputation for deep thinking and praise from courtiers like Stephen Colbert. In contrast, the reward for Right Opposition dissent is financial insecurity, disgrace, and deliberate attacks calculated to utterly destroy families, personal lives, and even physical safety.

The result is that the late-phase “conservative movement” is, by intent, intellectually stunted. Movement conservative operatives clamoring to become “Senior Fellows” at one Think Tank or another know instinctively to avoid certain topics—such as Affirmative Action or mass immigration.

Frum is entirely correct when he charges that the Beltway conservative Establishment pays people to repeat, rather than think. But Frum himself has played a crucial role in setting the boundaries of what “conservatives” are allowed to think. Today, successful movement “conservatives” are either approval-addicted sociopaths or have deliberately crafted a protective stupidity that prevents them from reflecting on or even paying attention to issues that might get them in trouble with the Southern Poverty Law Center—$PLC to VDARE.com—or worse, purged by National Review.

Instead, we get never-ending wonkery about drilling for oil etc. in national politics, irrelevant at best and idiotic at worst. More than that, we find conservative “intellectuals” who have reached their positions by not rocking the boat—for example, John O ‘Sullivan’s replacement as Editor of National Review, Rich Lowry. As a result, their counterparts on the Left are simply intellectually superior and run circles around them.

The Establishment conservative media itself operates as a kind of bizarro reflection of the MSM. Rather than breaking new stories or asking tough questions of the governing establishment, the main fixations of the Fox Nation are focusing on the anti-Semitism of Occupy Wall Street (as proven by YouTube comments), the cover up of the black Founding Fathers by racist progressives, or the secret plans of the Obama Administration to lead the country to National Socialism. “Conservative” publications feature learned dissertations on how Martin Luther King Jr. was actually a great conservative theologian. Meanwhile, think tanks give us fantasy world analysis about how the real problem with Detroit was “unions” (mysteriously, Pittsburgh was somehow spared) or how the real problem is that American workers are overpaid.

This late-phase “conservative movement” is captured by delusions and fantasies—but not of the authentic Right. The main constituency of the American Right is those whites and social conservative who have legitimate economic and cultural fears that they are being dispossessed in their own country. But the current “conservative movement” takes these fears, strips them of substance, meaning, and Political Incorrectness, and repackages them as absurd conspiracy theory that is then circulated throughout the Republican Noise Machine.

The result is a movement that is simultaneously extreme and Politically Correct, rhetorically militant and absolutely no threat to the governing order.

For example:

•race has been absolutely central to Barack Obama’s life, career, and politics, as detailed in his autobiographies and in Steve Sailer’s book America's Half Blood Prince.

However, it’s more Politically Correct (and ridiculous) to claim that Obama’s true motivation is D’Souza’s theory of “Kenyan anti-colonialism”, so that is what is instantly adopted by the “conservative movement’s Deep Thinker, Newt Gingrich.

•It is reasonable to oppose Muslim immigration because it will fundamentally change the character of the community and create a never ending series of cultural conflicts. It is also Politically Incorrect.

Therefore, it is more mainstream to claim that of course you have no problem with Muslim immigration—but that this particular mosque is going to be used as a base by Saudi Arabia to implement sharia law in New York City. [Ground Zero Mosque: It's The Sharia, Stupid, by Deroy Murdock, Human Events, August 30,2010]

•It is factually correct but politically incorrect to note that mass immigration will lead to a hostile group of culturally and linguistically distinct people who embrace their ethnic identity and quite rationally use it to agitate for government privileges and transfer payments.

It is more Politically Correct, but also absurd, to blame this on a secret progressive conspiracy of racist whites that are seeking to destroy the “free market” over the objections of hard working Hispanics who want cuts in the capital gains tax.

If you want a career in the Establishment conservative movement, it’s an easy choice deciding what to say.

Frum is absolutely correct when he observes that economic recession and white displacement are leading to Republican radicalism. However, he and operatives like him have done their best to make sure that conservative leaders who have real, practical responses to these concerns—above all Buchanan—have been cast out.

Consequently, Republicans can no longer articulate why they should defend aid to their (white) core constituents. Instead, they champion self-destructive wonkery like torpedoing Medicare. The GOP/ Beltway conservative movement leadership simply sees suffering whites as so much cannon fodder to be sacrificed for the "tax cuts for billionaires" agenda that Frum rightly criticizes.

The result: a Permissible Republican Ideology that ignores the interests of the people who vote for it. The Republican Noise Machine, with its lunatic combination of paranoia and Political Correctness, is a necessary step to keep the cognitive dissonance from jeopardizing party loyalty. Given the choice between a Stupid Party that will ignore them and defend plutocrats and an Evil Party that actively hates them, most Americans will give the Stupid Party the victory—until the whole thing breaks down.

Unfortunately, that time is drawing near. It’s worth noting that a significant part of Frum’s 2003 National Review jeremiad criticized paleoconservatives for their perceived pessimism regarding the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. His critique doesn’t age well as our country’s relationship with Pakistan is on the brink of collapse after 10 years in the graveyard of empires.

Frum also ripped the “Unpatriotic Right” for doubting the country’s moral fortitude after 9/11, writing,

“The nation responded to the terrorist attacks with a surge of patriotism and pride, along with a much-needed dose of charity. Suddenly, many conservatives found they could look past the rancor of the Clinton years, past the psychobabble of the New Age gurus, past the politically correct professors, to see an America that remained, in every important way, the America of 1941 and 1917 and 1861 and 1776. As Tennyson could have said: "What we were, we are."”

But Frum was, simply, wrong. 9/11 did not herald an age of American renewal and patriotism. It was simply one more chapter in the long American collapse, commemorated by college campuses and government entities around the country with de rigueur condemnations of imperialism, racism, Islamophobia, and America itself.

Thus on September 10, 2011, Mark Steyn wrote in a column entitled Let’s Roll Over

“We commemorate an act of war as a “tragic event,” and we retreat to equivocation, cultural self-loathing, and utterly fraudulent misrepresentation about the events of the day. In the weeks after 9/11, Americans were enjoined to ask, ‘Why do they hate us?’ A better question is: ‘Why do they despise us?’ And the quickest way to figure out the answer is to visit the Peace Quilt and the Wish Tree, the Crescent of Embrace and the Hole of Bureaucratic Inertia.”

Steyn’s latest book, After America, posits that American collapse is all but a fait accompli. Steyn has not yet been purged from National Review. Indeed, his book was sent free with every new subscription to the magazine.

The Establishment conservative movement today is nothing but a glorified corporate lobbying firm. But the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party are openly hostile to the interests of the country. The Democrats now openly express their scorn for American workers. They are far more interested in importing a permanent underclass of Democratic voters than fighting inequality or combating unemployment.

The only possible answer would be a more rational conservatism united around a vision of ending nation-breaking immigration, fiscal restraint, a responsible foreign policy, confrontation of corporate corruption, and aid for American workers, industry, and the poor.

However, that would mean sounding too much like Pat Buchanan—and it is far more important for Frum to pretend it will all be ok rather than be seen with the likes of him.

A “responsible” governing conservatism of the type Frum fancies presupposes a nation left to govern. And that may no longer exist.

More than its laws, its economy, or its governing document, a nation is the people and the culture that make it up. If they are dispossessed, it is no longer the same country.

But that is what is happening today—and Americans, to a significant extent because of David Frum, are not allowed to talk about it.

James Kirkpatrick [Email him] travels around the United States looking for a waiter who can speak English, a libertarian who believes in America, and an actual patriotic conservative.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/memo-to-david-frum-the-gop-is-extreme-because-you-helped-purge-its-extremists

Why Conservatives Have Lost the Political Battle for America's Soul

by Gary North
Tea Party Economist

This was posted on one of GaryNorth.com forums.

The battle for America’s political soul is always fought on the battlefield of federal politics. That’s why conservatives lose, generation after generation.”

Dr. North, would you please elaborate on this, why you believe the battle for America’s political soul is fought in Federal politics and why it is that conservatives continue to lose, generation after generation?

From the time of the ratification of the United States Constitution, American politics shifted to the national level. One of the things that I realized late in my career, even though I had been trained as an historian of the colonial period, was this: it is virtually impossible to write a history of the United States after 1788 without dividing it into four-year segments. Presidential election years set the tone for the direction of the country, and this has been true ever since the early 19th century, when the federal government’s share of the economy was minimal. It is not a matter simply of money; it is a matter of political legitimacy. Issues of legitimacy are much more important than issues of taxation. Legitimacy tells what the taxes will be spent on. That is far more important than the amount of taxes collected.

The problem is this: voting for the President, who is the only representative of all the people, is functionally a covenantal act. People ratify a particular President, and in doing so, they transfer authority and legitimacy to him and to his administration.

Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, these events were limited to state and local governments, and before that to colonial governments that were technically under the authority of the King of England. Politics was local, and the great issues of the day were also local. These issues differed from state to state, or from colony to colony.

There was no national civil government. There was no national political issue that confronted citizens in every region. Because there was no national government, there was no means of covenant ratification, which first took place in 1788. There was no means of covenant renewal nationally. So, people did not think of themselves as Americans; they thought of themselves as residents of their particular state.

It is difficult to write a history of the United States politically prior to 1775. Other than the American Revolution, there were no national political events. There were so many different colonies, and so many different issues, that the focus of the historian of necessity moves to issues of economics, social institutions, literary trends, political theory in general, marriage patterns, church planting, and basically nonpolitical issues. These are what conservatives regard, at least in theory, as the central issues of civilization.

The problem with political conservatives today is that the Constitution created a national government, and this national government has the power to tax. It has grown systematically and without reversal since 1788. The issues of the day are increasingly those of national politics, because the federal government extracts a greater percentage of the public’s wealth than any other single institution. When there is that much loot to be divvied up, everybody wants to get his hands into the pile of loot. In taking this money, the government legitimizes certain activities of the government, and these activities steadily replace private institutions and local governments. The money that the government collects baptizes the various proposals that special interest groups have for national renewal. Renewal is seen as political. It takes a lot of money to redo the whole nation.

Conservative social thought de-emphasizes politics. This is why conservative social thought never gains much of a hearing in the modern world. The modern world is so obviously political, and the power of central governments is so great over every area of life, that all issues become politicized. The traditional conservative opposition to the very suggestion of political salvation is co-opted by their enemies. Conservatives over and over go out to vote as if their votes will fundamentally change the nature of American society. Ultimately, this cannot be true if conservative social theory is correct. Ultimately, the political institutions represent the people, and the great issues of daily life are not political; they are social, ethical, economic, ecclesiastical, and educational. The great issues of life are not political, yet at the same time the central government is pushing its way into every area of life. It is politicizing that which was not political prior to the Enlightenment.

So, the conservative faces a dilemma. He wants to make the case for a particular national political candidate in terms of conservative values, but conservative values tell him that no political candidate can do much of anything to make the country any better. If the essence of social life is nonpolitical, which is what the conservative says is the case, then how can an election every four years fundamentally change the foundations of American life?

I always quote the letter written by political activist Paul Weyrich in 1999, in which he specifically said that we have lost the culture war, which ultimately is an ethical war. He did not see how politics could roll back the debauchery that America has become. He did not think that anything that could be done at the federal level through politics could fundamentally reverse what Robert Bork called slouching towards Gomorrah.

The liberal believes in something like political salvation. He believes in political healing of every area of life. He believes that federal power, coupled with federal money, can make society better. Therefore, he is active in politics, he puts faith in politics, and he puts a whole lot of money in politics. He sees political mobilization is the heart of social transformation. He becomes highly skilled at getting votes. He becomes a master at political fund-raising. He has all of the skills that a professional has in any field, and he is up against conservatives whose very philosophy of life militates against political salvation and hard-core political mobilization.

So, every four years the conservatives go off to vote, telling themselves that this is going to change something fundamental in the country. It never does. It can accelerate certain trends. But, given what George W. Bush did to the budget deficit, and given what he did in Middle Eastern wars, it is hard to make a case that the election of Al Gore would have made America far worse than it is today. The great thing about Al Gore was that he was indecisive. He did not trust his gut in the way the George W. Bush trusted his.

I suppose the best example in my lifetime was Franklin Roosevelt’s decision in 1944 to replace Henry Wallace with Harry Truman as Vice President. Henry Wallace was the most radical political figure ever to advance to national politics. He was further to the left than Huey Long. He would have replaced Roosevelt in April of 1945. Had he done so, America would be a far better place to live in. Harry Truman personally imposed the modern national security state. It was Truman who created the CIA. It was Truman who created the foundation of the Department of Homeland Security. It was Truman who expanded America’s Empire around the world. It was Truman who got us into the Korean War, and would not even call it a war, never gaining congressional approval. Wallace would never have been able to get that through Congress, because conservatives in Congress would have opposed him. Everybody knew how far to the left he was, and he had no national constituency of his own. Conservatives looked at Truman as preferable to Wallace. They make that sort of mistake all the time.

So, the conservative movement by its own nature is not an effective political competitor. Because local issues are far more tied to social issues, where conservatives say a country is established, they are better equipped to fight political battles of the local level than liberals are. Liberals look to Washington for salvation; conservatives ought to look to county government as a barrier against the expansion of the federal government into their lives. But they do not know the philosophy of local government which undergirded the foundation of this nation, beginning in the colonial era, and extending even through the period immediately preceding the ratification of the Constitution. That legacy has got to be restored, and conservatives have got to adopt it. If they do not adopt it, we are simply going to get more of the same, until the federal government finally goes belly-up.

Sadly, I think that is what is going to happen. I do not think most conservatives are going to spend the time, money, and effort to build up local resistance governments at the county level to step in when Washington’s checks bounce. They will have to do it after the Great Default.

Reprinted with permission from the Tea Party Economist.

April 23, 2012

Gary North [send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com. He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible.

http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1124.html

The battle for America’s political soul is always fought on the battlefield of federal politics. That’s why conservatives lose, generation after generation.”


http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1124.html

It was a slow march toward big government; the anti-federalists of the time knew what was bound to happen with the ratification of the constitution. Conservatism was getting the nails pounded in its coffin from the very start.

Regardless of the shortcomings of the document, the US would be a better place today had it stayed under the articles. I don't buy into the belief that America would have been reconquered by some European force had the constitution not been ratified. There would be no national currency, no federal taxation, none of the things which are fundamental to the survival of ZOG.

Murray Rothbard on Russell Kirk and Willmoore Kendall

by Bradley J. Birzer

If you’ve not had the chance, please check out the Ludwig von Mises website, www.mises.org, as the archival resources available are astounding.

This afternoon, I had the chance (as a reward to myself for each final exam graded!) to read through one of the site’s free e-books, Murray Rothbard’s Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos.

I personally know very little about Rothbard, but I found his analysis fascinating–offering us an important piece of the conservative-libertarian puzzle of division and tension in the 1950s.

The following two quotes come from Rothbard’s notes regarding a conservative conference and Dr. Russell Kirk in Buck Hill Falls, Pennsylvania, 1956.

Enjoy.

****

“We should now face the question: how does [Wilmoore] Kendall differ, say, from Russell Kirk in the ‘new conservatives’? Why is he anti-Kirk, as he is reputed to be, even though both of them unite in being opposed to free speech and Mill’s On Liberty? Answer: there is great difference between them. Kirk is the philosopher of old pre-Industrial Revolution, High Anglican England, the land of the squire, the Church, the happy peasant, and the aristocratic bureaucratic caste. He is essentially and basically antidemocratic. Kendall, on the contrary, is, as I have said, the pattern of the Lynch mob—he is an ur-democrat, a Jacobin impatient of any restrains on his beloved community. He hates bureaucracy, but not as we do, because it is tyrannical; he hates it because it has usurped control from the popular masses. He is the sort of person whom the Rossiter-Viereck ‘new conservatives’ are combating, for they are trying to defend the existent rule of the leftist bureaucracy against any populist mass upheaval. So they—the leftists—have shifted from mob whippers to soothing conservatives.” [David Gordon, ed., Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos of Murray N. Rothbard (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute,” 2010), 48.]

This leads me, at long last, to the question of what has happened to the Right in the last decade. It has grown but it is also decayed in quality by becoming confused, and confusing itself with wicked [end page 49] doctrine. A dramatic contrast can be shown, for example in taking a very early issue of Plain Talk—I think late 1946–and noting a moving article by Edna Lonigan, “I Taught Economics.” There, at the very beginning of this postwar flowering of the ‘radical Right,’ Lonigan wrote of her experiences as a wartime college teacher. The climax came when she converted some Pro–Commies in the class, after arguing with them all term for individual liberty, by giving them Mills On Liberty. In those days, the Right was small, but we were libertarian. We all fought for individual liberty, and battled majority as well as elitist tyranny of all types. And now, when we find Mill’s On Liberty discussed today—extensively by ‘rightists’ also, what do we find? Kirk and Kendall, each from his own point of view blatantly attacking liberty—and who is there to challenge them on the Right? This is the tragedy of the decade. How did this change happen to the “Right”? How did they change from pro–liberty to pro–tyranny without noting the difference? I submit because of the change in spirit from being a conscious minority to being almost, at least, in the majority in the country. And this came about from a switch in emphasis in doctrine. It came about from increasing stress on the Right on the twin issues of Communism and Christianity. Since the bulk of the populace has become converted to anti–Communism in this decade, the rightist can give up the burdens of being a lonely minority, by forgetting about libertarianism and stressing only Red–baiting. The same thing happens when the completely irrelevant issue of Christianity crops up; by arrogating to itself the Christian, or more, the theist mantle, the Right can again join a majority. So this is what has happened. The journalists write about the iniquities of Moscow, and the “philosophers” talk about the Christian tradition. It seems to me that to advance libertarianism, therefore, we should cut ourselves off completely, and even attack the Christian Red–baiting Right, which has become the evil exponent of tyranny that we know today. Red baiting and religion mongering should be exposed for the red herrings that they are, and shelves to concentrate on the prime issue: liberty versus tyranny.” [David Gordon, ed., Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos of Murray N. Rothbard (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute,” 2010), 49-50.]

Books mentioned in this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore. Essays by Dr. Birzer’s may be found here.

Dr. Bradley J. Birzer is co-founder of The Imaginative Conservative and a Senior Contributor. He is the author of Sanctifying the World: The Augustinian Life and Mind of Christopher Dawson, J.R.R. Tolkien’s Sanctifying Myth, and American Cicero: The Life of Charles Carroll. He is also author of The Humane Republic: The Imagination of Russell Kirk (forthcoming, University Press of Kentucky). Dr. Birzer also teaches Catholics in the Public Square for Catholic Courses.

Brad Birzer says:
May 10, 2011 at 2:57 pm

Almost a decade ago, ISI published a really nice piece by Gerald Russello on the critics of Kirk. Worth rereading:
http://www.mmisi.org/ir/38_02/russello.pdf
Reply
John Willson says:
May 15, 2011 at 6:37 am

Murray was likable, but when one reads (for the first time in many years) this drivel it recalls the truth and the bite in Kirk's label for the libertarians: "chirping sectaries." For Rothbard to call Christianity irrelevant blows his whole ball game. What did he think was the source of his freedom?
Reply
Javier R. says:
June 5, 2011 at 12:28 pm

Murray wasnt downplaying Christiantiy in the above statement but was taking on the use of religion in the context of the anti communist scare. Actually, Rothbard was very positive (for being a secular/agnostic Jew) of Christianity's (specifically Catholicism) role in the developmemt of economic theory of price. He defended the Catholic school of Salamanca as being the forerunners of free market ideas long before Smith and co. Rothbard went so far as to criticize (rightly in my opinion)Max Weber's conteniton that Protestantism (specifically Calvinsm)led to capitalism. Rothabard believed that Calvinsim was the percursor to the anti free market labor theory of prices. I would simply remind folks that his beloved wife Joy Rothbard, a scholar in her own right,was a devout Christian. Nathan Branden, an Ayn Rand devotee tried to get him to divorce her. Rothbard pretty much told him to go fly a kite.

Here are some of Rothbard's writings in this regard. Rothabrd's "drivel" is always worth the read (and he is still likebale today)

http://mises.org/daily/4070

http://mises.org/rothbard/RothbardOnKauder3.pdf

http://mises.org/daily/4162

http://mises.org/rothbard/MNRCatholicism.pdf

In the last link Rothbard criticizes one encyclical as being "pro fascist" but another as being "fundamentally libertarian and pro-capitalist".


http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/murray-rothbard-on-russell-kirk-and/#.UWdPP735_Tq