Not a fan of Jason Aldean

[Mr. Deez]

Let me clarify. I likened fighting to holding noncompromising stances and declaring extremely harsh criticism against progressivism. Nobody has truly fought with force against the leftist march through the institutions. But let me list some names that Buckley black listed over the years for being right wing radicals. Paul Gottfried. Sam Francis. James Burnham. Murray Rothbard. Clyde Wilson. The John Birch Society. Peter Brimelow. Joe Sobran. John Derbershire. All but two of those were off the top of my head.

You may disagree with these guys or at least part of what they taught. I do too. But they were all voices on the right that were much more radical and were pushing for much more uncompromising policies to protect American culture and the American constitutional order.

I'm not aware of them going after Burnham. Everything see from NR on him is positive. As for the others, they weren't criticized for being uncompromising. They were criticized for substantive differences. Most of them were either libertarian-types, and some were white nationalists. Yes, I know the Left says everybody to the Right of Mao is a white nationalist, but a few actually are. Hell, Brimelow went to work for Richard Spencer's website. I think we can fairly call him a white nationalist who shouldn't be associated with mainstream conservatism.

And some were just an embarrassment like JBS accusing Eisenhower of being a communist agent as well as the Dulles brothers and George Marshall. To make that kind of accusation, you need compelling evidence. He didn't have it but crusaded on that nonsense anyway, and it was hurting conservatism's credibility. Buckley cared about that, and he was right to.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If you want to know the nature of conservativism before the world wars versus after.

The Betrayal of the American Right | Murray N. Rothbard

The Old Right wasn't betrayed as much as it was discredited.

 

[Monahorns]

I don't know anything about Brimelow. But all the others were called white nationalists too. They weren't. It was a naked smear used to discredit.

Like I said I disagree with some of what each of these guys taught. I have listened to several Birchers. They are the fringe. But the left doesn't kick out their fringe. They use them to push the Overton window in their direction. They use them to gain power. They cover for them while they also manage them behind the scenes. Back to JBS. They were right about more than they were wrong. Eisenhower wasn't a communist agent but communists had infiltrated the federal government in the Truman administration and remained so through Eisenhower's. Correlation doesn't prove causation kind of thing.

But I think it is clear that Buckley punched right and extended his hand left. If he would have punched left and accepted those to the right of him, conservatives wouldn't have completely lost the culture war.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't know anything about Brimelow. But all the others were called white nationalists too. They weren't. It was a naked smear used to discredit.

Gottfried was an editor of Alternative Right - again, in the sack with Richard Spencer. If you don't want to be called a white nationalist, it's not smart to work with and for a pretty flagrant white nationalist.

Like I said I disagree with some of what each of these guys taught. I have listened to several Birchers. They are the fringe. But the left doesn't kick out their fringe. They use them to push the Overton window in their direction. They use them to gain power. They cover for them while they also manage them behind the scenes.

The left doesn't kick out its fringes now. When Buckley was doing most of his purging, they did. In addition, the right and left are not on equal footing. If the left has a nut on its team, the media will ignore the nut. If the right has a nut on its team, the media will ignore everyone but the nut. Makes them a lot more harmful to us.

And do you actually believe this? If some N-bomb dropping weirdo or a David Duke starts trying to latch onto the GOP, would you really just let him do it? Don't you see how that would be counterproductive?

Back to JBS. They were right about more than they were wrong. Eisenhower wasn't a communist agent but communists had infiltrated the federal government in the Truman administration and remained so through Eisenhower's. Correlation doesn't prove causation kind of thing.

But that's a very, very different thing from claiming that Ike was a Communist agent, and that was their claim. Their allegation wasn't just wrong. It badly damaged their credibility and was an embarrassment. We need to do better than that.

But I think it is clear that Buckley punched right and extended his hand left. If he would have punched left and accepted those to the right of him, conservatives wouldn't have completely lost the culture war.

If you think he generally punched right and extended his hand to the left, then you didn't read his magazine. 98 percent of what's in NR punches solidly to the left.

 

[Monahorns]

Gottfried was an editor of Alternative Right - again, in the sack with Richard Spencer. If you don't want to be called a white nationalist, it's not smart to work with and for a pretty flagrant white nationalist.

I've read many things written by Gottfried. I have listened to many interviews. I have listened to and read many of those who follow in his foot steps today. This is an out and out dishonest accusation. He has never advocated for anything like white nationalism that I have heard. Spencer before he turned racist was a paleocon and Gottfried was a kind of mentor. AlternativeRight.com started in 2010 before Spencer turned and then he left in 2012. This is a case of a younger guy following Gottfried's thought for a while and then going off his own way later. This isn't an indictment of Gottfried at all. But it is indicative of the kind of tactics Buckley used.

The left doesn't kick out its fringes now. When Buckley was doing most of his purging, they did. In addition, the right and left are not on equal footing. If the left has a nut on its team, the media will ignore the nut. If the right has a nut on its team, the media will ignore everyone but the nut. Makes them a lot more harmful to us.

And do you actually believe this? If some N-bomb dropping weirdo or a David Duke starts trying to latch onto the GOP, would you really just let him do it? Don't you see how that would be counterproductive?

Maybe. I haven't read of leftist purgings. But I do know the New Left of the 60s was radical, violent, and tyrannical. Nothing bad happened to those guys. Most of them ended up college professors where they trained this generations radicals. Even those who were arrested and even murdered people. They are lionized today. I just don't see any purges. The Left has been pushing drug use, sexual immorality, violent revolution; attacking nuclear families and natural rights with no punishment.

I honestly don't care about the media's reaction to a conservative. They should be ignored and I don't care how they portray anyone. They are liars and super immoral people. If conservatives decades ago would have been more courageous and wouldn't have genuflected to the leftist media we wouldn't be in this mess. Again. This is the problem that Buckley created or at least participated in.

At the same time, I am not for racists. I am an individualist. But I am also not for punishing people for things on my team that won't get punished on the other team. The left is full of racists who have said racist things publicly for years. I think fair is fair. I am not going to play the left's game. Behind the scenes I tell them to knock it off though. I move them down the ranks some until they can reform their rhetoric and attitudes. But let's be clear David Duke isn't a conservative. He is a big government guy. And racism isn't a property of conservatism that its thought leaders to need to be afraid of. Racism is a form of collectivism which has been implemented by those pushing for strong central governments.

But that's a very, very different thing from claiming that Ike was a Communist agent, and that was their claim. Their allegation wasn't just wrong. It badly damaged their credibility and was an embarrassment. We need to do better than that.

Sure. But they should have been used as bird dogs to go find the actual Communist agents. Spank them hard behind the scenes and help put them on the right scent. After WW2 the US WAS infiltrated by communists through out the government, industry, and academia.

If you think he generally punched right and extended his hand to the left, then you didn't read his magazine. 98 percent of what's in NR punches solidly to the left.

Good point. I did read it everyday for more than a decade. I would say he gatekept what could be said when NR had a lot of power over conservativism. He made sure that conservatism was presented to the public as a specific thing and if anyone colored outside the lines he marginalized them. This affected industry, academia, and politics.

WFB and NR didn't agree with leftists and progressives rhetorically. IOW they weren't pushing for a leftist agenda. But he/they did welcome people who came out of the left to be a part of their team. That is who the neoconservatives are/were. Ex-trotskyites. Then they clipped off the right side, moving the discussion ever leftward. He also clipped off those whom the left saw as distasteful. If the left disapproved of the stance or rhetoric too much WFB got rid of them. That is clarification on what I mean.

Two facts that I don't think can be denied. First, WFB and NR controlled conservatism for decades, more or less until Trump. As an aside, David French was writing for NR until Trump won the primary. Now he sings the praises of drag queen story hour. Second, while NR controlled conservatism, conservatives lost the country and now we have a growing totalitarianism made up of a one-party state that has set up a two tiered legal system.

 

[Garmel]

NR's view on election fraud is perhaps their biggest fault. It's as obvious as liberal media bias and if you can't see it then you're the problem in our conservative movement. I don't mind individuals holding that view but a large influential site holding that view damages us.

 

[Monahorns]

NR's view on election fraud is perhaps their biggest fault. It's as obvious as liberal media bias and if you can't see it then you're the problem in our conservative movement. I don't mind individuals holding that view but a large influential site holding that view damages us.

That is one example of the thing I am talking about which they have done for years. They present the "acceptable conservative" viewpoint. If you differ one step to the right they will destroy you and tell you that you deserve the destruction. Their body count is high. The "acceptable conservative" viewpoint just so happens to not threaten the left's victory on an issue at all. There is a disagreement but disagreement in a way that sets conservatives to lose to the left. The trans flag flying in DC for a whole month is the outcome of another example.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Maybe. I haven't read of leftist purgings. But I do know the New Left of the 60s was radical, violent, and tyrannical. Nothing bad happened to those guys. Most of them ended up college professors where they trained this generations radicals. Even those who were arrested and even murdered people. They are lionized today. I just don't see any purges. The Left has been pushing drug use, sexual immorality, violent revolution; attacking nuclear families and natural rights with no punishment.

You're blurring the timeframes. Nowadays and for the last 20 years, the left hasn't cut off its crazies. I don't deny that. But there's a reason why Bernie Sanders didn't enter politics as a Democrat. There's a reason why the containment of communism is named after a Democratic president.

I honestly don't care about the media's reaction to a conservative. They should be ignored and I don't care how they portray anyone. They are liars and super immoral people. If conservatives decades ago would have been more courageous and wouldn't have genuflected to the leftist media we wouldn't be in this mess. Again. This is the problem that Buckley created or at least participated in

It's easy to ignore the media now. We have alternative news networks and the internet. In Buckley's day, we didn't. What Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, etc. thought of and how they framed your movement made a very big difference. In fact, it was defining. The "big three" networks and the big newspapers were the main ways people got political news. They had to be considered.

But I am also not for punishing people for things on my team that won't get punished on the other team. The left is full of racists who have said racist things publicly for years.

So we should follow the Left's standards. No thanks.

I am not going to play the left's game. Behind the scenes I tell them to knock it off though. I move them down the ranks some until they can reform their rhetoric and attitudes.

And if they don't?

But let's be clear David Duke isn't a conservative.

Lol. We might not think so, but he would say he is and that we're a bunch of frauds shilling for the Left. In other words, he'd say about us what you're saying about Buckley.

Sure. But they should have been used as bird dogs to go find the actual Communist agents. Spank them hard behind the scenes and help put them on the right scent. After WW2 the US WAS infiltrated by communists through out the government, industry, and academia.

Do you really not see how getting something outlandish wrong damages one's credibility? They threw the charges out there. It put a lot of attention on them, but it trashed their credibility. They weren't going to be useful in doing much of anything. In fact, they helped damage the case that there were communist agents in the government.

Also, the guys you mentioned knew Buckley personally. Don't you think he had private conversations with them? You just assume they were nice guys who would have listened to reason.

But he/they did welcome people who came out of the left to be a part of their team. That is who the neoconservatives are/were. Ex-trotskyites. Then they clipped off the right side, moving the discussion ever leftward.

If someone leaves communism and advocates conservatism, why wouldn't you welcome him on your team?

He also clipped off those whom the left saw as distasteful. If the left disapproved of the stance or rhetoric too much WFB got rid of them. That is clarification on what I mean

You assume that their conservatism is what got them clipped. It wasn't.

First, WFB and NR controlled conservatism for decades, more or less until Trump. As an aside, David French was writing for NR until Trump won the primary. Now he sings the praises of drag queen story hour.

David French is a hack. Buckley wouldn't be a fan.

Second, while NR controlled conservatism, conservatives lost the country and now we have a growing totalitarianism made up of a one-party state that has set up a two tiered legal system.

It's ridiculous to blame NR. The country is being lost mostly because we forfeited education and media on the individual and family level. People of the right largely don't encourage their kids to go into those fields. Leftists do. NR resisted that every step of the way.

 

[Monahorns]

There are obviously disagreements between us in several areas. I don't really want to belabor them. But I did want to make one last comment about the big picture.

National Review has been the most influential conservative voice for 50-60 years. The huge shift leftward has happened while they were influential. I don't think it follows logically that the problem was the conservatives didn't follow the most influential conservative voice for 50 years. Otherwise you can't say that National Review has been the most influential conservative voice. But I think that fact is unequivocal. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to believe that NR either encouraged the leftward shift somehow or they unknowingly conditioned conservatives to accept it. The things I point out about WFB are things I have heard about him that I think could explain what has happened in our country.

I would encourage you to read the book I linked earlier in this thread. I doubt it will change your mind but I think it would be helpful to at least understand the history of the conservative movement in America. I have heard people comment on it, but I started reading it myself.

 

[Mr. Deez]

There are obviously disagreements between us in several areas. I don't really want to belabor them. But I did want to make one last comment about the big picture.

National Review has been the most influential conservative voice for 50-60 years. The huge shift leftward has happened while they were influential. I don't think it follows logically that the problem was the conservatives didn't follow the most influential conservative voice for 50 years. Otherwise you can't say that National Review has been the most influential conservative voice. But I think that fact is unequivocal. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to believe that NR either encouraged the leftward shift somehow or they unknowingly conditioned conservatives to accept it. The things I point out about WFB are things I have heard about him that I think could explain what has happened in our country.

I would encourage you to read the book I linked earlier in this thread. I doubt it will change your mind but I think it would be helpful to at least understand the history of the conservative movement in America. I have heard people comment on it, but I started reading it myself.

Fair enough, but I think you infer a lot of causation from correlation. The leftward shift happened as the Left took over institutions (usually with little resistance from rank and file conservatives). Well, NR didn't make that happen. In fact, they provided much of the resistance to it, but it's not enough on its own. People on the Right needed to prioritize things like becoming teachers, journalists, etc., and for the last 50 years, they largely didn't. They needed to be involved in things like school board races. They were indifferent. Luckily, that's changing, but we're 60 years late.