Prologue to “A Critical Look at Rush Limbaugh”—Parts One and Two

Like many of Rush Limbaugh’s listeners I felt a personal connection to him, but unlike many, I did not believe that he was practically infallible or always told the truth. I saw great merits in him but also weaknesses. “A Critical Look at Rush Limbaugh,” published by The Occidental Observer in late 2014, is largely a memoir of important occasions when Rush Limbaugh demonstrably had not been honest, and had served the political establishment rather than his own ideals or the people.  We loved him, but he had let us down.

There were several purposes in writing this. Obviously it was to educate the public, but this was not necessarily a disfavor to Rush Limbaugh. Suppose that he had made untrue statements only because he felt forced by circumstances: in that case it could be a relief for him, the alleviation of a moral burden, to find out that his audience “gets it.” On the other hand, while I was seeing positive changes in the Rush Limbaugh of 2014, the continuing pretense that he had practically never been wrong about anything was troubling, because it showed a lack of repentance. It was troubling, both that he was saying it and that the audience was accepting it. I wanted to call attention to Rush Limbaugh’s past failings so that returning to them would be difficult. I wanted to burn the bridges behind Rush Limbaugh so that he could not go back.

The critique seemed to attract wide attention. A few days after TOO published my two-part critique, Rush Limbaugh did something unusual. He spent his first hour ruminating over the “blogosphere” and “new media.” Based on the timing and some details in what he said, and the unusually subdued and thoughtful manner in which he spoke (not his usual boisterous persona), I believe that my criticisms were on his mind.

Significantly, he did not have any negative comment. On the contrary, he said that blogs and websites are part of the “alternative media” that he started with his syndicated radio show in 1988. About the creators of “new media,” he says:

Many of them are conservative, many of them are renegade conservative, but the point is, it is causing the Drive-By Media further panic,  and the impact that all of this new media is having is clearly the erosion of the monopolistic mainstream media model. That deterioration is continuing. …

The American people — and I’m not being critical. You know me, the more the merrier, and the freer the speech, the better. I can deal with it. You know, I’m in a content content content business. I’m proud of my content, and I don’t make it up, and I don’t lie about it, so I got nothing to worry about. But the people in the Drive-Bys who have been living a lie for all these years are being exposed, and they are in a panic.

I had criticized him precisely for “living a lie.” He also referred to “being exposed,” and I certainly did expose him. He acknowledges that he could be a target of criticism from some “renegade conservatives” in thes“new media” when he says: “I can deal with it. …. I got nothing to worry about.”  His subdued tone suggested nonetheless that he had been affected by something.

Rush Limbaugh’s last years turned out to be his best. While he did not become 100% honest all the time, he did become more honest, and more valuable to his people. I was not alone in noticing this change; Don Black on Stormfront Radio also commented on it.

I certainly do not want to appear to claim credit for this, however. The important factor facilitating Rush Limbaugh’s evolution  was  not a screed that gave him pause on one day: rather, it was a change in practical circumstances, specifically the rise of Donald Trump.

48 replies
  1. Karl
    Karl says:

    Nearly everyone, including the late Rush, and now Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and 90% of all non-Jewish media figures, know about Jewish power.

    And they’re all afraid of it.

    hey may mention “Neo-cons” once in a while (which is a codeword for Jews), but they dare not say “Jews.”

    For them to do so without support from others could be job- and career-killing.

    Same with members of Congress. Even “The Squad” (the 4 Leftist women) have toned down their criticism of Jewish power.

    Jews and Israel are the “elephants in the room” in terms of both domestic and foreign American policy.

    The top pro-Israel Evangelicals are also a problem. They get money from Jews and Israel. These people are more pro-Jewish than pro-Christian. They are a sad sight.

    It is going to take a group effort where brave Americans stand up very publicly and speak out no matter the consequences.

    Maybe a published group letter by conservative academicians?

    ATBOTL says:

    There was no evolution. A few weeks before Limbaugh went off the air, a caller starting talk about how immigration was making whites a minority. Limbaugh hung up on him. A cuck to the end.

    White men have to stop being so naive.

  3. John
    John says:

    Rush Limbaugh spoke about the “Pioneer Statue with Rifle Triggers University of Oregon Students” & NEVER said y this was continuing to happen, namely, due to demographic change. The 3rd worlders flooding into our country have no connection to our historical past to our ancestors who created & built our once amazing nation, that we r literally giving it away. This defacing & tearing down our statues didn’t happen when we were overwhelmingly a European Nation. This destruction is occurring now as we have been reduced to about 59% European. It will undoubtedly get worse if we continue our demographic decline. Remember that we r the target; today it’s the statues & tomorrow it will b us. DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY. Rush did not say the truth on y our nation’s destruction was happening. We can’t fix our problem if we can’t even say what is the problem. A people can survive almost anything (eg. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden). However, a people can never survive demographic change.

  4. Annabelle
    Annabelle says:

    Rush Limbaugh was a creation of the deep state to control and manipulate white anger!
    If Rush had not existed would we have risen up against the deep state when we had the numbers to defeat the war against whites?

    • toop
      toop says:

      Very much doubt that he was “creation of the deep state”. He did live like a
      block away from Epstein in Mar a lago and literally never commented on the epstein scandal. Makes me wonder if their was any dirt.

  5. Joe
    Joe says:

    My “light bulb” moment with Rush occurred in early 2003. Prior to this time, I was a devoted fan and would even record his shows on cassettes to listen to in the car during commutes. However, the beginning of this one week in early spring, Rush began his show pounding the war drums against Saddam Hussein and Iraq… clearly implicating them as “terrorists”. Soon afterwards came the illegal invasion of that country by the United States of Israel and I immediately KNEW that he, Rush Limbaugh, had been given HIS marching orders to foment this outrageous tragedy upon yet another one of Israel’s perceived enemies. I stopped listening to him cold turkey after that.

  6. Crush Limbraw
    Crush Limbraw says:

    Rush, grudgingly perhaps, stopped fighting DaLastWar and became aware of the Trump effect and the new reality of Americans vs. the ruling elite. (Whom we never name:)
    Unfortunately, that revelation has not yet reached DaBoomers!

  7. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    …” no matter the consequences. ”

    Forget about martyrism that is for extreme fanatics which are very rare .

    That is a major reason how Whites lost the race each time . They never seemed able to figure out how to provide adequate safety nets for those brave leaders and their families whom were wounded-in-action trying to help other Whites escape from their zio-jewish enslavements . Most Protestant/Catholic churches did not provide the needed safety nets because they had capitulated to the chosenhite jewmasterss .

  8. 12AX7
    12AX7 says:

    Tucker will not even say on his show that someone or something is “anti-White”, merely that it’s “racist”. Tucker consistently fails to point out that cancel culture, discriminatory prosecution against Whites or black/brown favoritism is racism only directed against Whites.

    An egregious example of this was Tucker’s recent piece about terrible assaults against elderly Asians in SF and NYC. Asians marching against the assaults carried signs and some proclaimed that “White privilege” was responsible for the attacks and that Donald Trump’s calling Covid the “China” or “Wuhan” virus had provoked the attacks.

    Everyone (including Asians) knows that it’s blacks committing the assaults, not Whites and that these attacks had been going on for years preceding Covid in 2020. There is ample video which shows the race of the attackers and in none, zero, are there White faces, and Tucker must know this.

    Tucker never calls out anti-White racism, the official policy now of the U.S. Government for exactly what it is, he only criticizes racism in general. Fox TV and Tucker also use their trick oh having some black guy join in their criticism of this egregious policy, such as Candace Owens. Apparently this “proves” that Tucker (and Fox TV) have not committed the mortal sin of racism, whatever that is.

    The Usual Suspects are of course off limits but so is mentioning that racism against Whites is now policy in the U.S. Tucker knows where the redlines are and he won’t cross them.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      Absolutely agree and well-stated. *Everyone* on Fox is paid the big bucks they get by the Jewish Power structure/Media Empire. They toe the line and it can be disgusting to watch. I follow Fox News for the information it provides,
      and I still think Donald Trump (and his family) is our best bet currently. He shows us how to stand firm; how to have a backbone. That’s what we need. If we can’t stand up for our own perceived interests *in our own names,* why would we expect others to do it for us? I’m talking to you, 12AX7.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” I still think Donald Trump (and his family) is our best bet currently. ”

        I hope you are correct about that because I , along with some others , are still wondering whether Trump is the greatest ever con-artist USA President .

        • Hadding
          Hadding says:

          I take the opposite position: I wish that Donald Trump were not “our best bet.” I wish that we had a better option, but I don’t see one.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            Even a superman Trump could not remediate the thoroly corrupt fedgov nor defeat the CFR ILLuminati NWO/OWO/JWO/ZWO agenda for world conquest .

            A WN ethnostate is the only viable option for White racial survival . A gradual infiltration into the Northwest USA may be possible . At this point , Whites do not appear to have the capability to openly defy TPTB and declare the establishment of a sovereign state . Voting in an ethnostate is not really possible . A solid white faction to permanently dominate a WN government is all that would be pragmaticly necessary as far as racial purity is concerned .

          • Hadding
            Hadding says:

            Okay, so according to you there is no solution and the Jews are unbeatable.

            That’s oversimplified thinking. In reality, governments based on abstract principles, rather than the wellbeing of the nation, are easier for Jews to manipulate. If your government is based on freedom or equality (especially freedom) then they can argue with you that you are not living up to your principles unless you do something or allow something contrary to your obvious national interest. We see this all the time.

        • KeepTheChange
          KeepTheChange says:

          Gotta agree with Hadding on this one … in my opinion, Trump really cucked when he threw the Capitol protestors under the bus. Then he gave a speech at CPAC … he should’ve just given CPAC the middle finger and walked off. He’s probably trying to negotiate some way to stay outta jail and is being use as the next “Rush” figure to manage White angst. Trump’s not our guy … he’s toast.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            ” Trump’s not our guy “…

            Agreed . I am not an expert on Trump but he definitely appears to put Israeli interests above/before the largest USA ethnic group ( ie. Whites ) .

      • Lucius Vanini
        Lucius Vanini says:

        Ah, did DT show us how to stand firm? Firm in what? His adherence to advice from his consigliere Kushner?

        Trump left us all in the lurch. The only hope after November 3rd was that as Commander-in-Chief he’d declare martial law and stop the steal by using the military to actually defend the USA. Besides working overtime for his reelection I repeatedly implored him to do so–to heed the urgings of his prestigious attorneys Wood and Powell, who saw that the only way to stop the anti-White totalitarians was to take a brave, historic stand and do whatever was needful to save the country. But Trump didn’t have the guts; the country is NOT saved; and now the elements in the land who yet retain a willingness to resist are left leaderless, all of them isolated from most of their fellows, all capable of being crushed separately in time.

        And so, e.g., we now painfully and helplessly watch the roundup of patriots who were in Washington on 1/6–patriots arrested in pre-dawn hours by FBI henchmen, Swat teams!

        Antifa and Black LIES Matter burned and robbed and assaulted, but few were arrested and none indicted; but the selective prosecution of self-loving Euro-Americans proceeds apace; and good, non-felonious people may be incarcerated for years!

        Trump is our best bet?! He would be if he were still Commander-in-Chief–but now? HOW? He can’t defend the country militarily anymore.

        And can he even get elected in 2024? In case you didn’t notice, the 2020 election was stolen through electoral fraud. Trump actually won the election–he got most of the legal votes; but that doesn’t count anymore, does it. How can elections be believed in anymore, let alone relied on to save Euro-America.

        Seems to me that saying DT is our best hope is another way of saying there’s no hope. May he NOT be anywhere near to being our best bet.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Tucker and his exceptional colleagues lay their lives and those of their families on the line every day. What do you do ?

      Fox is owned by Murdock, not by its journalists. And Murdock has innumerable other enterprises, all of which require a degree of cooperation with the general business world in order to survive.

      Perhaps there are two different Tuckers, because I don’t read the real one at all as you do. All I know is, that the shit hole we are stuck in would even be deeper without him, Hannity, Levin, Steyn, Laura and ALL others !

      Some nitpickers here fault KM for not dealing with AH. Now Tucker & Co. are guilty as well. What the hell happened to the assumed sophistication of this readership to be able to READ BETWEEN THE LINES ? [ and survive ].

      Think of the tremendous platform Fox affords to those many excellent, up and coming leaders, in addition to solidly conservative and brilliant scholars.

      Complain to Santa !

      • Hadding
        Hadding says:

        Mark Levin was the chief of staff to Ed Meese at the time when the Fort Smith Mass-Sedition Trial happened. Thankfully it was a total failure and humiliation for the Justice Department but the purpose of it was to incriminate and incarcerate as many pro-White activists as possible.

        I would remind you that Mark Levin was a Never-Trumper and only came around rather late. Why? Because other talkshow hosts who did not come around (e.g. Michael Medved, Charlie Sykes) were losing their jobs. One may wonder about the sincerity of such an 11th-hour conversion.

        Laura Ingraham? She says that immigration is fine just so long as it’s legal.

        Mark Steyn is good. I recall that on the day after Dinesh D’Souza had attacked the Charlottesville demonstrators as Rush Limbaugh’s guest, Mark Steyn, without mentioning D’Souza, explained that he was wrong. Don Black opines that Steyn is “just as good as Rush.”

        These Limbaugh copycats are not all equal.

        • Hadding
          Hadding says:

          Somebody will ask why Rush Limbaugh himself did not correct Dinesh D’Souza, or why Steyn did not mention his name.

          It’s because Dinesh D’Souza was buying wall-to-wall advertising for his latest movie in 2018 (which, by the way, did not break even at the box office). Limbaugh did not seem very enthused about what D’Souza was saying, but money buys polite indulgence.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          01 Even KM freely admitted to have dropped in here from stage left. So did I. Why couldn’t Levin ? Until I personally discern incongruities in his opinions, he will remain for me what he appears.

          He, his knowledgeable interviewees and his engagement of them vitally delay the final curtain call. Many of Red Berlin’s most ardent activists became leading NSDAP members. What they/we all have/had in common, was not to be stunted at birth: which is the new fashion.

          02 Laura, as a lawyer, has a grasp of the law and certainly of that profession’s necessary, taught component of Logic. Vital in dissecting HR !, and the remainder of the multi trillion dollar untreated sewage seeping out of the so-called Biden Administration; in the clear direction of one-party-rule.

          There isn’t a single thing wrong with legal immigration, which affords targeted, carefully scrutinized nation-serving augmentation of the domestic labor force. I.e. the diametrically opposed to the present, hopefully impeachable crime.

          03 Of course Steyn is in a class by himself with his unequalled mouth: always reflecting analysis, thought, wit and ample, irrefutable sarcasm.

          04 Why in hell do they have to be Limbaugh copycats: equal or otherwise. !? Rush, by all accounts, including his own, lacked formal education. Who is to say he didn’t copy all of the above; and more ? And even assuming he did, how would that diminish his enormous contribution ?

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            @ HADDING

            You ascribe opportunism to ” never-Trumper ” Levin and cast aspersions on his ” belated conversion “, thereby diminishing his current contributions.

            How in hell else is one to read the flip-flop you write ?

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        Really Charles, when did it become “normal” for Tucker Carlson and his colleagues to “lay their lives on the line every day” just to do what they are doing?. Remember, they do NOT name the Jew ever, and are super respectable and accepting toward Blacks and all non-Whites. Why are they in so much danger? Can you in any way justify the attitude that we should be sophisticated enough to “read between the lines” and that to want to openly discuss how we got to such a sorry pass, if it includes “nitpicking” about not dealing with AH (actually not giving AH a fair assessment because ‘the Jews’) is expecting too much. You’re saying we should accept our diminished state and be grateful for whatever crumbs are still provided.

        It’s time we simply say NO, I won’t accept that, I don’t accept that, I demand better than that. I’m not talking about revolution, just refusing to play along anymore. Say NO, and mean it. And tell these fuckers why.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          If you paid greater attention to Tucker, you would not have missed his remark late last week, that the NYT crew set up in front of his house, with his wife and children home alone and subsequently published this stake-out.

          The unmistakable MESSAGE to its looney readership:

          WE KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE !!!

          Surely I don’t have to rehash the numerous threats and actions, some lethal, against adherents of the right.

          Given a choice between FOX as it is, and an overtly racist slant – resulting in its cancellation – I consider it incomparably more useful and vital as it is. No other site could afford its thoroughgoing contemporaneous coverage on its full spectrum-wide vital issues.

          After fearlessly reporting an issue they are entitled to expect us to fill in the cause and effect – and likely culprit.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            “If you paid greater attention to Tucker, you would not have missed his remark late last week, that the NYT crew set up in front of his house, …”

            Who says I missed it? Did I say that? Are you clairvoyant now (after dismissing even intuition)? In fact, I did hear him say that. Is it supposed to make me fall to my knees in worshipful of Tucker?

            It’s hopeless to expect even those few of us reading and commenting here to have the same takeaway from events. *Diversity is here to stay and will only grow.* Better get used to it.

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            @ CAROLYN

            If, as you said, you indeed heard Tucker mention the published NYT stake-out in front of his house, while he was absent, then your lack of comprehension, that he was meant to be threatened, is more reprehensible than before you assured us that you saw him.

            Enumerate dozens of similar implied physical threats, and some of their lethal conclusions, on your own time.

            Neither Tucker nor any among his courageous colleagues would give a dam whether anyone at all fell to their knees to kiss the hem of their trousers or skirts. Particularly not from people who lack formal logic and often write two consecutive, self-contradictory sentences.

            This includes Hadding !

            I am no prude and, when warranted, use juicy epithets, like ” swine ” when writing of deserving miscreants like Ehrenburg. However, I find your garnishing your comments with a final F…- off, particularly coming from a woman, most disagreeable.

            Herewith, I shall take leave from you and Hadding.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            To Charles @ March 17, 2021 at 1:40 pm

            Ridiculous, and sad, that I have to demand that you quote/show exactly where I ended a comment with “F…- off.”

            Of course, you can’t. Please know that even though I highly, highly care about and respect your travails as a German child and youth, I’m only 2 years younger than you, so don’t feel I have to treat you with kid gloves. Of note, I was born on the very morning of the start of the Barbarossa invasion, at 6:30 a.m. DST. I’m sure that impressed itself on my infant psyche.

            We are fellow travellers and friends, you and I.

  9. Kris
    Kris says:

    Interesting retrospective, particularly for those of us who were not here in 2014. I hope the author considers revisiting this topic once more in another relatively distant part 3, as it would be interesting to see Rush’s legacy in a future time, farther away from all the present collective emotions.

  10. Bryce Talbee
    Bryce Talbee says:

    Was never a fan of Rush.
    Used to like Tucker but not anymore.
    I no longer watch any MSM at all.

      • Hadding
        Hadding says:

        That has been a point of contention for years. Hannity works for Fox, and Fox has to present itself as somehow the outsider in order to maintain credibility with its audience.

        I think that this was also precisely Rush Limbaugh’s point about himself, in response to my criticisms. I pointed out that he had promoted bipartisan, establishment propaganda, and supported politicians who were completely centrist while opposing the real alternatives. His status as a dissident was called into question. His response: No, no! I am an outsider! In fact, I created alternative media!

        I haven’t seen much of Fox in years, but they have presented some news and perspectives about certain matters (especially racial conflict) that other networks ignored. On anything relating to Israel, however, they are even worse than the others. It is best not to rely on one source for all of your news.

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          ” On anything relating to Israel, however, they are even worse than the others.”

          There it is — the inevitable double-cross .

          • Hadding
            Hadding says:

            It’s only an effective lie if you trust them. No adult should trust any big media absolutely. They all will misrepresent some things sometimes.

  11. Hadding
    Hadding says:

    You people saying that Rush Limbaugh never did evolve are very mistaken, and, if you are open to facts at all, you will be very surprised at what I present in Part Three.

    • Junghans
      Junghans says:

      Go for it Hadding. To me ‘Rush’ was a decoy of the kosher dominated system, tolerated & used in order to keep the White adolescents in adult bodies…in the play pen.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Indeed I will be surprised, in addition to also being astonished about what you write about vacillating Limbaugh. Unlike Junghans who appears to foretell, that it will be critical. .

    • KeepTheChange
      KeepTheChange says:

      Gotta agree with Junghans (I’m also agreeing with someone) … Rush only went so far … he always kept it as Red Team vs Blue Team. He never went any further to comment on, say, Cultural Marxism, and how that explains much of what we see today. As I dug into it, it seems that Clear Channel, who is his employer, was ran by Bain Capital, who is ran by the Usual Suspects, so … he’s not gonna touch the 3rd rail. So, he just kept the Rep vs Dem food fight alive, and a bit amusing, for the masses. They’re all bought and paid for.

      • Hadding
        Hadding says:

        If you listened carefully to Rush Limbaugh there was a lot more to him than that, especially in the last years — and I am going to bring that out — although his imitators and would-be replacements will be inclined to stick to the safe stuff.

  12. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    Draw a circle . Then take any political stance and assign it your first point on the circle . Then assign the opposite stance to the opposite point on the circle . Assign the next point to a stance either to the left or the right of any previously assigned point on the circle ; and then assign the opposite stance to the opposite point . Do that a hundred times , a thousand times , or more until you are satisfied that all significant political stances have been assigned . Then watch how “the jewss” sooner or later and invariably co-opt every single stance that persists and grows big enough to significantly bother them ; and then lead the followers back to a pre-ordained political corral . In particular , Tucker Carlson will not be allowed to go very far with any pro-white journalism if he does not on net covertly/overtly toe the Israeli line .

    • Hadding
      Hadding says:

      Okay, so according to you there is no solution and the Jews are unbeatable.

      That’s oversimplified thinking. In reality, governments based on abstract principles, rather than the wellbeing of the nation, are easier for them to manipulate. If your government is based on freedom or equality (especially freedom) then they can argue with you that you are not living up to your principles unless you do something contrary to your obvious national interest. We see this all the time.

Comments are closed.