Mainstream Conservatives

Worst Dead Conservative Writers

Who are the worst dead conservative writers?

William Buckley would be my choice. (I have long used the term “Buckleyite” to describe the various phalanges of his far flung array of “conservative” groups. It’s a term that has been in public usage since the 1960s.)

Robert Welch — not Ayn Rand — would be runner up.

Together, Buckley and Welch pretty much closed the door on any adult discussion of really serious matters like race and Jewish issues.

Buckley — a CIA agent — cornered the market on the more inhibited self-identified as “high brow” element.

Welch — surrounded by Jews and financed by them — worked a different market: people who were more gutsy and less constrained by published opinion.

The idea that Buckley as an agent of the System’s political police was going to “stop history in its tracks and tell it to turn around” (to use his self-description of National Review) is something only the hopelessly naive could entertain.

Re Mr. Welch, young people are probably too dismissive of the John Birch Society. JBS gobbled up and wasted probably well over 100 million dollars. In its heyday it was not what it later became — a collection of marginalized people of little influence.

Chief Justice Rehnquist was a John Birch Society member back in the early 60s. That this little factoid didn’t become an issue in his confirmation hearings or in the media tells you that the System had a soft spot in its heart for him. And wisely so. In one of his opinions as an aside he went out of his way to say that he thought Beauharhais vs. Illinois was good law. This was a Supreme Court decision in 1952 that upheld a Canada-style law in Illinois making it a crime to say something that exposed an ethnic group or race up public contempt. Beauharnais (that may not be the exact name) was convicted and jailed for publishing statistics on the differential venereal disease rates between Whites and Blacks. Read more

Immigration and the Recent GOP Primaries: What Next?

I have previously written here on the immigration-amnesty question.  Of relevance are the negative outcomes in those May 2014 Republican primaries that revolved around the immigration issue; essentially, pro-amnesty Establishment Republicans defeated the anti-amnesty and immigration restrictionist Tea Party-backed “outsiders.” It’s described by Patrick Cleburne at VDARE. 

Some charitable commentators excuse these election outcomes by pointing out that the Establishment candidates had huge bankrolls, and used that money to finance deceptive campaigns that didn’t tell the truth about amnesty.  However, well informed and intelligent voters should have been able to understand that immigration was the key to these primary contests, the campaign propaganda notwithstanding.

When the GOP inevitably caves in on the issue of amnesty (and they will, eventually, one way or the other), I plan to present an overall political strategy to deal with the GOP albatross that prevents the emergence of a real patriotic alternative.  For now, I’ll make a few remarks that will point in the direction my thoughts are headed. Read more

The Blame Game

Prime Minister David Cameron on his visit to Amritsar's Golden Temple where he laid a wreath where Indians were killed by British colonial forces in 1919

Prime Minister David Cameron on his visit to Amritsar’s Golden Temple

When is an apology not an apology? When it is the British government offering “deep regret” for the supposed misdeeds of its imperial forefathers. The latest mea culpa comes from Prime Minister David Cameron who has apologised to the Sikh community for Britain’s supposed role during the massacre at their holiest shrine, the Golden Temple in Amritsar during a hostage crisis in 1985.

This came as a surprise to everyone, including most Sikhs, who were unaware of any British involvement when the Indian army raided the temple during the clashes which took place nearly forty years after Indian independence.

But Prime Minister Cameron has insisted that yes indeed there is something to apologise over. His civil servants had been rooting through the archives and had come up with something suitably incriminating. It turns out that a single British officer was dispatched to the scene at the time of the stand-off and his advice was ignored. So that was the extent of our “colonial interference” on that occasion. Cue fulsome apology. Read more

In Praise of Austerity: Remembering A Patriot and Prophet

Obstacle to Success

I have to face facts: if I were Jewish, I’d probably be a devout liberal. If I were Jewish and American, I would have voted twice for Barack Obama, demanded justice for St. Trayvon (whose hoodie, like the relic of  a medieval saint, will likely be displayed at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC) and be fully in support of open borders. This helps explain why I admire the late Larry Auster. He did something I don’t think I could have done. He was born Jewish but he refused to join the White-hating, West-destroying Jewish establishment. He never accepted the fame and wealth that were his for the asking. He could have imitated men like Mark Steyn and Theodore Dalrymple. Then he would have been hugely successful and well-rewarded in that branch of liberal pathology known as neo-conservatism. But something got in the way: his respect for the truth.

Steyn and Dalrymple don’t care much for the truth. Both are part Jewish and both follow the rule of Pas devant les goyim – “Not in the front of the gentiles.” Dalrymple’s shtick is to endlessly criticize the pathology of modern British life without mentioning crucial factors like race. Here he is hard at work, suppressing facts and concealing reality:

Last June in Paris, a young Englishman walked into a bar frequented by Britons, having agreed to meet his girlfriend there. A row had been brewing between them all day, and he asked her to leave with him. She was enjoying herself, however, and demurred; whereupon he dragged her into the adjoining room, punched her to the ground, and kicked her so viciously that he left her head and stomach covered in bruises. The bar staff pulled him off and threw him out, but not before he had received a Glasgow kiss — a head-butt — from a chivalrous patron of the bar.

Only two months earlier, a court had acquitted the young Englishman of an assault on his previous girlfriend, the mother of his two-year-old child. … Apart from its Parisian setting, every aspect of the story seems familiar to the student of English underclass life: the easily inflamed ego, the quick loss of temper, the violence, the scattering of illegitimate children, the self-exculpation by use of impersonal language. But the young Englishman was not a member of the underclass, nor was the woman he assaulted. His salary alone was $1.25 million a year, and she was a well-known weather-girl-turned-talk-show-host. Poverty was not the explanation of their behavior. The young Englishman was a famous professional soccer player. (Uncouth Chic, City Journal, Autumn 1998)

Dalrymple’s “young Englishman”

Dalrymple’s “young Englishman”

Read more

Bill O’Reilly: Exploiting the race card but avoiding the real issue

Bill O’Reilly happens to be on while I’m at the gym (obviously I need an excuse to watch him), so I sometimes tune in  to make the time go by a little faster.  He is probably seen by most people as a conservative—which is why he is so poisonous. Right now he is plugging the immigration surge/amnesty bill as good politics (all those low-income, uneducated, benefits-hungry immigrants our economy so desperately needs can hardly wait to vote Republican out of gratitude for passing the bill), much to the delight of Sen. Marco Rubio. After all, he is looking out for you—never mind that it will add 30-40 million non-White Americans in the next ten years and who knows how many more given that, as in the past, whatever draconian enforcement provisions end up in the bill as sops to the Republicans will not be implemented, especially considering that the 90% apprehension requirement has been abandoned.  The Democrats would love to get the big surge in numbers by agreeing to stricter enforcement that they know full well will never happen.

(O’Reilly recently debated Laura Ingraham on immigration, Ingraham laughing at his naivete in supposing that the likes of Obama and Napolitano will secure the border no matter what the law says.  O’Reilly countered masterfully by saying he trusted Sen. John McCain[!]. )

O’Reilly does a much better job of looking after himself. The last part of his show is basically an infomercial plugging his books and personal appearances. He is nothing if not a money-making machine. His money-grubbing is so blatant that it always amazes me that he is so popular. Why aren’t people offended by his obvious greed?

segment he  did on Salamishah Tillet (June 18) caught my attention because of what it says about the “conservative” mass media on race. Tillet is an Assistant Professor of English at the University of Pennsylvania who, in O’Reilly’s words, put on “an incredible display of racial hatred on national television.” Tillet talked about the “moral panic—a fear of the end of Whiteness” due to “a decreasing White majority.” The result is that Whites are circling the wagons by opposing late-term abortion. Apparently, her idea is that these Whites see late-term abortion as a way of attacking the embattled White race because the bodies of White women are “crucial”  in “reproducing Whiteness, White supremacy, White privilege.”

 O’Reilly’s guest, one Leslie Miller who is described as a “liberal talk show host,” rejects Tillet’s argument but says she is well aware that the “White Aryan Resistance, skinheads, etc.” are concerned about the end of majority  White America. O’Reilly makes no objection.
Read more

Martin Luther King was a “Conservative Republican”

That’s what $arah Palin, Glenn Beck, William Bennett and a whole bunch of other conservatives would have you believe. They tell us that King stood for freedom, liberty and limited government.

Conservatives love to proclaim “Bull Connor was a Democrat! And Martin Luther King was a Republican!”

Here’s just a few samples:

Martin Luther King Jr Was a Conservative Republican

Martin Luther King’s Conservative Legacy from the conservative Heritage Foundation

The Conservative Virtues of Dr. Martin Luther King from the Heritage Foundation and William J. Bennett, the Book of Virtues author

Houston group says Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican

And don’t miss this, from a black conservative:

King recognized the tyrannical nature of the government, and he would be standing shoulder to shoulder with Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Herman Cain, Allen West, and many others in an attempt to free not only blacks this time, but the entire nation from the very same government that was oppressing blacks during King’s lifetime.

Well, if there’s been any presidential candidate on a major party ticket who believed in those things since World War II, it was Barry Goldwater. And he was the nominee of the Republicans, allegedly King’s own party. So surely Martin Luther King must have voted for Barry Goldwater, right?

Uh, no. Read more

The Politics of Non-White Ethnic Coalitions: Tipping Point of a Changing Electorate

Anyone who remembers the early 1960s—a period that Charles Murray describes as the zenith of American society—knows that our country is not the same. The America that Baby Boomers fondly immortalize is reaching the point of no return. It is the same America that Obama rebuffed when he criticized Mitt Romney for attempting to return to the “social policies of the 1950s.” It is a country that was culturally and socially unified, less diverse, less violent, less crowded, and had a smaller and less intrusive federal government. Obama’s repeated snubs at the 1950s during the 2012 presidential campaign would lead one to conclude that it was a dreadful era Americans should abhor.

Political analyst Michael Barone recently noted, “The culturally cohesive America of the 1950s that some of us remember, usually glossing over racial segregation and the civil rights movement, is no longer with us and hasn’t been for some time.” According to 1960 Census figures, the White population of the U.S. was 88 percent—158 million out of a total 180 million. The entire non-White population was only 12 percent of the U.S. population. In fact, the published census data in the table “Population, by Race, by States: 1940–1960,” listed the U.S. population by race in three categories: “White, Negro, Other races.” Hispanics, consisting of less than 1 percent of the total U.S. population, were categorized as “other races.” Read more