{"id":86566,"date":"2016-01-27T00:54:08","date_gmt":"2016-01-27T08:54:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=86566"},"modified":"2016-01-27T00:55:17","modified_gmt":"2016-01-27T08:55:17","slug":"what-does-national-review-stand-for","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=86566","title":{"rendered":"What Does National Review Stand For?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ellison Lodge writes<\/a>: Goldberg\u2019s self-congratulatory conclusion: \u201cMy job\u2014our job\u2014is to write and say the truth as I see it.\u201d<\/p>\n

But while National Review<\/em> portrays itself as bravely taking unpopular positions out of its devotion to timeless principles, the plain fact is that it has repeatedly abandoned \u201ctimeless\u201d principles when they became unpopular with the elites.<\/p>\n

Nowhere is this more true than on the issues of race and immigration<\/a>. And when confronted on these shifts in principle, National Review <\/em>often resorts to arguments about practicality rather than principles.<\/p>\n

For example, in September 2000, American Renaissance<\/em> published The Decline of National Review<\/em><\/a> which cited<\/a> a National Review<\/em> column<\/a> by Ernest Van Den Haag<\/a> opposing the 1965 Immigration Act<\/p>\n

Ernest Van Den Haag wrote:<\/p>\n

\n

One need not believe that one\u2019s own ethnic group, or any ethnic group, is superior to others\u2026in order to wish one\u2019s country to continue to be made up of the same ethnic strains in the same proportions as before. And, conversely, the wish not to see one\u2019s country overrun by groups one regards as alien need not be based on feelings of superiority or \u201cracism\u201d\u2026the wish to preserve one\u2019s identity and the identity of one\u2019s nation requires no justification\u2026any more than the wish to have one\u2019s own children, and to continue one\u2019s family through them need be justified or rationalized by a belief that they are superior to the children of others.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Jared Taylor<\/a> asked William F. Buckley<\/a> his thoughts on the column, and after many evasions, Buckley tersely responded <\/a> that \u201cIt seems to me that the idea traditionally defended of endeavoring to maintain existing ethnic balances simply doesn`t work any more.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2007, Ramesh Ponnuru<\/a> argued that immigration patriots should not oppose birthright citizenship because this \u201ccrusade is about as politically counterproductive as they come. It will pit restrictionists against children. And even in the unlikely event it succeeded, it would be (wrongly, in my view) struck down by the courts.\u201d [Getting Immigration Right: A headache and a half for the GOP,<\/a><\/em> October 8, 2007 (not available online)]<\/p>\n

This is not the first time Ponnuru argued that immigration patriots should weaken their positions out of expedience.<\/p>\n

In 2001, Ponnuru frankly acknowledged the magazine was shifting course from hardcore immigration patriotism to a \u201crestrictionism that can succeed.\u201d [Minding the `Golden Door`<\/em><\/a>,<\/em> April 23, 2001]<\/p>\n

Ponnuru chided immigration patriots for supporting an immigration moratorium<\/a> because it \u201cmade it seem as though they opposed all immigration.\u201d He also dismissed efforts aimed at denying welfare to illegals<\/a> because \u201cnothing could have been calculated to alienate Hispanics more than the perceived suggestion that they were welfare chiselers.\u201d Most of all, he rejected Peter Brimelow\u2019s argument<\/a> that immigration policy should not alter \u201cthe country`s racial composition.\u201d Ponnuru objected that Brimelow \u201copened the debate<\/a> on terms that almost guaranteed the restrictionists` failure\u201d because it gave the Left \u201cammunition\u201d to call them racists.<\/p>\n

In both these cases, Buckley and Ponnuru largely avoided challenging immigration patriots\u2019 positions on the grounds of \u201ctruth\u201d or \u201cprinciples.\u201d Indeed, in some cases (like birthright citizenship<\/a>), they explicitly acknowledged the immigration patriots were correct. Instead, they rejected these positions because the arguments wouldn\u2019t be well received. Ponnuru accused immigration patriots of indulging in \u201cthe fantasy that they could make immigration the central, realigning issue of American politics.\u201d (In 2016, he seems to have forgotten this: see Why Immigration Is a Big Deal to Conservatives<\/a>, <\/em>Bloomberg, January 20, 2016)<\/p>\n

Well, Donald Trump has indeed made \u201cimmigration the central, realigning issue of American politics.\u201d He accomplished this feat by using tactics<\/a> and rhetoric<\/a> that National Review<\/em> claimed would lead to failure. And now, suddenly, National Review<\/em> wants to go down with the ship in order to stop him.<\/p>\n

Yet while National Review<\/em> is hysterical over Trump, the editors are not quite suicidal. After all, when Buckley said arguments against \u201cmaintain existing ethnic balances simply doesn`t work anymore,\u201d he didn\u2019t identify exactly whom it \u201cdoesn\u2019t work\u201d with.<\/p>\n

The answer is obvious: American elites.<\/a> Buckley\u2019s famous quote<\/a> that \u201cI should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory<\/a> than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University\u201d notwithstanding, particularly in his later years he was much more concerned with elite opinion than popular opinion.<\/p>\n

And that explains the magazine\u2019s actions. National Review<\/em> acknowledges its attack on Trump is unpopular with the grassroots Right\u2014but the move ingratiates the editors with the elites<\/a>, especially the Main Stream Media elite. After all, that\u2019s who their careers as Professional Token Conservatives<\/a> depend on.<\/p>\n

And never trying to move the Left\u2019s Overton Window<\/a> is the only principle that National Review<\/em> really stands for.<\/p>\n

COMMENTS:<\/p>\n

* I can think of somewhere it is more true: gay marriage.<\/p>\n

All the more so because even this publication is glossing over it.<\/p>\n

* NR should be called Donor Review.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s just a shill for the oligarchs.<\/p>\n

Also, Conservatism Inc. suffers from moral deficit.<\/p>\n

Because it has signed onto the cult of MLK and Holocaustianity, the Dems have moral advantage because it is more the party of Jews and blacks.<\/p>\n

So, the GOP, with its moral deficit, tries to gain some credit by going whole hog on appeasing Neocon Zionists. But Jews are smart and know what the GOP is up to. Besides, Neocons are already in the GOP manipulating the cuckywucks.
\nAnd the GOP doesn\u2019t offer Jews anything they can\u2019t get from the Dems. Democrats are fully behind Israel, and Jews control much of American Liberalism and use it to direct most anger and fury at \u2018white privilege\u2019, Russia, and China.<\/p>\n

GOP would like to persuade people that Israel is a poor beleaguered nation thrown under the bus by Democrats, and stupid Evangelical Christian Zionists might fall for this, but no Jew among the Democrats are buying this, even as they occasionally lob a complaint at Obama, the puppet of Jews.<\/p>\n

The fact is Israel isn\u2019t in any kind of danger. And Jews have it so good in the US. The idea that Jews need GOP support for protection is laughable to Jews.<\/p>\n

But GOP carries on with this fiction cuz Neocons keep whispering into its ear that if GOP tries a bit harder in singing hosannas to Jews and Israel, Jews will finally come over to the GOP camp. A joke.<\/p>\n

American whites need to reject the MLK cult and Holocaust Cult.
\nAmerican whites must go fully HBD on race and explain that the main reason for black problems is racial differences, not history. Whites also need to highlight all the foul things done by blacks to liberate themselves from \u2018white guilt\u2019. Also, whites need to point out that blacks had slavery for 10,000 yrs, and slavery was ended in the US and in Africa by whites.<\/p>\n

As for the Holocaust, white Americans need to demand that Jews thank them. After all, if UK and US had decided to side with Germany, Jews would have been finished. But US and UK sided with Jews against Germany and saved Jews. And many white gentiles died defeating Nazi Germany. Also, US provided help to Soviet Jews even though Soviet Jews had played a key role in the communization of Russia and mass repression and killing.<\/p>\n

So, white American gentiles owe the Jews NOTHING. If anything, white American gentiles should demand that Jews thank them for all time for having saved them in WWII and defeated Nazi Germany.<\/p>\n

Also, if Jews bring up slavery, whites need to mention that Jews were also involved in the slave trade. Jews also had slaves in the South. Jews also worked with whites in South Africa. And Israel was founded on ethnic cleansing. And communist Jews carried out all sorts of horrors in the USSR. They killed more people in a single decade than white Americans killed blacks in 300 yrs.<\/p>\n

Unless the Narrative of Guilt is changed, whites will continue to be moral cucks of Jews and Negroes.
\nAs long as American Conservatism accepts moral disadvantage vis-a-vis American Liberalism of Jews and Negroes, it will lack confidence and pride. It will always act in the manner of appeasement and pleading for mercy.<\/p>\n

Dems vs GOP in a nutshell.<\/p>\n

Dem: racist, racist, racist<\/p>\n

GOP: please don\u2019t call me racist.<\/p>\n

Dem: racist, racist, racist.<\/p>\n

GOP: oh please don\u2019t call me racist.<\/p>\n

Dem: racist, racist, racist<\/p>\n

GOP: pretty please don\u2019t call me racist.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ellison Lodge writes: Goldberg\u2019s self-congratulatory conclusion: \u201cMy job\u2014our job\u2014is to write and say the truth as I see it.\u201d But while National Review portrays itself as bravely taking unpopular positions out of its devotion to timeless principles, the plain fact … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[161,29593],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-86566","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-immigration","category-national-review"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t