Ellison Lodge writes: Goldberg’s self-congratulatory conclusion: “My job—our job—is to write and say the truth as I see it.”
But while National Review portrays itself as bravely taking unpopular positions out of its devotion to timeless principles, the plain fact is that it has repeatedly abandoned “timeless” principles when they became unpopular with the elites.
Nowhere is this more true than on the issues of race and immigration. And when confronted on these shifts in principle, National Review often resorts to arguments about practicality rather than principles.
For example, in September 2000, American Renaissance published The Decline of National Review which cited a National Review column by Ernest Van Den Haag opposing the 1965 Immigration Act
Ernest Van Den Haag wrote:
One need not believe that one’s own ethnic group, or any ethnic group, is superior to others…in order to wish one’s 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’s country overrun by groups one regards as alien need not be based on feelings of superiority or “racism”…the wish to preserve one’s identity and the identity of one’s nation requires no justification…any more than the wish to have one’s own children, and to continue one’s family through them need be justified or rationalized by a belief that they are superior to the children of others.”
Jared Taylor asked William F. Buckley his thoughts on the column, and after many evasions, Buckley tersely responded that “It seems to me that the idea traditionally defended of endeavoring to maintain existing ethnic balances simply doesn`t work any more.”
In 2007, Ramesh Ponnuru argued that immigration patriots should not oppose birthright citizenship because this “crusade 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.” [Getting Immigration Right: A headache and a half for the GOP, October 8, 2007 (not available online)]
This is not the first time Ponnuru argued that immigration patriots should weaken their positions out of expedience.
In 2001, Ponnuru frankly acknowledged the magazine was shifting course from hardcore immigration patriotism to a “restrictionism that can succeed.” [Minding the `Golden Door`, April 23, 2001]
Ponnuru chided immigration patriots for supporting an immigration moratorium because it “made it seem as though they opposed all immigration.” He also dismissed efforts aimed at denying welfare to illegals because “nothing could have been calculated to alienate Hispanics more than the perceived suggestion that they were welfare chiselers.” Most of all, he rejected Peter Brimelow’s argument that immigration policy should not alter “the country`s racial composition.” Ponnuru objected that Brimelow “opened the debate on terms that almost guaranteed the restrictionists` failure” because it gave the Left “ammunition” to call them racists.
In both these cases, Buckley and Ponnuru largely avoided challenging immigration patriots’ positions on the grounds of “truth” or “principles.” Indeed, in some cases (like birthright citizenship), they explicitly acknowledged the immigration patriots were correct. Instead, they rejected these positions because the arguments wouldn’t be well received. Ponnuru accused immigration patriots of indulging in “the fantasy that they could make immigration the central, realigning issue of American politics.” (In 2016, he seems to have forgotten this: see Why Immigration Is a Big Deal to Conservatives, Bloomberg, January 20, 2016)
Well, Donald Trump has indeed made “immigration the central, realigning issue of American politics.” He accomplished this feat by using tactics and rhetoric that National Review claimed would lead to failure. And now, suddenly, National Review wants to go down with the ship in order to stop him.
Yet while National Review is hysterical over Trump, the editors are not quite suicidal. After all, when Buckley said arguments against “maintain existing ethnic balances simply doesn`t work anymore,” he didn’t identify exactly whom it “doesn’t work” with.
The answer is obvious: American elites. Buckley’s famous quote that “I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University” notwithstanding, particularly in his later years he was much more concerned with elite opinion than popular opinion.
And that explains the magazine’s actions. National Review acknowledges its attack on Trump is unpopular with the grassroots Right—but the move ingratiates the editors with the elites, especially the Main Stream Media elite. After all, that’s who their careers as Professional Token Conservatives depend on.
And never trying to move the Left’s Overton Window is the only principle that National Review really stands for.
COMMENTS:
* I can think of somewhere it is more true: gay marriage.
All the more so because even this publication is glossing over it.
* NR should be called Donor Review.
It’s just a shill for the oligarchs.
Also, Conservatism Inc. suffers from moral deficit.
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.
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.
And the GOP doesn’t offer Jews anything they can’t 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 ‘white privilege’, Russia, and China.
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.
The fact is Israel isn’t 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.
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.
American whites need to reject the MLK cult and Holocaust Cult.
American 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 ‘white guilt’. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Unless the Narrative of Guilt is changed, whites will continue to be moral cucks of Jews and Negroes.
As 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.
Dems vs GOP in a nutshell.
Dem: racist, racist, racist
GOP: please don’t call me racist.
Dem: racist, racist, racist.
GOP: oh please don’t call me racist.
Dem: racist, racist, racist
GOP: pretty please don’t call me racist.
