Monday, November 14, 2016

The National Review is Cordially Invited to Fuck Off

There is this guy who has been against the project you've been working on from the start.

He actively sabotaged it at every turn.  Told all of your team mates that you got it wrong in every possible way available to you.  He didn't just disagree with you, he publicly denounced you.  Every time you made a push forward he would get in front of you and start trying to push you back.  He wasn't just another obstacle while you were trying to push this project forward, he was an active enemy.

But it's over now and it ended the right way.  You and your team have won and won big.  When no one said you could do it, you did it anyway.  Yours are the fruits of victory and they have been fairly won.

And guess who you suddenly find dancing beside you in the endzone, shouting, "YAY WE DID IT!"

Correct, it's That Guy.

Now that the Trump Train has pulled into victory station the National Review is now totally on board with Donald Trump.  Hell, they were always secretly rooting for him and they couldn't be happier that a real conservative finally won the big one.  Congratulations President-Elect Trump.  We luv you thiiiis much.

And now President-elect Trump that you have the office that you fought so long and so hard for...that we all fought so long and so hard for...we will be happy to sit at your right hand side and start offering you our great advice.  We're good like that!  Let's start with your cabinet choices, we're not so keen on this Bannon fellow of yours, we think you can do better.  If we may suggest...


I say this without passion but I say it without regret either.  You have no business being here, National Review.  None whatsoever.

I am to be honest, grateful that you so completely blotted your copy book.  You were always going to be a problem.

 "...There is nothing (in conservatism that)could be accused of being an overriding philosophy that all members adhered to.  There is a vague desire to be left alone by the government but no overwhelming need to impose their will on others.   The Neocons had a philosophy that they were trying to impose and they were briefly in a position to read everyone out of conservatism who wasn't a Neocon.  They were so successful that there are now only a few dozen of them left.

The entire conservative movement if it can honestly be called a movement, was completely reactionary in nature.  It was Anti-liberalism more than anything else because American Conservatism always accepted the liberal paradigm.*

The reality of the so called "Overton Window" was this,  Conservatives always started by accepting the Liberal paradigm and then arguing against it.

This lead directly to us losing everything by inches.  How could we not?  We gave up our ground every time we engaged using their paradigm because it let them build and expand on their paradigm.  Before you know it you are in a situation where "mainstream conservatism" from 1980 looks completely radical to a modern conservative.  Whereas 1980s extremist liberalism (ie Andrea Dworkin) is now completely mainstream Feminism.

It's time to bury conservatism and we can do so without tears.  It conserved nothing and lost everything.

Nationalism is now in diapers.  A lot of National Review Conservatives are furious with it because it is clearly and obviously replacing their school of philosophy in national politics. They are digging in their heels, while the rest of the right wing is being dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century.

Well they aren't anymore, they are totally on board with sooper conservative Donald Trump.

I'd say it was pathetic if it wasn't so malignant.  I knew without question that once the enemies in exile were driven farther into exile, the enemies in residence would begin their entryist tactics.

In all honesty I didn't get on the Trump Train right away myself.  At first I backed Walker, mostly because the Left hated and was terrified by him.  That looked good enough to me. When Walker couldn't gain traction and it became obvious that Establishment was determined to saddle us with yet another Bush, I backed Cruz.  Again the right people seemed to hate him. Also he was the most Libertarian of the mainstream candidates and I hadn't yet accepted reality.

Then I accepted reality.  

I had an argument with a friend and I said, "I'm not interested in identity politics".  And as soon as I said that I remembered the old maxim.  You may not be interested in it but it is interested in you.  I was shifting my paradigm without a clutch. Identity politics don't come naturally for me, at first it was the mental equivalent of stirring a bucket of coal.

But stir the bucket I have.  I made myself face some cold hard facts about Libertarianism, and while I haven't abandoned it completely, it is now clear to me that these guys can never be let anywhere near the drivers seat. 

But reality it what it is.  

The thing is I believe in results. We've had free trade and open borders (effectively) since the mid 1990s and for twenty years we've been pouring wealth out this country like piss out of horse. Free trade is clearly and obviously a failure. If you still believe in it then you aren't facing cold hard reality. You are living Paul Ryan's bubble and probably collecting a US government paycheck. Our standard of living has gone down since it was adopted, (big exception; if you already rich. Free trade works great for you.).

Open Borders only work if you are completely separated from the the real world. Paul Ryan will continue to believe in them because his world view crashes and burns if he doesn't. He and people like him immediately begin shaking their head, no, no, no, no, no, the moment you try and point out to them that even if Mexicans wanted to assimilate they can't due to the vast ocean of bodies that has washed up on our shores. I mean I've literally seen the man start shaking his head in rejection if even the concept is raised.

And that was the final straw for me. Libertarians are as reality denying as any hardcore Marxist.

And so Cataline was dragged...well not so much dragged as nudged...kicking and screaming into 21st century nationalism.  

While I cherished my ignorance as much as any Establishment guy.  I wasn't actually invested in the Establishment.  I was happy to let that monster die. 

Not so the National Review.

National Review, under the tutelage of man-child Rich Lowry, even tried to purge Trump from the Republican primary field earlier this year. Besides finding Trump’s crass language gauche, the clubby conservatives fervently disagreed with his reticence about open immigration, war adventurism, and free trade. The editors gathered all the cuckiest voices in conservatism and gave them space to write one long diatribe that accomplished…absolutely nothing. The “Against Trump” issue caused a lot of waves in the Beltway press. In the rest of America, I suspect it made good birdcage lining.

Well, one good turn deserves another, as they say. And since Trump defied the odds and took control of the GOP, it seems high time for another intellectual purging. In keeping with Trump’s penchant for revenge, I nominate National Review for an ousting. The heady writers and TV pundits who claim the rag as home base need to be kicked out of the club. Their time is up. The pasture awaits.

I’m not trying to be cruel here (though cruelty is probably deserved in this case), but karma is in order. Two of NR’s leading voices brought this on. First is senior editor Jonah Goldberg, who has mocked Trump’s political aspirations for years. In fact, according to a report by Buzzfeed’s McKay Coppins, Goldberg may have provided the impetus for Trump to take the deep dive into the presidential race.

Days before Trump’s fateful descent down the escalator in Trump Tower to announce his far-fetched bid, Goldberg penned a piece brushing off the amateur candidate. “He’s a more plausible candidate than, say, Honey Boo Boo, but that’s mostly because of constitutional age limits,” he snarked at the time. Trump reportedly read the piece, and when he got to the Goldberg insult, he turned to then adviser Sam Nunberg and asked, “Why don’t they respect me, Sam?” His small team convinced Trump that the best way to retaliate was to run and prove the critics wrong.

And prove them wrong he did. It was a struggle and a near run thing. But we did it.

We does not include the National Review and it's clubby, obsolete, ineffective conservatism. They are now pulling their final card out of the pack.  They are portraying themselves as the older wiser men who must be listened to because they know how Washington is run.  

Fortunately for Nationalism, NR made an enemy of a man who knows how to treat an enemy.


Jew613 said...

I wonder if National Review's hostility actually helped His Majesty. As the disenfranchised on the right and the working class NR hates so much had proof the elite was Trump's enemy and by exptension the under classes champion.

Cataline Sergius said...

Honestly, I doubt it.

NR has always been the magazine for Thought Leaders.

Except it isn't anymore.

Regardless. Your Every Joe may have heard of it but never really bothered to read or keep up with it.