The editor in chief of the National Review just said the N word in regards to Haitians and Megyn Kelly ignores it. pic.twitter.com/PK9trHPOUF

— Alejandra Caraballo (@Esqueer_) September 16, 2024

The hardcore editor of the cuckold conservative outlet National Review, Rich Lowry, was on Megyn [sic] Kelly’s podcast this week and referred to goose-eating Haitian migrants as “niggers.” He quickly corrected himself, but everyone heard it.

This happens when you talk differently in your personal life than you do on TV. You can slip up like this. This guy is going around calling Haitians “niggers” in his personal life, so when he’s in a semi-causal conversation on a podcast, he made a slip-up.

To be clear: National Review promotes immigration. They probably say “we just want it to be legal,” but they support turning America brown. Lowry isn’t Jewish, but the publication is largely run by Jews.

Infamously, David French worked at the publication as a top editor, and he had bought children from Africa as symbols of his devotion to racially displacing white Americans. People hated him for it, and he eventually was driven insane.

In 2018, he wrote an unhinged article in The Atlantic, complaining about how he is a very good person and bought this black child to show the world how good he is, but now people attack him over it.

That’s emblematic of the kind of publication that National Review is. It is not an anti-nigger publication, and in fact, it is adamantly pro-nigger and constantly calls for more and more niggers to bury Americans in their violence and stench.

This one of many reasons why I’ve always argued that if you’re going to be some kind of public figure, you need to line up your personal identity with your public presentation. Everyone is going to act a little bit different on video, because you have to play yourself up, but there shouldn’t be some massive chasm where you’re publicly promoting anti-racism in the name of the Jews – like the National Review does – and then going around calling blacks “niggers” in your personal life.

What’s more, it shows that Lowry doesn’t believe his own stupid anti-racist gibberish and in fact hates niggers. That is much worse than if he was actually a spineless cuck who loved seeing America turn brown.

Lowry, if he is a serious person, will not apologize for this because no one is ever going to accept an apology. He should instead just say “I said what I meant, faggots.” He will get fired from NR, but he can become a racist commentator and go on Tucker Carlson and explain why he started to hate blacks.

Actually, that might be too hardcore for Tucker Carlson, who is himself sort of a pussy.

But he can at least work at Daily Stormer.

The relationship that Elon Musk has always had with the security state and the US government more broadly should have been a red flag that he wasn’t actually going to give anyone free speech.

I guess it wasn’t?

Reuters:

SpaceX is building a network of hundreds of spy satellites under a classified contract with a U.S. intelligence agency, five sources familiar with the program said, demonstrating deepening ties between billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk’s space company and national security agencies.

The network is being built by SpaceX’s Starshield business unit under a $1.8 billion contract signed in 2021 with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), an intelligence agency that manages spy satellites, the sources said.

The plans show the extent of SpaceX’s involvement in U.S. intelligence and military projects and illustrate a deeper Pentagon investment into vast, low-Earth orbiting satellite systems aimed at supporting ground forces.

If successful, the sources said the program would significantly advance the ability of the U.S. government and military to quickly spot potential targets almost anywhere on the globe.

The contract signals growing trust by the intelligence establishment of a company whose owner has clashed with the Biden administration and sparked controversy over the use of Starlink satellite connectivity in the Ukraine war, the sources said.

The Wall Street Journal reported in February the existence of a $1.8 billion classified Starshield contract with an unknown intelligence agency without detailing the purposes of the program.

Reuters reporting discloses for the first time that the SpaceX contract is for a powerful new spy system with hundreds of satellites bearing Earth-imaging capabilities that can operate as a swarm in low orbits, and that the spy agency that Musk’s company is working with is the NRO.

…

The satellites can track targets on the ground and share that data with U.S. intelligence and military officials, the sources said. In principle, that would enable the U.S. government to quickly capture continuous imagery of activities on the ground nearly anywhere on the globe, aiding intelligence and military operations, they added.

…

The classified constellation of spy satellites represents one of the U.S. government’s most sought-after capabilities in space because it is designed to offer the most persistent, pervasive and rapid coverage of activities on Earth.

“No one can hide,” one of the sources said of the system’s potential capability, when describing the network’s reach.

This is a system that will cover the entire earth and be able to see everything happening in real time, in high definition. The satellites can already read license plates.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX building spy satellite network

Satellites to help quickly spot potential targets globally

Crispino R. J. Nunes reports pic.twitter.com/5oTWItE3MC

— WION (@WIONews) March 17, 2024

This sort of global electronic surveillance grid is not really compatible with “freedom.”

America First Political Action Committee (AFPAC) chairman Nick Fuentes has announced a fundraising event with Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar.

Earlier this year, Gosar attended the second annual AFPAC conference.

Despite the fact that Fuentes is a soft-spoken gentleman, the entirety of the conservative establishment is going psycho over this event. Each and every one of these people took some out of context statement that Nick has said and tried to use it to prove that he is evil.

Seth Mandel is the Jew who runs the supposedly “conservative” Washington Examiner.

What absolute fresh hell is this? Gosar hanging with Fuentes, who said Jews were agents of Satan. What a shameful display. https://t.co/oAccDG0umk

— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) June 29, 2021

Mandel’s very existence brings a whole new meaning to the term “ratfaced Jew bastard.”

“Fresh hell” is really clever and funny, haha. But unfortunately, Mendel’s face represents a very familiar hell that Christians have been dealing with since people with that same odious rat face murdered our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Denver Riggleman is a former Virginia Congressman – Republican! Outraged that anyone would dare put America first!

A sitting member of Congress fundraising with AFPAC. That’s where we are. And he sits on committees.

This is from a Telegram channel linked to Nick Fuentes. Telegram is a conspiracy & white nationalist fantasy land—that’s where Gosar hangs evidently.

A dangerous time. pic.twitter.com/KNFe8otj31

— Denver Riggleman (@RepRiggleman) June 29, 2021

The Democrats just stole an election, have total control of the American government, have stolen everyone’s rights via a stupid flu hoax, are now engaged in a fake domestic war on fake terrorists (citing the 1/6 hoax carried out by the feds), and are trying to start wars with both Russia and China, among others.

But what does former Congressman Denver think represents “danger” in these times?

An unspecific conspiracy in a messaging app.

Jonathan H. Adler is a Jew lawyer from the National Review. He is falsely claiming that Fuentes “denied” that millions of Jews were masturbated to death and turned into lampshades by Adolf Hitler.

This is gross (and it's even grosser if one knows anything about Fuentes, who dabbles in Holocaust denial). https://t.co/jttpHoARvb

— Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) June 29, 2021

Fuentes has never denied those millions who were masturbated to death, nor has he denied the existence of lampshades made from their skin. Fuentes also believes that millions of Jews were shocked to death in electric floor chambers. He even believes in the Wall of Eyes.

Does Jonathan H. Adler believe in the Wall of Eyes?

Does he believe that Jews were kept in wooden cages and injected with mysterious chemicals to change the color of their eyes?

If he doesn’t believe in that, and he’s not willing to go on the record and say publicly “I believe in homicidal masturbation machines and the Wall of Eyes,” then he is the real Holocaust denier.

Alyssa Farah, the press secretary of the traitor Mike Pence, attacked Nick on the grounds that he is insane for supposedly questioning the Holocaust (which he did not ever do).

This kid literally compared the deaths of Jews in the Holocaust to baking among other insane/hateful/bigoted takes. What on earth, @RepGosar? https://t.co/mEnHWk2Hln

— Alyssa Farah (@Alyssafarah) June 29, 2021

Farah is probably also a Holocaust denier.

I challenge her to go on the record confessing a belief that the Nazis trained a dog to bite Jews when they played a wrong note on the piano.

Nick will happily profess that he has total belief in this dog. Does Farah? If so, then why doesn’t she ever tweet about this dog? Surely, it is an important issue for the conservative movement?

Does Farah even believe that you could tell the nationality of the Jews that were being burned to death at Auschwitz, because they created different color smoke?

If Alyssa Farah is such a hardcore believer in the Holocaust, she needs to come out and claim that Jews from different countries produce different colors of smoke when they’re burned – or she’s just another faker.

Any old person can believe that millions of Jews were gassed to death in fake shower rooms and then incinerated in 20 minutes by being burned with wood and their ashes disappeared. But it takes a true Holocaust believer to believe that Jews from different countries produce different colors of smoke when burned.

Speaking of burning: senior National Review writer Dan McLaughlin called for Rep. Gosar to be burned alive.

In this case, it's prudent to wait to confirm whether this is actually happening. If so, burn him to the ground.

— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) June 29, 2021

Has Dan McLaughlin ever called for any Democrats to be burned alive? Or does he save that kind of vitriol for conservatives who think we should put America before Israel?

It is truly just wacky to have people who claim to be conservatives freaking out and going psycho over someone they claim to agree with on most issues.

If you look at the National Review, they claim to believe in conservative values. They claim to support pro-America policies. They claim to be anti-immigration, anti-homosexual, anti-BLM, anti-Antifa, and on and on – all issues that Nick would agree with them on.

But because Nick is alleged to not believe in a supposed historical event that happened nearly a century ago on a different continent, he deserves more scorn than any Democrat?

It’s not logical. Either these people don’t really believe in what they say they believe, or something else is going on.

Rep. Gosar responded like a normal person would respond to these attacks.

Not sure why anyone is freaking out. I’ll say this: there are millions of Gen Z, Y and X conservatives. They believe in America First. They will not agree 100% on every issue. No group does. We will not let the left dictate our strategy, alliances and efforts. Ignore the left https://t.co/EJAZopO2pI

— Paul Gosar (@DrPaulGosar) June 29, 2021

The assertion that everyone MUST believe in the “Holocaust” in order to be involved in politics is clearly not reasonable on the face of it.

That’s especially true given that I doubt anyone at the National Review is willing to go on record confessing belief that a Jew survived the gas chamber by breathing through a keyhole – which is a fact of the Holocaust.

Nick Fuentes has continually professed a belief that one or more Jews survived being gassed by breathing through a keyhole.

So I ask again: who is the real denier?

Do what you can do support Nick.

He’s fighting for your freedom.

In April, the entire media apparatus, including allegedly independent media, acted in unison to support the coronavirus lockdown.

The virus was presented as a public health crisis that was beyond politics, and it was claimed that there was a single possible response to it, which was for the government to lock people in their houses by passing decrees which effectively totally nullified every single basic right that we as Westerners established with the Magna Carta in 1215 AD.

I was not paying any attention to the National Review at the time, because I don’t really pay attention to the National Review generally, but like all other media, they were shilling the lockdown and attacking the protesters.

On April 22, 2020, the awful Jew Jonah Goldberg penned a piece entitled, “Quarantine Protesters Are No Heroes of Civil Disobedience,” where he condemned the protesters as a threat to public health and demanded that everyone just trust the government and obey.

Goldberg claimed explicitly that the lockdown was “not tyranny” and that anyone who thinks there is another agenda behind it is a kook. Bizarrely, he went so far as to claim that the Founding Fathers would support the lockdown. Goldberg’s assumption is apparently that the virus is not political, though it is impossible to understand how he would come to that conclusion.

Goldberg is of course a Jew, and you expect Jews to support tyrannical policies designed to destroy Christendom. However, typically, the Jews “play both sides,” as it were, using all of these different ideologies.

The National Review promotes “the conservative ideology.” They play the side of supporting the alleged “free market,” and claiming that the free market gives elite private interests all of these rights to abuse you in various ways, and prevents the government which you pay taxes to from protecting you. For example, when someone needs an explanation as to why Twitter is allowed to take your First Amendment rights away, or why corporations are allowed to sell us known poisons and the government won’t implement any regulations at all, they go to the National Review.

While claiming that the US government has no right to protect the American people from threats to their Constitutional rights and to their health inside of the United States, the conservative ideology also claims that the US government has an absolute right to invade foreign countries, either to stop terrorism or to bring them democracy. (Honestly, I don’t even remember how support for wars of aggression fits in with their “small government” positions, but there is some ideological explanation.)

The National Review of course ostensibly tries to convince people to agree with their ideology. However, given that Donald Trump has taken a different view on these things, and the masses of Republicans like Donald Trump, they are significantly less influential than they were before. In particular, people do not like this thing where we move all of our jobs out of the country and the government throws their hands up and says, “there’s nothing we can do, because we have to follow the conservative ideology of free trade. If it destroys your life then sorry, but that’s the cost of our values.”

However, more than actually trying to convince people to agree with them, the conservative publications and think tanks fill a place and provide an explanation as to why these horrible things are allowed to happen. For example, if someone asks why all of our jobs were moved overseas, or why we are involved with endless wars in the Middle East, the system can point to the National Review and say that “conservatives” supported these things and all they were doing was performing the will of the people.

In general, the purpose of this grid of ideologies in our political system is to provide an excuse for whatever the government wants to do. The Jews hold no ideology, functioning purely on a tribal drive to dominate other tribes, but they can always find some ideology that will back up any terrible action.

But if the National Review has gone out and said that the government has an absolute right to collapse the entire market economy, destroying all small businesses, citing data that was known to be false when they cited it (Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College London graphs), then what possible credibility could they have in claiming that the government has no right to regulate multinational corporations?

Obviously, not much.

The average person doesn’t really understand that he’s been sold an ideology, or what an ideology even is, but he is capable of looking around himself and he is capable of identifying contradictions. Trump had been picking apart conservative ideology since 2015, on the dual-front of both the wars and the loss of jobs, and Tucker Carlson has been backing him up, fleshing a lot of this stuff out so normal people can wrap their heads around it.

It was a powerful thing when Lindsey Graham told Tucker Carlson that he believes “America is a nation of ideas,” and Tucker said, “it’s a nation of people. People live here.”

A lot of normal people, who do not understand the role that ideology plays in our political system, saw that interview and said: “Yeah, what the hell is this faggot babbling about, ‘nation of ideas’? What does that phrase even mean? I live here and I’m not an idea.”

But the history books will record that ideological conservatism as having officially died when Sean Hannity attacked Tucker, giving him no room to respond, to defend Jeff Bezos making $13 billion in one day as a result of the lockdown.

Here was Tucker’s segment on Jeff Bezos that proceeded this exchange
pic.twitter.com/G3uYTytRpC

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 22, 2020

Hannity said that making money is morally good, and there is nothing wrong with Bezos getting rich while everyone suffers. It’s a very strange position from a moral standpoint, and from a political standpoint, it is incoherent. Bezos is an extremely powerful enemy of the right, who actively uses his wealth to harm America, Donald Trump, white people and heterosexuals in general. But ideology is not about morality or practical political realities – it is about a perceived consistency. And that is why it falls apart here: Jeff Bezos made that money because of the lockdown, which was ordered by the government.

The economy is a zero sum game. This was a massive transfer of wealth from middle class small business owners to the ultra wealthy ruling elite, and it was enabled by the government. The fact that ideological conservatives would defend the greatest heist in history – the looting of the entire middle class by the elite, a heist enabled by the government – proves that conservatism as an ideology was always about manipulating people into the service of a completely unrelated agenda.

The contradiction is this: people duped into actually believing in conservatism are too moral to actually benefit from it. Someone like Mitt Romney is corrupt enough to benefit from conservatism while promoting it, but he is also a snake who will turn heel and start promoting extremist black communism if he thinks that will benefit him. He believes in nothing at all.

The long and short of it is that ideology is promoted by Jews to harm Christians.

And by the way, I don’t give a good damn about the so-called “browning of America.” Color doesn’t matter. Ideology does.

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 16, 2017

No one can explain how anyone but Jews and other globalist elites have ever benefited from any of it. Frankly, it simply is not helpful.

Jeff Bezos doesn’t believe in conservatism, but conservatism defends his right to loot the country. That sums up the whole thing: it is an ideology for dupes. That is every other ideology as well: they are all designed by cynical snakes to manipulate gullible people, who are confused by the complexity of society, into working against their own interests in the pursuit of a utopia, thereby providing an excuse for any behavior. In a normal reality, where people just dealt with what they see as they see it, no one would ever defend Jeff Bezos. In the reality of ideology, the people who he hurts the most are told they have to defend him, “because it’s our values.”

Thus far, no bad outcome has turned people off of ideology. The silent chant of the ideology-believer is this: “the means justify the ends.” That is: “As long as we follow our ideology, it doesn’t matter if we lose, because we lost in pursuit of the highest ideal, which is a weird abstraction that has nothing to do with actual reality.”

But thus far, people have not really suffered much for putting the abstract before the real. Now, we are entering into a time of real suffering. The chickens are coming home to roost.

We need to remember that in April of 2020, the National Review and the rest of the conservative ideologists supported the destruction of the middle class, throwing away their entire ideology in the name of an obvious hoax. It is fundamental to the concept of ideology that it remain static, that it be continually implemented in every situation.

That agreement is now voided.

Note Regarding the Term “Conservatism”

For most normal people, the term “conservatism” exists independently of the ideology of conservatism. Most people who identify as “conservatives” do so because they support Christianity, guns and family values, and they’re against abortion and homosexuals.

It’s unfortunate that the term has these two meanings, because this can lead to confusion. To make the best of this, we should begin to redefine the term itself, removing the ideological connotations. Nick Fuentes has been doing a good job with this.

“They’re not promoting conservatism, they’re promoting ideology,” is I think a good line to use in order to distinguish between personal values and an ideology.

It’s not really hard to explain how support for the ideology is in conflict with conserving the family. You can’t conserve a family when you don’t have a job because your ideology said you had to send it to China, and you can’t conserve the innocence of children when your ideology said you have to defend the complete domination of your entire society by a private company that promotes abortion and teaching gay sex to your kids.

Jeff Bezos was one of the key funders of the campaign to legalize so-called “anal marriage” all the way back in 2012. This Sean Hannity position of “I may not agree with where you stick your penis, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to ram it into another man’s anus” is untenable and ridiculous. No Christian is obligated to support anal sex and every Christian who fights for anal sex is going to be judged for it. By defending Amazon’s absolute right to dominate society, you are defending gay anal.

Furthermore: you can’t conserve or defend anything if you’re not allowed to speak your mind, so when your ideology puts you in a position where you have to support having your freedom of speech taken from you, you’ve got a serious problem.

The biggest thing you can point to when addressing the ideologists is that they violated their ideology in supporting this lockdown, which effectively voided it. No one knows just how bad things are going to get as a result of this lockdown, but we know for a fact that it is the defining event of our lives. Pointing out that these alleged ideological conservatives supported this destruction and now want to go back to their old rules of “no government intervention” so they can transfer all the wealth to Bezos is really going to rub people the wrong way.

What we should not ever do is go out and say, “I’m against conservatism.” In order for that to make sense to a person, they have to understand everything that I’ve written in this article, and the average person has no need or desire to do that. So, use the term “conservative,” but make sure it is about defending the family in real terms in reality, not some weird economic gibberish.

Another phrase that should be helpful in dealing with the people: “the family is not a political institution.”

Ideology, invented by the Jews, attempts to transpose the personal and the spiritual into the political and the economic, as this way nothing can remain sacred. The family should be sacred, and there shouldn’t be any political doctrine that can justify the destruction of the family. Conservative ideology, with its war on normal people, destroys the family.

Also Note That I’m Not Promoting Socialism

In recent years, presumably as a result of the work that has been done to pick apart conservative ideology, some on the right have started claiming that socialism is actually good.

“Conservative ideology is bad so that must mean that socialist ideology is good” is the absolute epitome of “goy thought,” and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

My position is this: all ideologies are bad. The core concept of “ideology” is in itself negative. This would include virtually every “ism,” save for some forms of nationalism, which is a word that at least can be used to define practical defense of the family and nation.

Importantly: we are not going to have right-wingers running the government in any immediate future, so what we need to be doing right now is building a base of people who agree with us. That means we don’t want to turn them off. We want to speak to the masses of right-inclined people in language that they understand, and communicate our end goals. We do not necessarily need to be explaining how we will accomplish these goals.

We certainly do not need to be putting forward an economic platform. When I see people in the far-right laying out the details of an economic platform, I am shocked and appalled. Whether they believe in some form of libertarianism, or whether they promote socialism, it is always stupid to promote an economic policy. Economics are not an end unto themselves.

This is what an economy needs to do:

1. Provide people of every class with meaningful work
2. Provide people with the ability to generate wealth
3. Provide people with an ability to be independent
4. Provide an opportunity for social mobility
5. Create security and stability that allows people to plan their futures
6. Prevent abuse by parasites – both welfare leeches and elite predators
7. Allow for both poor and rich, but always reinforce the middle class as the default

That’s all. And there are an infinite number of models that would work.

Economic policy should be shaped around accomplishing those goals, and not some bizarre ideological agenda to create a utopia using governmental policy.

This should be the economic policy of the right: “The economy exists to serve the people, and we will implement economic policies that are good for the nation and the family.”

It’s not hard to do if you have two things:

1. A population of decent, hardworking people, and
2. A government that is not managed by Jews and psychopaths

In every white country, we have one of those things. Our goal is to establish the other.

The economy should be wallpaper: it’s all around us, but no one is thinking much about it as long as it is accomplishing its function.

Zachary Evans of the National Review has come out hard against the insectlike parasites that are ultra-Orthodox Jews, arguing that they are “locusts.”

I completely endorse this message.

National Review:

The various ultra-Orthodox denominations that have settled in towns in upstate New York and northern New Jersey have specific religious practices that affect their living habits. They generally live in close proximity to one another due to restrictions on driving during Shabbat and the necessity of the participation of ten adult males in certain prayers. Following the commandment in Genesis to “be fruitful and multiply,” ultra-Orthodox families can regularly reach eight or more children, leading to swift increases in population.

The subsequent population explosion has increased demand for housing development in the area, worrying non-Jewish residents who say they want to keep their rural way of life intact. At the same time, the ultra-Orthodox community typically constructs developments of townhouses, ensuring that community members live within walking distance of one another and that there are enough Jews in the area to form a prayer congregation.

One of the most crucial features of these communities is that ultra-Orthodox Jews vote en masse as a bloc in elections for candidates agreed upon by community leaders. This can transform the local political landscape in their favor. Rural and suburban towns have fought against what they see as development for one specific religious group out of fear that the ultra-Orthodox voting bloc will render longtime residents politically powerless. This can be seen particularly in the realm of public education: Non-Jewish residents question why ultra-Orthodox representatives may sit on a public-school board when ultra-Orthodox children generally use private yeshivas, and only use public-school funds for busing and special-education purposes. (New York state law requires the public-education budget to provide busing services for private schools.)

The ultra-Orthodox population is also a heavy user of government resources such as Medicaid and food stamps. This is due to the perception that many of the men either don’t work or make low salaries, choosing instead to devote their time to studying religious texts.

“Many in the community look at the Hasidim as locusts, who go from community to community . . . just stripping all the resources out of it,” said a Jewish, but not ultra-Orthodox, resident of upstate New York. The resident, who vociferously objects to ultra-Orthodox development and asked not to be named for fear of retribution by the ultra-Orthodox community, added that “nobody here doesn’t like them because they’re Jews. People don’t like them because of what they do. Rural, hardworking people also want to live our lives too.”

Great, great stuff.

The National Review is right.

Jews are a plague of insects, and they deserve to be dealt with as such.

Yes, it is indefensible.

Consider all the things the Trump administration has already done: killed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, strong armed multiple corporations into investing in American workers, nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, ordered the construction of The Wall, ordered a crackdown on sanctuary cities, banned refugees, ordered the Muslim ban, smoothed over tensions with Russia, slapped down ‘civil rights icon’ John Lewis, broken the #NeverTrump movement, cut Rich Lowry’s balls off, stood up to and delegitimized the fake news Lügenpresse, and hung a portrait of Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office:

“By now you may have noticed the difficulty many conservatives have defending everything President Trump does and says. I’m not just referring to the big policy moves, most of which conservatives can support fairly easily (so far). I mean the whole whiplash-inducing spectacle: the unfiltered, impulsive tweeting, bizarre interview non sequiturs, glib insults and distractions. …

When a political leader replaces fixed principles and clear ideological platforms with his own instincts and judgment, he gives his supporters no substantive arguments to rely on. Eventually, the argument to just say “Have faith” in our leader, he knows best, is the only safe harbor.

And that’s not what conservatism is about — nor, for that matter democracy.”

I agree.

This isn’t what “conservatism” is about. Mainstream conservatism is about losing and virtue signaling to the media. Just look what has been accomplished without conservatism and imagine how much more could be done if we had fewer “conservatives” in Congress and state legislatures.

Jonah Goldberg thought that Egg McMuffin was the “true conservative” and would make a great president:

“It’s a long shot. Very long. But if McMullin managed the greatest upset of all time, it would be a very good thing, and not just because so many of us would rather see someone other than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump in the White House.

McMullin, whom I’ve met several times, is an earnest, patriotic, and brave man who spent nearly a decade serving his country undercover in the CIA. He was until recently the chief policy director of the House Republican Conference. He would not be my first choice for president under normal circumstances. But that horse long ago left the barn — and then got hit by a truck. …

Some would complain that this isn’t very democratic. So what? By our contemporary standards, the Founding Fathers distrusted democracy too much. But they had good reasons. If you think all questions should be settled democratically, let’s scrap the Bill of Rights, which elevates our most fundamental priorities out of the reach of voters pretty much forever. …

Personally, I wouldn’t mind if the Electoral College rejected them both and just picked McMullin as a matter of conscience. But let’s say they toss the decision to the House. …”

No joke. I’m serious.

Jonah Goldberg thought that Congress should override the 2016 election and pick Egg McMuffin to be president. Oh BTW, his other major claim to fame is supporting the Iraq War. How many times in the “mainstream” can you write bullshit like this before someone revokes your pundit card?

@ShaunKing, thank you. Shared values and principles are the foundation. The rest can be built. I appreciate your voice.

— Evan McMullin (@Evan_McMullin) December 31, 2016

Perhaps proving once and for all that the Calmain movement is as bankrupt as the state of California itself, the cuckolds of National Review Online have come out as Calmain shills.

NRO’s John Fund has come up with a complicated and stupid argument against Calexit, arguing that to avoid secession, California should split in half.

John Fund: This is the face of a spineless Calmain shill.

This is effectively: “You have cancerous tumor in your brain, but instead of cutting it out, we’re just going to cut it in half and leave it inside of your skull.”

As I pointed out yesterday, California is 30% white.

At what point does it make sense to cut it off?

Should we wait until it is 20%?

10%?

5%?

We’re going to send in Terminator robots to clear it out eventually either way. But right now, we need a temporary separation so we can regroup.

The German composer Richard Wagner coined the term Verjudung (pronounced Veryoodung) to describe the process through which Jews altered the culture of the peoples they lived among. It can various be translated as Jewification, Judaization or just Jewing.

In this and future articles, I will explore the Verjudung of American conservative thought; or rather what passes for American conservative thought, since I will argue that this process of Jewification has resulted in a set of ideas that are self-destructive rather than conservative.

For a long time, the magazine National Review was the intellectual flagship of American conservatism. It was founded by William F. Buckley, a mellifluous, conservative Catholic from a wealthy, well-connected family. Through his editorship of the magazine, and his hosting of a television debate show called Firing Line, Buckley became the dominant conservative American thought leader. For a generation he acted as the de facto arbiter of what was acceptable and what was not within the conservative canon. His vision focused on opposition to the Soviet Union, socialism and state intervention more broadly, while rejecting those he dismissed as “racists”, “antisemites” and the “paranoid fringe”.

Living in New York, Buckley had many Jewish contacts.

The degree to which the conservative editor and commentator William F. Buckley Jr., founder of National Review magazine and TV’s “Firing Line,” was inspired by contacts with Jewish contemporaries may not be fully known to those outside his circle of friends and political foes. Buckley, who died in 2008, is honored with “A Torch Kept Lit: Great Lives of the Twentieth Century.” It is a bintel of memorial appreciations by Buckley, chosen by (((James Rosen))), chief Washington correspondent for Fox News.

A vocal Catholic, Buckley once wrote: “I’ve always subconsciously looked out for the total Christian and when I found him he turned out to be a non-practicing Jew.” He was referring to Richard Clurman (1924-1996), an American Jewish journalist and administrator. Nephew of Harold Clurman, the theater critic and director, Richard Clurman was noted for expertise on media, especially relating to his long-time employer, Time Magazine.

Buckley may have sought another “total Christian” in the conservative Jewish activist Marvin Liebman (1923 –1997), a National Review cofounder. Liebman converted to Roman Catholicism with Buckley standing as his godfather and Buckley’s sister Priscilla as godmother. Later, Liebman abandoned conservative causes for their homophobia and also renounced Catholicism. In his memoir “Coming Out Conservative” (1992) Liebman wrote that as a gay Republican, he had started to feel “like a Jew in Germany in 1934 who had chosen to remain silent, hoping to be able to stay invisible as he watched the beginning of the Holocaust.”

Source

In the 60s and 70s some Jewish (and some Catholic) intellectuals drifted from the Democratic party towards the Republicans. They founded the magazines Commentary and Public Interest, which became the house journals of this “neo-conservatism”, acting as engines of Jewish influence in American intellectual life.

Buckley found himself increasingly drawn into unwanted conflicts with these strident Semitic voices. As a result of these controversies, Buckley made two signal excommunications that helped define modern public conservatism in America as the kosher conservatism we now know it to be. The victims were Joseph Sobran and Patrick Buchanan, each of whom dared to criticise the favouritism shown towards Israel by US administrations and the role of Jews in promoting it.

The interactions between Buckley and his Semitic antagonists followed the standard pattern of exchanges through which Jews seek to silence goy who dare to talk back: bombardment with accusations of wickedness or moral impairment; insinuations of impure motivation for saying something rather than addressing the substantive merits of what was said; covert, behind-the-scenes arrangements through which the desired silence of the goyim is secured.

Buckley ultimately sacked Sobran and tainted Buchanan with insinuations of antisemitic motivation, while engaging in a kind of theological hair-splitting about whether or not he was, in fact, an antisemite. He also wrote an essay and book called “In Search of Antisemitism” in which some of these themes were explored.

Sobran later wrote about his dismissal and what had prompted it.

Bill and I had been good friends for most of the 21 years I’d worked for him. But the friendship was strained in 1986, when he took the side of my attackers in a row over Israel. When Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter accused me of “anti-Semitism,” Bill wrote a weird public disavowal of my columns on Israel, saying in effect that I wasn’t anti-Semitic, but deserved to be called anti-Semitic. What made it so bad was that I knew he didn’t even believe what he was saying. It was a failure of nerve. That was clear even from the disavowal itself, which included a sweaty digression on Jewish retaliatory power.

Earlier that year, he’d taken me to dinner to warn me of the dangers of being “perceived,” as they say, as an anti-Semite. His book makes it sound like a long campaign to set me straight, but it wasn’t like that at all. Bill didn’t suggest I’d done anything wrong or that he disagreed with anything I’d written. But Norman Podhoretz was mad at me. That was enough. Later that evening when I told Bill about some Irish Catholic fans of mine who told me they prayed for me, he sneered, “You don’t need those people.” Bill denies having said this (I was fired for quoting it), but he said it, all right. In itself it would be a small thing, but it describes his own policy: ignore the Catholics, cultivate the powerful. (Try to imagine him writing a book against abortion.)

I continued in my wicked ways, criticizing Israel as an albatross for the U.S. In May the Zionist apparat went public in its smear against me, throwing the National Review into a total panic. There was hysteria in Bill’s apartment the night he and the other senior editors discussed it: the disavowal had been prepared behind my back. This was the first I’d heard of it. Bill’s statement didn’t even mention the Podhoretzes by name, as if he was protecting their anonymity. Every other published account of the incident, on both sides, spoke freely of the Podhoretzes’ role; but for some reason, National Review tried to pretend they had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, all responses from the magazine’s readers — who were overwhelmingly on my side — were suppressed. (A couple of years later, when the Podhoretzes accused Russell Kirk of anti-Semitism, National Review was the only conservative publication that didn’t even report it.)

I couldn’t understand what the fuss was about. I’d merely applied conservative principles — the things National Review stood for — to Israel: it was a socialist country with no conception of limited, constitutional government, which discriminated against Christians, while betraying its benefactor, the United States, and turning the Muslim world against us. It seemed pretty clear-cut to me, and none of the reasons conservatives gave for supporting Israel made much sense. Nobody really disagreed with me. That, in fact, was the problem. Nothing creates more awkwardness than saying things people can’t afford to admit they agree with. Disagreement is manageable. It’s agreement that wreaks havoc. If people disagree, they’ll debate you. If they secretly agree with something, but are furious with you for saying it, then they’ll try to shut you up by any means necessary. As Tom Stoppard puts it, “I agree with every word you say, but I will fight to the death against your right to say it.”

Everything about the uproar puzzled me. After all, I was and am a columnist, not a political leader. I sit alone in a room and write things I hope will make sense to someone out there. I don’t ask readers to accept things on my authority; I appeal to what is already publicly known. So what difference did it make what my motives were (supposing the Podhoretzes could know what they were)? Either my 700-word arguments made sense, or they didn’t. Why should anyone get that excited? Why go to such lengths to prevent the relatively few people who like to read arguments from reading mine? But Bill acted as if it were a life-and-death matter. With Bill’s statement, National Review became, by default, a neoconservative magazine. It had virtually announced that its avowed principles didn’t apply to Israel, and that its conservatism had no real separate existence from that of Commentary or The Public Interest — both of which, in fact, were scooping National Review with feisty anti-liberal journalism. It was so eager to agree with, and especially to get along with, the power Zionists of Manhattan, that it wouldn’t even defend its own from smears.

Source [Please click the link; this article is well worth reading in full]

After his death, Jonathan Tobin, writing in Jewish World Review, expressed his gratitude for the service Buckley had performed.

Though Buchanan would continue to snipe away on television, it was largely Buckley’s doing that he and others like him would do so from outside a perch in one of our two major parties rather than inside it.The long-term implications of Buckley’s stands were enormous. By remaking the conservative movement in his own image, in which the emphasis was on anti-communism and a libertarian skepticism of government power, he ensured that it, and the Republican Party, which it came to dominate, would be a place where Jew-haters were unwelcome. That enabled liberal Jews, such as Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz, to feel comfortable making common cause with the right on a host of issues as he began his own journey away from the left.

Though expectations that the Jews would ditch liberalism en masse were always unrealistic, the birth of an intellectually viable brand of Jewish conservative thought in this country wouldn’t have happened had not Buckley first cleaned out the GOP stables.

In terms of practical politics, Buckley’s rout of the anti-Semites made it possible for the sort of bipartisan consensus in favor of support for Israel that we now take for granted. He replaced the Buchanan-like world of American conservatism that existed before National Review with something that was not only more successful, but purged of Jew-hatred. If Israel Lobby authors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt want to find the real father of the enormous support for Israel in our political system today, they can look no further than the irrepressible Buckley, whose life was a testament to the power of ideas.

His was a political faith that most Jews never embraced, but as we survey a political spectrum in which our enemies are confined to the margins, we should all remember the unique achievements of this American original. May his memory be for a blessing for all who love liberty.

Source

David French’s wife, Nancy French, with a friend of the family.

This is probably the best goy-cuck #NeverTrump meltdown yet.

It’s still not Shapiro-tier, of course. But he’s very tough competition.

David French writes for the National Review Online:

I distinctly remember the first time I saw a picture of my then-seven-year-old daughter’s face in a gas chamber. It was the evening of September 17, 2015. I had just posted a short item to the Corner calling out notorious Trump ally Ann Coulter for aping the white-nationalist language and rhetoric of the so-called alt-right. Within minutes, the tweets came flooding in. My youngest daughter is African American, adopted from Ethiopia, and in alt-right circles that’s an unforgivable sin. It’s called “race-cucking” or “raising the enemy.”

I saw images of my daughter’s face in gas chambers, with a smiling Trump in a Nazi uniform preparing to press a button and kill her. I saw her face photo-shopped into images of slaves. She was called a “niglet” and a “dindu.” The alt-right unleashed on my wife, Nancy, claiming that she had slept with black men while I was deployed to Iraq, and that I loved to watch while she had sex with “black bucks.” People sent her pornographic images of black men having sex with white women, with someone photoshopped to look like me, watching.

He goes on for a while about how scared he was about people on the internet sending him pictures, then goes on to explain the threat of the Alt-Right is much, much bigger.

I share my family’s story not because we are unique or because our experience is all that extraordinary, but rather because it is depressingly, disturbingly ordinary this campaign season. The formula is simple: Criticize Trump — especially his connection to the alt-right — and the backlash will come.

So then, you’ve got two options:

1. Grow a spine
2. Stop criticizing Trump

I’m cool with either one.

Erick Erickson experienced his own ordeal more than a month before we did. After Erickson dis-invited Trump from his Red State gathering, angry Trump supporters showed up at his house. A grown man yelled at his children at a store, condemning their father for opposing Trump. Erickson wrote in the New York Times that his son is still fearful that Trump supporters will come back to their home.

HAHAHAHA!

TRUMP SUPPORTERS WILL COME TO YOUR HOUSE AND SCARE YOUR CHILDREN!

MAYBE YOU FAGGOTS SHOULD GIVE UP???

In March, writer Bethany Mandel related her own experience. After tweeting about Trump’s anti-Semitic followers, she was called “slimy Jewess” and told that she “deserves the oven.”

…

The phenomenon got some attention in the spring, when the Daily Beast reported not just on Mandel’s experience but also on Erickson’s, Rick Wilson’s, and others’. It’s showing no signs of slowing down, either: Big names, small names, any names — if you attack Trump, no matter who you are, your life might just change.

And can you even begin to imagine what it’s going to look like after the election???

Earlier this month, Mi-Ai Parrish, president of the Arizona Republic, wrote a powerful response to the deluge of threats and bullying prompted by the paper’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton. An Anti-Defamation League report identified 800 journalists who’ve been targeted with anti-Semitic tweets, ten journalists (including NR’s own Jonah Goldberg) who’ve borne the brunt of the attacks, and one — my friend Ben Shapiro — who’s received a staggering amount of hate:

Why Shapiro? Because he represents the worst of all possible anti-Trumpers — he’s a Jewish man who turned on the twin pillars of the alt-right, Trump and Breitbart.com.

…

More victims are coming forward. In a painful, vulnerable post, commentator Mickey White writes about how the alt-right came after her and her family, triggering a mental-health crisis.

Painful! Vulnerable!

TRIGGERED A MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS.

THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU MESS WITH US.

WE TRIGGER MENTAL HEALTH CRISES.

Mickey White is on twitter.

@BiasedGirl

You may wish to give her diet tips.

She definitely needs them.

The abuse is so common that I’ve lost count of other reporters and writers who’ve told me, often in confidence, of troubling late-night incidents at their homes, or of Tweets and other messages that went far beyond garden-variety Twitter trolling into disturbing threats and sometimes-horrifying images.

And it never seems to stop. It certainly hasn’t stopped for us.

…

My wife is a tough woman. She’s a survivor of sexual abuse and assault. The notion that she can no longer open her Twitter timeline without seeing men boasting about having sex with her while I was gone — or even while I’m home — is intolerable. It’s relentless, and it often gets under even her very thick skin.

Of course, no story would be complete without a truly ominous threat. The moment we landed back at home after I declined to run for president, she turned on her phone to see an e-mail from a Trump fan, a veteran who informed her that he knew the business end of a gun and told her directly that she should shut her mouth or he’d take action.

We contacted law enforcement, she got her handgun-carry permit, and life returned to the new normal of daily Twitter harassment, until the day this month when an angry voice actually broke into a phone conversation between my wife and her elderly father, screaming about Trump and spewing profanities. My wife was on her iPhone. Her father was on a landline. That launched a brief, anxious search inside my father-in-law’s home for a potential intruder and yet another call to law enforcement.

Online hate has become so common that it’s almost a point of perverse pride among some pundits. If you don’t get hateful messages, you must not matter. If you let the hate bother you, then you must be weak. Indeed, in a world where “feeding” the trolls only makes them stronger, admitting that they’ve hurt you at all represents a victory for the worst of the worst. They relish your pain, and you don’t want them to relish anything.

What a completely unbelievable faggot.

This is a man trying to destroy America by forcing a Hillary Presidency because… because of free trade, I guess. It’s not really clear what his issue with Trump even is.

And he wants to talk about getting “hurt” by mean messages.

But I’ll be honest: It’s miserable. There is nothing at all rewarding, enjoyable, or satisfying about seeing your beautiful young daughter called a “niglet.” There is nothing at all rewarding, enjoyable, or satisfying about seeing man after man after man brag in graphic terms that he has slept with your wife. It’s unsettling to have a phone call interrupted, watch images of murder flicker across your screen, and read threatening e-mails. It’s sobering to take your teenage kids out to the farm to make sure they’re both proficient with handguns in case an intruder comes when they’re home alone.

The misery is compounded when longtime friends and allies dismiss my experiences and the experiences of my colleagues as nothing more than the normal cost of public advocacy. It’s not. I have contributed to National Review for more than ten years now, and have been deeply involved in many of America’s most emotional culture-war battles for more than 20. I’ve never experienced anything like this before.

I have to laugh when people accuse me of opposing Trump because it somehow makes me rich, or because I’m currying favors with guests at the “elite” cocktail parties that I never actually attend. I oppose Trump not just because he’s an ignorant demagogue and a naked political opportunist, but also because bigotry and intimidation cling to his campaign. Every campaign attracts its share of fools, cranks, and crazies. But Trump’s candidacy has weaponized them. Every harassing tweet and every violent threat is like a voice whispering in my ear, telling me to do all that I can to oppose a movement that breeds and exploits such reckless hate.

Two weeks ago Nancy and I were enjoying lunch with friends after church. My son’s football coach asked if “things had calmed down” after the tumult of the summer. I grabbed my phone, said “let’s see,” and opened my Twitter mentions. I laughed at the first one, a standard profane rant calling me a traitor for opposing Trump, but when my wife looked, her face twisted up in shock. There they were, just below, more tweets from more men, aimed directly at her. She burst into tears.

HAHAHAHA!

WHY IS HE WRITING THIS???

WHO DOES HE THINK IS GOING TO FEEL BAD FOR HIM???

So, no, things have not “calmed down,” and I’m always amused when people tell me that I belong to Never Trump because it makes me feel good about myself. There’s nothing that gives me pleasure about this election season. But if I can do anything to expose and oppose this latest debasement of our politics and culture, and to defend my wife and daughter, then at least I will have purpose.

Well, there you have it.

His purpose is to stop Trump to defend his stolen African child, whom he refers to as his “daughter,” and to get people to stop complaining about his wife being such a whore.

But this is seriously great.

Finally, we have the upper hand.

We are able to do to them at least a fraction of what they are able to do to us. We can’t go after their money in the way they’ve gone after my money, we can’t get them fired in the way they get us fired. But if we can make them feel fear, if we can make their wives break down in tears at after-church lunches, then we are finally getting some leverage.

nb4 trolls remorse, these Frenches are sick AF.

I’ve just been through Nancy’s Instagram (yes, the header image in this article is modified, but the rest of these aren’t), and look at this.

Here’s their IRL daughter.

And here’s a picture she posted of a Negroid buck with her daughter’s name and number painted on his back.

Is the negroid her daughter’s boyfriend? Or does Nancy just want him to be? Do David and Nancy French encourage their White daughter to have sex with Black men? Clearly, they aren’t bothered by the prospect.

Seriously: How would you feel if you saw this Negro buck with your daughter’s name written across his back? What would you do if your wife took a picture of it and posted it on the internet with a joke?

Their White daughter is Camille Ruth French. Someone should ask her if her mother and father pressure her into Black sex. Here’s her instagram. Ask her if she needs help.

The two White children look as though they need help.

Unlike the evil bastard David French and his whore wife (who has literally been banging hundreds of men behind her husbands back – and in front of him), we help our people. And if Camille needs help, we won’t hold the sins of her parents against her. If she needs out of a sick Black sex situation, we’ll help her out of it.

It is important to remember that we are good and our enemies are evil.

All of our means are always justified, because our ends are pure.

As the national election nears, two diametrically opposed visions of the right have been warring with increasing fervor. The old, neoconservative point of view has been under attack from the younger, more energetic Alt-Right. As is to be expected, the neoconservatives are doing their best to retain control of the Republican Party. Unfortunately for them, they are going about the matter in a clumsy way, attempting to cut off the ever-growing influence of the Alt-Right. Neoconservatives like Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg fundamentally misunderstand what it takes to purge people.

First, you must hold serious clout or be reasonably charismatic to correctly lead a purge. Goldberg runs National Review, a site that used to be at the forefront of mainstream conservative thought. However, after expelling any writers that dared to touch issues deemed too controversial or divisive, it quickly neutered itself. The writing there is boring and played out. How many times can the praises of free markets and endless war in the Middle East be rehashed? Apparently until whenever National Review’s kosher donors run out of money.

You must make a compelling case as to why a group must be purged. Being the sons of influential writers, both Shapiro and Goldberg mysteriously found their way into writing gigs with ease. Perhaps it is merely coincidence that Ben ended up writing at World Net Daily and later Breitbart, both establishments that his father was also working for. That Jonah’s father was Sidney Goldberg, a newspaper executive, is surely irrelevant to Jonah’s career. Is nepotism an easy way to land a job? Yes. It also tends to allow those without the proper qualifications into positions well above their pay grade. As seen with Ben and Jonah, they have certain failings that most people fix through the effort to find employment. Their main argument against the Alt-Right isn’t even an argument, but rather pointing and sputtering. The Alt-Right is a moral ill “just because.” Perhaps if they had gone through normal hiring processes, they would be a little more fluent in the language of persuasion.

If you don’t control access to the printing presses, you can’t purge effectively. Back when “ex-CIA” spook Buckley was marginalizing the Birchers (a right wing group with non-kosher views on race, among other subjects), he and his ilk had control of what the public saw. In the age of the internet, there are no gate keepers. How can you expect to no-platform wrongthink when it can go directly to its audience? You can’t, and this is obvious to anybody without mind-numbing hubris.
The group that you’re trying to purge must rely on you. In the age of crowdfunding and small content creators being able to carve out living independently of any traditional employment, the threats of “you’ll never work in this industry again” are empty and hollow. When there are no financial chains to inhibit the free expression of ideas, why would anybody care what a self-declared enemy whimpers? Conservative media has zero leverage on the structurally independent Alt-Right. Whine all they want, Goldberg and Shapiro have all the clout of a homeless man on the street corner instructing passersby on how to properly live.

You need the backing of the public to successfully lead a purge. The Alt-Right is made up of young adults under thirty. National Review’s audience consists of old men in their sixties. One group is lively and growing, while the other is literally dying. These last gasps of (neo) Conservatism Inc. are refreshing, in a way. With every wheeze and cough, the phoenix of a legitimate right wing is a little closer to being birthed. Nationalism is wafting through the air. The limping corpse of subversion ala Goldberg and Shapiro is in the eleventh hour. Soon all traces of their treachery will be gone, like ashes in the wind.