If the Washington Post were the Pequod, George Will would nail an Escudos doubloon to the mast as a bounty for harpooning Donald Trump. Apparently the bespectacled brainiac of the Beltway Right has gone off the deep end. Trump is his Moby Dick. The aging columnist will say anything to stop the leading anti-immigration candidate, who (despite the ruling class’s best efforts), still polls highest in the Republican field.

But before getting to Will’s Ahab-like obsession, note that no GOP candidate is safe from the penman if he is, as Will has described Trump, “transgressive”—i.e. violates Establishment norms. Thus in May, “amiable atheist” Will complained that Mike Huckabee had said removing God from public schools might have something to do with public school massacres.[ Mike Huckabee’s appalling crusade]. In fact, many conservatives have long agreed—like Huckabee, they think the United States is spiritually adrift, unmoored from Christian principle. Nevertheless, Will ridiculed the idea:

So, the [Sandy Hook] slaughter was a consequence of the 1962 Supreme Court decision against government schools administering prayers? Was the 2012 massacre of 12 people at the Aurora, Colo., movie theater caused by insufficient praying at America’s cineplexes?

Then Will likened Huckabee to Orval Faubus—the notorious segregationist who, like Huckabee, was once Governor of Arkansas. Huckabee had said the U.S. Supreme Court majority does not have the constitutional power to invalidate the marriage laws of states and that its decision are not the “law of the land,” citing the separation of powers and states’ rights. Again, these are elementary federalist talking points with which most Republicans agree. But Will had night terrors about man-eating dogs and fire hoses. “Appalling,” he called Huckabee.

Will’s said worse about Trump, so much so that one wonders whether his wife, who toiled for Scott Walker, is holding a grudge. Will hasn’t directly called Trump a RACIST!!!…exactly. But he has repeatedly conjured up images of Satan, the John Birch Society, the internment of Japanese during World War II and Nazi concentration camps.

Will launched his late-summer blitzkrieg against Trump on August12. [Donald Trump is a counterfeit Republican] He proclaimed that a “political party has a right to (in language Trump likes) secure its borders” and that because Trump was “counterfeit Republican,” conservatives must repeat William F. Buckley’s “excommunication” of the John Birch Society from polite conservative society in 1962.

“Buckley received an approving letter from a subscriber who said, ‘You have once again given a voice to the conscience of conservatism,’” Will reminded readers. The approving subscriber was Ronald Reagan. How ironic that Will cited the man who gave us the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Amnesty to argue for purging a candidate who opposes Amnesty,

The bow-tied mandarin fired again nine days later. “The GOP, formerly the party of Lincoln and ostensibly the party of liberty and limited government,” he harrumphed on August21, “is being defined by clamors for a mass roundup and deportation of millions of human beings,” and none of the candidates, except Lindsay Graham, had the courage “to voice robust disgust with Trump.” [Trump’s immigration plan could spell doom for the GOP]

This time, Trump wasn’t just a “counterfeit Republican,” but a Nazi, although Will didn’t have the courage to say it outright. Trump wants to deport 10 percent of California’s population, Will wrote, an impossible task. But the “big costs, in decades and dollars (hundreds of billions), of Trump’s project could be reduced if, say, the targets were required to sew yellow patches on their clothing to advertise their coming expulsion,” he wrote. “There is precedent.”

Then there was this:

Birthright citizenship, established by the 14th Amendment and opposed by Trump and his emulators, accords with America’s natural-rights doctrine. Arguably, this policy is unwise. But is this an argument Republicans should foment in the toxic atmosphere Trump has created, an argument that would injure the next Republican nominee even more than Mitt Romney injured himself? Romney, who advocated making illegal immigrants’ lives so unpleasant they would “self-deport,” might be president if he had received 10 points more than his 27 percent of the Hispanic vote.

Let’s unpack this. Firstly, Will himself is on the record as opposing birthright citizenship. He (or more probably the intern who writes his columns) seems to have forgotten this, or perhaps decided that it is now too much of a risk in Georgetown society.

Secondly, claiming that deporting illegals is impossible is not new for Will. In 2006, he conjured up the chimera of “11 million people” who “would fill 200,000 buses in a caravan stretching bumper-to-bumper from San Diego to Alaska—where, by the way, 26,000 Latinos live.” Of course, this absurdly supposes that all 11 million must be deported the same day. And how Will squares this with Republican hero Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback is a mystery. Recall that Ike had to round up a mere 50,000 illegals to send a half-million packing of their volition—“self-deportation”—a month into the program.

Thirdly, Will also incorrectly crunched the electoral numbers. Hispanics actually only cast 8.4% of the vote in 2012, so “10 points more” is only 0.84% of the total. But by this logic Romney also would have defeated Obama by receiving just over one point more of the white vote. In 2012, the white vote constituted 73.7% of total votes cast, so that 10 points would have been 7.37% of the total. This was eminently doable. Romney got perhaps 59 percent of the white vote in 2012—whereas in 2010 and 2014 the Congressional GOP got over 60%. And remember, white turnout was down in 2012, even worse than John McCain’s disastrous performance in 2008.

But Will wasn’t finished. On August26, we read that “[e]very sulfurous belch from the molten interior of the volcanic Trump phenomenon injures the chances of a Republican presidency.” [The havoc that Trump wreaks — on his own party] Sulfur (brimstone) is not just the odor that emanates from volcanoes but also that which wafts out of Hell. So we now have Trump connected to Satan.

But worse than Satan is George Wallace:

This is hardly the first time we have heard the United States singing lyrics like those of Trump’s curdled populism. Alabama Democrat George Wallace four times ran for president with salvos against Washington’s “briefcase totin’ bureaucrats” who “can’t even park their bicycles straight.” What is new is Trump promising, in the name of strength, to put the United States into a defensive crouch against “cunning” Mexicans and others.

“Curdled populism”? Let’s not forget how popular Wallace was. As Wikipedia explains it:

[h]e won almost 10 million popular votes, carried five Southern states, 45 electoral votes plus one vote from a faithless elector, came fairly close to receiving enough votes to throw the election to the House of Representatives, and became the last person (as of 2014) who was not the nominee of one of the two major parties to win electoral votes.”

Finally, Will jammed even more anti-Trump invective into last Sunday’s column It opened with the “loopy left” candidacy of Bernie Sanders and included a whole paragraph about Hillary Clinton.

Only Trump is thinking transgressively, which the intelligentsia encourages us to do. Sanders just wants a lot more of wealth redistributions. Clinton wants a bit less than a lot more. Trump, however, has made something novel discussible: He proposes turning America into a police state in order to facilitate ethnic cleansing.

When asked whether the forced deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants — almost as many people as passed through Ellis Island in 60 years — might take five or even 10 years, Trump scoffed: “Really good management” will get this done in at most two years. To meet a two-year deadline, his “management” wizardry will have to quickly produce a network of informers to assist at least 100,000 new law enforcement officers equipped with battering rams and bloodhounds.[ The bobblehead race for the presidency, September 25, 2015]

Will, who favors cheap immigrant labor and unsafe Mexican trucks crossing the border (because free trade) fears, along with his GOP Establishment patrons, that when Trump collapses, his support will go to Cruz, whose nomination would alienate purple state voters:

As the nominee, Cruz would, these Republicans warn, lose so badly in red or purple states choosing senators in 2016 (Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Illinois) that he would cost Republicans control of the Senate.

But let’s not forget the dreaded “Trumpkins,” the amiable atheist’s term to describe Americans tired of voting for the politicians who have made Will a very wealthy man.

It is, however, unclear that Trumpkins will all migrate to one candidate when their hero departs, strutting while slouching. And although deferring delights can be virtuous, nothing is now more virtuous than scrubbing, as soon as possible, the Trump stain from public life.

Will’s unhinged opposition to Trump is an example of what happens when you swims in the polluted waters of the Beltway too long. Those who don’t care for the game as Will and his political confreres play it are viewed as beyond the pale. That is why Will smeared Huckabee, too. And naturally, he adopted the Left’s principle tactic: He called Trump and Huckabee “racists.”

Will’s calumnies about the two are remarkable not just because they are over the top, but because he himself has been the victim of the same baseless accusations. Mostly recently, the Left tried to destroy Will for bluntly and correctly assessing the campus rape myth. [ A Guide To George Will’s Decades Of Attacks On Sexual Assault Victims And “Rape Crisis Feminists”, MediaMatters, October 15, 2015 ]

And his experience goes back nearly 30 years: In 1988, the Left went after Will because he asked then-presidential candidate Jesse Jackson a tough question about international trade policy [The G-7 Question, by William Raspberry, February 15, 1988]. Jackson froze and replied “’splain dat.” (“Explain that” is what the Main Stream Media reported, but Jackson spoke in black dialect). The Left was still angry about this years later. [George Will’s Double Standard, Slate, September 24 1999] But Will (then) had the right answer:

Because he is black, his white rivals sit silently beside him, leaving his foolishness unremarked. The real racism in this campaign is the unspoken assumption that it is unreasonable to expect a black candidate to get rudimentary things right. He should be thankful for double standards.

Checking Jackson’s Foolishness, Observer-Reporter, January 29, 1988

Maybe Trump should ask if Will keeps a white hood and a knotted rope in the closet?

After having been a sick haven for man-jerking cuckolded weirdos for far too long, the National Review Online has finally decided to clean its ranks of cuckservatives.

In an article entitled “Cuckservative has Got to Go,” writer David “If You’ll Excuse My” French lays down the law about how these fags who would rather blow a kike than gas it have to be cleared out of the staff of a magazine started by William “Gas Em If You Got Em” Buckley.

NRO:

Yesterday afternoon I wrote a short post noting a small irony about Ann Coulter: Even while she was slamming the GOP for “pandering” on issues like abortion and Israel, she herself was using specific language that panders to the small, race-obsessed far-right crowd that is particularly focused on those same issues. This group — known to smear conservatives who disagree with them as “cuckservatives” or “cucks” — has a set of beliefs that go far beyond antipathy toward Israel and indifference toward abortion. Many of them are unapologetically white-nationalists, hate interracial adoption and other “race-mixing” practices, and think about the issue of immigration primarily, if not exclusively, in racial terms.

Yes!

And we need to get rid of those who oppose our agenda, as you say – the cuckservatives have got to go!

We need to get the NRO back to its kike-gassing roots.

So what’s the plan, Dave? We’re going to have to expel George Will, maybe get him set up on some trumped up tax fraud charges, Goldberg we can just deport to Israel, but what will be the next step? Will you bring in Andrew Anglin to restructure your staff? Or do you think Coulter would be willing to do it?

We need the whole place filled with hardcore Jew-hating racists.

@stormer1488 @stormer9k @NRO NRO comments have been shoah'd so many times they have been reduced to writing clickbait for the far right.

— TheRightStuff (@ThaRightStuff) September 19, 2015

But wait a second… now that I’m reading the rest of this article… I don’t think you are trying to gas kikes at all, David French…

I understand frustration at political correctness. In fact, I’ve done something about it, filing more lawsuits to protect students and professors from campus PC tyranny than perhaps any other lawyer in the United States. I agree with the incredulity and rage at elites’ unwillingness to secure the border and their insistence that every immigration debate has to be racialized, with conservatives constantly accused of bigotry. In their frustration, I’ve even seen conservatives I call friends deride those they deem insufficiently devoted to the cause as “cucks” and “cuckservatives.”

In addition to being a derogatory, insulting slur, the word provides aid and comfort to the trolls whose tweets I’ve posted above. Just as bad, it enables and feeds the Left’s own engine of racial grievance.

Conservatives should reject those on both extremes of the spectrum. We defend a culture, not a race. The foundation of that culture is a faith that makes no distinction among races but rather declares, unequivocally, “All are one, in Christ Jesus.” Shunning the slur disempowers the trolls and forces the radical Left to confront the race hatred that fuels its own rage.

What the hell is this crap, Dave? First you say we have to get rid of cuckservatives, and gas all kikes, then you say we have to stop racism and adopt Black babies?

Dear readers: I am sorry this article isn’t funny. I had a plan for it, then when I was writing it, I sort of forgot what the plan was. Anyway, not everything I write is top kek, I am not a kek-machine. -Andrew Anglin

More than two decades after the Establishment suppressed Pat Buchanan and his “peasants with pitchforks,” the grassroots are again in revolt against the noodle-armed effetes of the Beltway Right. But this time, the uprising is directed not just against the political candidates of the Beltway Right, but against its intellectual mouthpieces: Conservatism Inc. is being rocked by what Twitter activists have tagged the #NRORevolt. And as I’ve been predicting for years, it’s a battle that American patriots need to fight and win–not just to save the American Right, but to ensure there’s still a country left to defend.

The battle started when Jonah Goldberg assumed his traditional function of insulting the conservative base. Reacting to Donald Trump’s position as the GOP Presidential frontrunner, Goldberg kvetched: “If this is the conservative movement now, I guess you’re going to have to count me out.” He wrote:

If I sound dismayed, it’s only because I am. Conservatives have spent more than 60 years arguing that ideas and character matter. That is the conservative movement I joined and dedicated my professional life to. And now, in a moment of passion, many of my comrades-in-arms are throwing it all away in a fit of pique. Because “Trump fights!”

[No Movement That Embraces Trump Can Call Itself Conservative, National Review, September 5, 2015]

Goldberg’s tantrum provoked an explosion of Twitter users firing back using the #NRORevolt hashtag. And of course Goldberg’s rosy history of the noble Conservative Movement left a few things out. As even conservative true believers observed, “the movement,” as we Beltway types still call it, beyond financing all too many Goldbergian “professional careers,” hasn’t actually done much to accomplish its stated goals.

In an “Open Letter” read aloud on air by Rush Limbaugh, “Sundance” at Conservative Treehouse outlined listed the more obvious Republican failings, concluding:

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us? SERIOUSLY?

[An Open Letter to Jonah Goldberg—Re: The GOP and Donald Trump, September 7, 2015]

In response, Goldberg doubled down, arguing National Review and the “conservative movement” have essentially done their best to push the GOP to the Right. Thus on immigration, Goldberg claims

I I came out in favor of a wall on the border in 2006. On specifics — wolfsbane to Donald Trump — I tend to agree with Mark Krikorian that you don’t need a literal wall everywhere, that you don’t need a literal wall everywhere, but I am 100 percent in favor of securing the border, and was saying so when Trump was posing with DREAMers and bad-mouthing Romney for being insensitive to Hispanics.

[The Great Trumpian Divide, September 11, 2015]

But this isn’t really true. It was Goldberg who boasted (in the midst of a column ostensibly arguing for immigration law enforcement), “philosophically and politically, I am on the side of every pro-immigration movement of the last two centuries” [Immigration’s bad guys, Los Angeles Times, June 5, 2007]. Presumably, this includes the nation-breaking 1965 Immigration Act.

And in fact Trump has been pretty “specific” about his immigration policy.

More to the point, one can’t help but see a tinge of fantasy about Goldberg’s complaints. For example, in his initial broadside, Goldberg complained

If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare… Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent.

Leave aside the mischaracterization of Trump’s position. Opposition to Obamacare did indeed deliver several Republican victories, from Scott Brown’s initial upset in Massachusetts and the 2010 midterms. But the resultant Republican Congress did nothing to reverse it and it was ultimately confirmed by a chief justice appointed by a Republican President (thus demolishing forever the argument that we must vote GOP “to get good judges.”)

If you are actually opposed to single-payer health care or Obamacare, what difference does it make if the “conservatism” exists at all?

But while the GOP has failed to deliver on the issues that animates its base, it has certainly delivered for its donors.

In the most obvious example, the Republican Congress won the 2014 elections by campaigning against immigration–then promptly turned around and funded Obama’s unilateral and illegal Amnesty. But not content with betrayal, the GOP the proceeded gleefully to ally with Obama to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership, despite grass-roots conservative opposition. And here too, National Review, rather than representing conservatives to the Republican leadership, acted as a way for the GOP to repress the grassroots.

The unavoidable reality is that conservative voters can never count on the GOP to pass what they want, even if it’s overwhelmingly popular–but somehow the Beltway Right is always there to tell conservatives to slash the few overwhelmingly popular government programs that actually benefit them.

The bottom line: William F. Buckley-style conservatism has failed, on three separate levels.

• It failed by its own criteria in the cause of “limiting government.”
• It failed to reverse a larger Cultural Marxist takeover of the culture, largely by participating in the ritualistic human sacrifices of conservatives like Jason Richwine, Robert Weissberg, Joseph Sobran, and our own Peter Brimelow in the failed quest for “respectability.”
• And most spectacularly, it failed to “conserve” the nation in the most basic sense, by facilitating the replacement of the historic American nation with foreign peoples who have no stake in preserving any of the principles, institutions, or cultural norms that conservatives supposedly hold dear.

Thus in the #NRORevolt row, there’s something larger at stake than simply conservative impatience with Republican failure. Trump’s declaration that Americans are being played for suckers is especially true for the (overwhelmingly White) conservative base. They are tired of being used as cannon fodder. They are tired of seeing nothing in exchange for their votes except trade and tax policies that help the same plutocrats who support Open Borders.

So, quite naturally, they are moving towards a more National Conservative position in which the GOP is expected to defend the concrete interests of its core constituency, like the patriotic parties of Europe.

In a piece on #NRORevolt largely celebrating the split within the American Right, Matt Yglesias at Vox noted that

the demographic math of the Reagan coalition doesn’t work anymore. To win, conservative politicians either need to broaden their appeal to African-American or Latino voters or else significantly improve their performance among white voters from an already high level.

[#NRORevolt Explained, September 8, 2015].

He continued:

The strategy favored by much of the party elite… is to try to neutralize the immigration issue in the Latino community and then win votes from more affluent or more religiously devout Hispanics. The alt-right/identitarian/Trump strategy is to do the opposite, and make increasingly explicit appeals to ethnic nationalism to try to make whites more uniformly loyal to the GOP.

What Yglesias doesn’t say is that the elite strategy is already Dead On Arrival. Trump is currently under attack by the Beltway Right because The Donald evidently thinks high salaries for CEOs shouldn’t be a defining principle of the American Right. But Hispanics want more economically progressive policies even more than they want free markets.

The plan of the GOP “Smart Set” to win by putting a minority or female face (Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina) on the same tired policies will still ultimately depend on high White turnout and voter share in order to be successful. But it’s just far less likely to work. On the other hand, paradoxically, Trump’s populist strategy actually seems more likely to win a sizable minority of black and Hispanic voters than the cringe-inducing pandering of a Jeb Bush or a Marco Rubio.

It’s an unfortunate situation for the Beltway Right. But, after all, they were warned and they chose to shoot the messenger. Popular disgust at the American Right’s cowardice, short-sightedness, and baffling stupidity is one of the key motivations driving the #NRORevolt.

The existential crisis of Western Civilization in the United States and Europe was utterly unnecessary. But National Review, among others, deliberately chose to treat demographic and racial issues as beneath discussion in the same way they now choose to dismiss Trump.

And so at the beginning of what is shaping up to be the Century of Identity, a new politics is needed. And National Review and its cuckservative fellow travelers have nothing to offer.

They have no one to blame but themselves. When it comes to the death of Beltway Right-style conservatism, I’m reminded of a phrase widely used by the young Alt-Right shaping the new age of Ethnopolitics:

“Don’t call it a grave. It’s the future you chose.”