William F. Buckley was responsible for moving National Review away from its early stalwarts, such as Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, John O’Sullivan, Peter Brimelow and other nationalist and anti-immigration authors. He was largely silent during the gross attacks on Mel Bradford by Norman Podhoretz and his crew when Bradford was nominated by Reagan to head the NEH in 1980. He publicly attacked Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran in the book-length screed, “In Search of Anti-Semitism”.

Below are a series of quotes from rightwing intellectuals on Buckley’s betrayals and purges, as well as, the decline of National Review.

With a friend like this, who needs enemies?

Joe Sobran on Bill Buckley: “His conservatism is a conservatism of image, show business, public relations, stock mannerisms; big words, anfractuous grammar, repetitious Latinisms, implying a depth that isn’t there.”

“In these episodes, Buckley’s genteel, Ivy League concern for fitting in always seemed to triumph over his more pugnacious (and ethnic) peers like Sam Francis, Sobran, and the entire gang that went on to form the American Conservative and Chronicles.”–Roman Dmowski

“Worse than merely moderating its conservatism, Buckley allowed National Review in the 90s to become the voice of unadulterated, bellicose neoconservatism. Gone were the Catholic “just war” theorists uneasy with contemporary “total war.” Gone was any intelligent criticism of Israel. Gone too was any intellectual criticism of our steady reinvention as a nation through sustained non-European immigration. To mention the latter fact in particular became taboo, even though, National Review as late as the 1970s openly opposed less dramatic social engineering initiatives like school bussing and the ERA.” —Roman Dmowski

On the wrong side of history, accurate meme title too.

“And though it attracted intellectual sojourners, this movement for the most part was a strategy for fighting Communism combined with a cult of personality. That it later fell into the hands of New York social democrats, who had given themselves a partial facelift, is not surprising. What the neocons swallowed up was thin gruel, and if it was necessary to make it thinner while accepting new direction from the left, very little of substance was thereby lost…By now “conservative” foundations and publications have to carry out a double responsibility, cheering for the Republican Party or vilifying their Democratic rivals for government patronage; while genuflecting before neoconservative icons, who have all the freshness of Egyptian mummies. The shortcoming of my relevant works on these matters is that they don’t do full justice to a ludicrous “movement,” which is a collection of careerists who have tried to differentiate themselves from their counterparts in the Democratic Party. This non-movement did not start out as much but has managed to deteriorate nonetheless, as an effective force against the Left that it is trying to please while offering “moderate” opposition. But looking at the bright side, Mr. Buckley has gone through life making socially acceptable friends. As for the others, he has thrown every one of them off the bus.” —Paul Gottfried

“As I have mentioned before, a ‘castaway’ is someone like Robinson Crusoe who managed to save himself after the ship on which he was traveling was wrecked . . . It is not someone cast out or away from a ship. That is called being marooned (Ben Gunn in Treasure Island is an example, as was Alexander Selkirk on whom Crusoe is based).  The word ‘castaway’ as applied to me by [Buckley] implies that the conservative movement was the ship in which I was traveling, that it wrecked and I survived.” —Sam Francis

“But not the least evidence of Buckley`s unmistakable effeminate streak was a viciousness that showed in his flouting of such comforting conventions—for example in his 1995 obituary of the libertarian economist Murray Rothbard, which the Mises Review`s David Gordon fairly described as “malicious spite.” Buckley`s rationale (presumably) was that those of us who live by opinion must be prepared to die by opinion. If so, in this area at least, I agree with him. Just as the gangsters in The Godfather reassured each other that their bloody clashes were just business, not personal, I`d say that my disagreement with Buckley was fundamentally political, although I do consider his character to have been among the most contemptible I have encountered in public life. However, in Buckley`s case, the political was personal and vice versa. It was his personal failings that ultimately accounted for the four-decade fizzle of his once-brilliant career—and for the fact that, regularly credited with the making of the modern conservative movement, he must also be indicted for its breaking.” – Peter Brimelow

“For all the sentimental back-slapping of Buckley by  conservatives, what exactly are the accomplishments of the  conservative movement in the past half-century? A smaller federal government? Fiscal responsibility? The protection and advancement of liberty and freedom? What are the lasting achievements of the conservative movement? An alternative media? Stopping America’s cultural slide to the far Left? The single most important beachhead for liberalism is the vice-like grip on our cultural and social institutions through public education and the mass media. Conservatives have punted to reverse what James Burnham once referred to as the “Suicide of the West.”–Kevin Lamb

Stopped nothing.

“Let’s make a list of people purged from (or gagged at) neocon National Review since its inception: Revilo Oliver, Russell Kirk, John O’Sullivan, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Murray Rothbard, Jared Taylor, Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, Chilton Williamson, Clyde Wilson, Thomas Fleming, Peter Brimelow, Edwin Rubenstein, Paul Gottfried, Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire, Robert Weissberg, etc…Looking at the names above, one can quickly see that National Review, over the years, has in essence purged all of its most talented writers. Since the function of National Review is not to confront the left but to police the right, as commenters have noted, it’s no surprise that National Review is repulsed by talent. National Review today is a three-ring circus of blathering fools like Jonah Goldberg or Ramesh Ponnuru, insane invade-the-world/invite-the-world interventionists like, well, almost everyone there, or non-entity fratboys like Rich Lowry. How many readers do they have left with IQs above 90?”

By the way, Buckley was a CIA agent.

CPAC hasn’t been covered too deeply on the Daily Stormer, probably because it is and always has been irrelevant.

The most important thing to take away from the event is the plasticity of conservatism and the type of submissive temperament attracted to its ideological orthodoxy (made up by Jews at think-tanks as they go along). Donald Trump – who was banned from the election year CPAC – gallantly returned with his conquering army of civic nationalist speakers, parsed into multiple events, most of them well-received. Trump’s message got an 86% approval rating in their famous straw poll, while the Jew David Marcus begged white people to keep the unwanted Bill Kristol in the tent.

Trump’s return was a wrecking ball, tearing down these conservative idols. He is scaling back interventionist  (((neo-conservativism))) and attacking the unthinking adherence to the principles of free trade globalism. These two ideological poles were made sacrosanct in the “conservative movement” during the rise of (((Barry Goldwater))) and later under Ronald Reagan, who in turn took his governing cues from Brent Bozell and William F. Buckley – or, more accurately – the Jewish money pulling their strings.

A lot of the loser mental pathways on the “Right” were burrowed in by these clowns. For example, Mr. Buckley was the first conservative to blame “liberalism” when Jews Jewliciously do Jewy things.

On the economic front, Trump has been steadfast in protecting the social safety net, promising decent jobs, and taking the side of working people as a moral imperative against the destructive weeds of internationalism.

A Washington Post contributor, Jennifer Burns, whose manjaw is almost as unappealing as her objectivism, isn’t happy.

Washington Post:

In electing Trump, the Republican base rejected laissez-faire economics in favor of economic nationalism. Full-fledged objectivism, the philosophy Rand invented, is an atheistic creed that calls for pure capitalism and a bare-bones government with no social spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security or Medicare. It’s never appeared on the national political scene without significant dilution. But there was plenty of diluted Rand on offer throughout the primary season: Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz all espoused traditional Republican nostrums about reducing the role of government to unleash American prosperity.

Yet none of this could match Trump’s full-throated roar to build a wall or his protectionist plans for American trade. In the general election, Trump sought out new voters and independents using arguments traditionally associated with Democrats: deploying the power of the state to protect workers and guarantee their livelihoods, even at the cost of trade agreements and long-standing international alliances. Trump’s economic promises electrified rural working-class voters the same way Bernie Sanders excited urban socialists. Where Rand’s influence has stood for years on the right for a hands-off approach to the economy, Trump’s “America first” platform contradicts this premise by assuming that government policies can and should deliberately shape economic growth, up to and including punishing specific corporations. Likewise, his promise to craft trade policy in support of the American worker is the exact opposite of Rand’s proclamation that “the essence of capitalism’s foreign policy is free trade.”

…

Now Rand is on the shelf, gathering dust with F.A. Hayek, Edmund Burke and other once-prominent conservative luminaries. It’s no longer possible to provoke the elders by going on about John Galt. Indeed, many of the elders have by now used Randian references to name their yachts, investment companies and foundations.

Instead, young insurgent conservatives talk about “race realism ,” argue that manipulated crime statistics mask growing social disorder and cast feminism as a plot against men. Instead of reading Rand, they take the “red pill”, indulging in an emergent internet counter-culture that reveals the principles of liberalism — rights, equality, tolerance — to be dangerous myths.

…

Mixed in with Rand’s vituperative attacks on government was a defense of the individual’s rights in the face of a powerful state. This single-minded focus could yield surprising alignments, such as Rand’s opposition to drug laws and her support of legal abortion. And although liberals have always loved to hate her, over the next four years, they may come to miss her defense of individual autonomy and liberty. Ayn Rand is dead. Long live Ayn Rand!

So how did Libertarianism become so popular and then die so easily in the first place?

Libertarians come in two varieties: people who aren’t actual libertarians but want a politically correct way to disengage from multiculturalism (you saw a lot of this in Ron Paul ’08), and emotionally stunted nerds who believe running a successful lemonade stand will buy them babes and respect. The first were easily won over by Trump, while the numerically inferior latter lodged a “protest vote” for Gary Johnson’s Marijuana Party.

Antifa have never attacked a Libertarian rally. That is because most people will never support actual unrestricted capitalism or hyper-individualism, including those who say “get your socialist hands off my Medicare.” It’s not hard for leftists to defeat these people in a political debate. When it comes to a battle of wits, the average Leftist is as disarmed as a New York City Quaker. The only people they can beat are comic book villains scripted to lose, like Paul Ryan. Now Judeo-Leftists have no recourse except to engage in violence to try and close the spigot of winning ideas (they’ll see where that takes them soon enough).

What Ms. Burns is lamenting here is that now real Republicans (that’s us) can win hearts and minds (and votes) by actually representing the majority. For the past 10 years, there have been a million reasons for white workers to vote against the GOP, which is why the Democrats kept getting votes from people they openly resent. Trump was able to demolish the “blue wall” in the Midwest because Trump met working and middle class white people half-way to full-circle.

As an aside about (((Rand))) herself, it’s true that she perceived Western countries as overgrown Las Vegas free for all lands of novelty where you should be allowed to shoot 7-Eleven heroin and publicly urinate while taking candy from a baby. That’s the depth and breadth of what her Weltanschauung – which has only been proven to succeed in her science fiction novels – amounts to.

But that didn’t stop Rand from spending the other half of her public career fanatically advocating for more American tax dollars to go to Israel: a racial collectivist nation that attacks individualism and has a planned, socialist economy.

Maybe, just maybe Jennifer, white people want respect and civic engagement in our countries too. Maybe we want our government to serve and protect its citizens. We built this land collectively, it’s time those Jews and plutocrats benefiting from what we achieved as a nation either show respect, or get the hell out.

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

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.”