Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting time of it, for when they are not being suppressed or mutilated by Liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose ignorance and amorality have never been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity. — William F. Buckley, Publisher’s Statement, November 19, 1955
The questions of our time are why so many of our conservative publications have grown so weak and why they hate the very movements that are giving the right hope.
Most analysis of these questions have concerned themselves with the financing– that the donors (most of whom are now in hedge funds) are actually buying their advocates to justify their ill gotten gains.
Perhaps. But could it be that there’s something in the personality type of the sorts who run what William F. Buckley once called the “well fed right.” There are precious few alpha males in the conservative movement and that is why there are so few victories. However one feels about Donald Trump one can’t ignore that when Trump says “we don’t win anymore” he’s not wrong, is he?
What the alt right or the dissident right ought to be doing is trying to red pill the billionaires. (I have found a few of them to be more than receptive.) The donor class knows that its money is being wasted but are oftentimes too vain to know what’s really going on. It’s our responsibility to free these great men from the losers that give them defeat after defeat. Wealth follows power and not the other way around. You will know the alt right will succeed when it starts to get money behind it. Or to put it more crassly, when the funders of Conservatism Inc., start to hedge their bets by throwing some money the alt right’s way.
I have always thought the lack of success of Conservatism Inc. was lack of imagination–the inability to realize that politics change with the times, that there have been real advances in the human sciences, and that demographics have replaced economics are the pressing political concern–but now I see that it’s a lack of ambition.
It’s so much easier to parrot Reagan, Reagan, Reagan than it is to understand that the times they are a changing and with the times, the issues change too.
National Review Institute chairman Robert Agostinelli is an intelligent, if not entirely moral, man. He at least pretends to love the faith, America, and “freedom.”
— BrettMDecker (@BrettMDecker) May 16, 2015
He claims that he is a “big believer in human nature.”
The alt right believes what National Review chairman Robert Agostinelli says he believes.
“The social disease of political correctness has entered daily life, inverting good to bad and attempting to rewrite proud histories as an imposition of white supremacy for which we all should make contrition.”
White supremacy is, of course, just another way of saying whites are supremely awesome, which, if history is any indication, they actually are. We whites do have a proud history that has brought many great blessings on the world. The best of these ideas have made the entire human race better off. It may not be politically correct but it is correct.
— Bunker 🇺🇸 Smith (@bunkerwsmith) January 22, 2016
We should take Agostinelli seriously when he says to his alma mater:
Today, like five centuries ago, our enemies’ only demand is that we submit. You must not submit. Whether it be big government, political correctness or radical Islam, you must fight against evil ideologies that plot to subdue our individual liberty and religious freedom.
And yet why does it seem as if all National Review ever does now is submit?
American Renaissance deconstructs National Review’s arguments better than we can here.
Allow me to quote from Tuttle’s piece:
“Taylor’s ‘race realism,’ for example, co-opts evolutionary biology in the hopes of demonstrating that the races have become sufficiently differentiated over the millennia to the point that the races are fundamentally–that is, biologically–different. Spencer, who promotes ‘White identity’ and ‘White racial consciousness,’ is beholden to similar ‘scientific’ findings.”
And yet Tuttle and Jamie Kirchick who wrote a silly National Review piece against the alt right have denied those histories and ignored Buckley’s teachings on race.
Here’s Buckley praising Arthur Jensen’s work that shows blacks are less intelligent than whites are on average.
There’s a presumption that these donors are getting something for their money but the truth is that they really aren’t. In fact they are just presented certain options and take them.
I don’t think that’s actually true. I think the donor class knows better.
That said, we may have to fight them too and begin the process of exposing the private lives of their members.
— Bunker 🇺🇸 Smith (@bunkerwsmith) January 22, 2016
We could have discussed how Agostinelli’s son was found in his Mercedes when he was arrested for driving through traffic lights while on a suspended license with no insurance and cocaine. We could also have discussed the low class manner in which Agostinelli allegedly cheated on his ex-fiancee and then demanded back his expensive engagement ring. This is not the behavior of a man who wants to rule.
— Bunker 🇺🇸 Smith (@bunkerwsmith) April 1, 2016
We can go down this road if we must but why?
We on the alt right are the heirs to Buckley and to Breitbart at their best. We’re where the energy and intensity is.
Who, whom, Buckleyites? Who won the argument? Who advises presidents? Buckley? Or Alinsky?
I think we know the answer.