The corporate press will obsess over trivial nonsense or non
existent things like Trump, Russia, collusion.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton said 17 intelligence agencies confirmed
that it was the Kremlin who was behind the hacking of my emails.
Turns out that was completely fabricated.
Joe Biden on the presidential debate stage said 50
intelligence officers, 5 directors of the CIA from both
parties have said what he's talking about.
Hunter Biden's laptop is a Russian plan.
Of course, there was no evidence of that.
It turned out it, of course, was Hunter Biden's actual laptop.
Joe Biden then went on to say that Trump won't even condemn
Putin when Putin has bounties on the heads of U.S. soldiers in
Afghanistan. The Pentagon was later asked to
clarify and provide evidence for this claim.
As of today, they still have not provided evidence.
So why is it that when we see actual atrocities by Donald
Trump, the corporate press is completely silent on them?
This is from the Cost of War Project at Brown University.
Afghanistan's rising civilian death toll due to air strikes,
2017 to 2020. So this would be the years that
President Trump was in the Oval Office.
It says on Page Six, the number of civilians killed by
international air strikes increased about 330% from 2016,
the last full year of the Obama administration, to 2019, the
most recent year for which there is complete data from the United
Nations. So the question is, why is it
that they have all of these hoaxes that they're very mad at
Trump about when there's genuine things that he could be
prosecuted for? Certainly, if anyone else
engaged in terrorist activities like drone strikes, which kill
civilians, then we would all agree that that person should be
in jail. But they really, really hate
Trump. They frame him for treason when
they could get him on something very reliable.
Here is a speech from Doctor Murray Anne Rothbard.
This was an economist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
He wrote a paper in 1992 titled A Strategy for the Right.
This was actually a speech he gave.
Here Rothbard puts forth a theory as to why right wing
populism is so hated by the establishment.
Rothbard says. After this excursion on my
personal activity on the old right, I returned to a key
strategic question. Who are the major bad guys, the
unwashed masses or the power elite?
Very early I concluded that the big danger is the elite and not
the masses for the following reasons.
First, even granting for a moment that the masses are the
worst possible, that they are perpetually hell bent on
lynching anyone down the block, the mass of people simply don't
have the time for politics or political shenanigans.
The average person must spend most of his time on the daily
business of life, being with family, seeing his friends,
etcetera. He can only get interested in
politics or engage in it sporadically.
The only people who have time for politics are the
professionals, the bureaucrats, politicians and special interest
groups dependent on political rule.
They make money out of politics and so they are intensely
interested and lobby and are active 24 hours a day.
Therefore, the special interest groups will tend to win out over
the uninterested masses. This is the basic insight of the
public choice School of Economics.
The only other groups interested full time in politics are the
ideologists like ourselves. Again, not a very large segment
of the population. So the problem is the ruling
elite, the professionals and their dependent special interest
groups. The 2nd crucial point, society
is divided into a ruling elite, which is necessarily a minority
of the population and lives off the second group, the rest of
the population. Here I point to one of the most
brilliant essays on political philosophy ever written, John C
Calhoun's Disquisition on Government.
Calhoun pointed out that the very fact of government and of
taxation creates inherent conflict between 2 great
classes, those who pay taxes and those who live off them.
The net taxpayers verse the net tax consumers.
The bigger government gets, Calhoun noted, the greater and
more intense the conflict between those two social
classes. If a minority of elites rule
over tax and exploit the majority of the public, then
This brings up starkly the main problem of political theory,
what I like to call the mystery of civil obedience.
Why did does the majority of the public obey these turkeys
anyways? This problem, I believe, was
solved by three great political theorists, mainly, but not all
libertarian. Etienne de Libretti, French
libertarian theorists of the mid 16th century, David Hume and
Ludwig von Mises. They pointed out that precisely
because the ruling class is a minority, in the long run, force
per SE cannot rule. Even in the most despotic
dictatorship, the government can only persist when it is backed
by the majority of the population.
In long run, ideas not force rule, and any government has to
have legitimacy in the minds of the public.
This truth was starkly demonstrated in the collapse of
the Soviet Union last year. Simply put, when the tanks were
sent to capture Yeltsin, they were persuaded to turn their
guns around and defend Yeltsin and the Russian parliament
instead. More broadly, it is clear that
the Soviet government had totally lost legitimacy and
support among the public. To a libertarian, it was
particularly wonderful thing to see unfolding before our very
eyes the death of a state, particularly a monstrous one
such as the Soviet Union. Toward the end, Gorby continued
to issue decrees as before, but now no one paid any attention.
The once mighty Supreme Soviet continued to meet, but nobody
bothered to show up. How glorious.
But we still haven't solved the mystery of civil obedience.
If the ruling elite is taxing, looting and exploiting the
public, why does the public put up with this for a single
moment? Why does it take so long for
them to withdraw their consent? Here we come to the solution,
the critical role of intellectuals, the opinion
molding class in society. If the masses knew what was
going on, they would withdraw their consent quickly.
They would soon perceive that the emperor has no clothes, that
they are being ripped off. This is where the intellectuals
come in. The ruling elite, whether it be
monarchs of yore or the communist parties of today, are
in desperate need of intellectual elites to weave
apologies for the state. The state rules by divine edict.
The state ensures the common good or the general welfare.
The state protects us from the bad guys over the mountain.
The state guarantees full employment.
The state acts debates the multiplier effect, the state
ensures social justice, and on and on.
The apologias differ over the centuries.
The effect is always the same, as Carl Whitvogel shows in his
great work Oriental Despotism in Asian Empires, the intellectuals
were able to get away with the theory that the emperor or
Pharaoh was himself divine. If the ruler is God, view will
be induced to obey or question his commands.
We can see what the state rulers get out of their alliance with
the intellectuals, but what do the intellectuals get out of it?
Intellectuals are the sort of people who believe that in the
free market they are getting paid far less than their wisdom
requires. Now the state is willing to pay
them salaries both for apologizing for state power in
the modern state, for staffing the Marriott of jobs in the
welfare regulatory state apparatus.
In past centuries, the churches constituted the exclusive
opinion molding classes in the society.
Hence the importance to the state and its rulers of an
established church and the importance of libertarians to
the concept of separating church and state, which really means
not allowing the state to confer upon one Group A monopoly of the
opinion molding function. In the 20th century, of course,
the church has been replaced in its opinion molding role, or in
that lovely phrase, the engineering of consent, by a
swarm of intellectuals, academic social scientists, technocrats,
policy scientists, social workers, journalists and the
media generally. And on and on.
Often included for old times sake, so to speak, is a
sprinkling of social gospel ministers and counselors from
the mainstream churches. So to sum up, the problem is
that the bad guys, the ruling classes, have gathered unto
themselves the intellectual and media elites who are able to
bamboozle the masses into consenting to their rule, to
indoctrinate them, as the Marxist would say, with false
consciousness. What can we, the right wing
opposition, do about it? One strategy endemic to
libertarians and classical liberals is what we call the
Hayekian model after FA Hayek, or what I have called
educationism. Ideas, the model declares, are
crucial, and ideas filter down a hierarchy, beginning with the
top philosophers, then seeping down to lesser philosophers,
then academics, and finally to journalists and politicians and
to the masses. The thing to do is convert the
top philosophers to the correct ideas.
They will convert the lesser, and so on in a kind of trickle
down effect, until at last the masses are converted and liberty
has been achieved. First, it should be noted that
this trickle down strategy is a very gentle and genteel 1,
relying on quiet mediation and persuasion in the austere
corridors of intellectual cerebration.
This strategy fits, by the way, with Hayek's personality, for
Hayek is not exactly known as an intellectual gut fighter.
Of course ideas and persuasion are important, but there are
several fatal flaws in the Hayekian strategy.
First, of course, the strategy at best will take several 100
years, and some of us are a bit more impatient than that.
But time is by no means the only problem.
Many people have noted, for example, mysterious blockages of
this trickle. Thus, most real scientists have
a very different view of such environmental questions as Alor.
Then do left wing hysterics. And yet somehow it is always the
same few hysterics that are exclusively quoted by the media.
The same applies to the VEX problem of inheritance and IQ
testing. So how come the media invariably
skew the result and pick and choose the few leftists in the
field? Clearly because the media,
especially the respectable and influential media, begin and
continue with a strong left liberal bias.
More generally, the Hayekian trickle down model overlooks a
crucial point that, and I hate to break this to you,
intellectuals, academics and the media are not all motivated by
truth alone. As we have seen, the
intellectual classes may be part of the solution, but also they
are a big part of the problem. Or, as we have seen, the
intellectuals are part of the ruling class and their economic
interests as well as their interests in prestige, power and
admiration are wrapped up in the present welfare warfare state
system. Therefore, in addition to
converting intellectuals to the cause, the proper course for the
right wing opposition must necessarily be a strategy of
boldness and confrontation, of dynamism and excitement.
A strategy, in short, of rousing the masses from their slumber
and exposing the arrogant elites that are ruling them,
controlling them, taxing them and ripping them off.
Another alternative right wing strategy is that commonly
pursued by many libertarian or conservative think tanks, that
of quiet persuasion, not in the Groves of academia, but in
Washington DC in the corridors of power.
This has been called the Fabian Strategy, with think tanks
issuing reports calling for a 2% cut in attacks here or a tiny
drop in regulation there. The supporters of this strategy
often point to the success of the Fabian Society, which by its
detailed empirical researches gently push the British state
into a gradual accretion of socialist power.
The flaw here, however, is that what works to increase state
power does not work in reverse. Fabians were gently nudging the
ruling elite precisely in the direction they wanted to travel
anyway. Nudging the other way would go
strongly against the state's grain, and the result is far
more likely to be the state's Co opting and Fabianizing the think
tankers themselves, rather than the other way around.
This sort of strategy may, of course, be personally very
pleasant for the think tankers, and may be very profitable in
cushy jobs and contracts from the government.
But that is precisely the problem.
It is important to realize that the establishment doesn't want
excitement in politics. It wants the masses to continue
to be lulled to sleep. It wants kinder, gentler.
It wants the measured, judicious, mushy tone and
content of James Reston, a David Broader, or a Washington Week in
review. It doesn't want a Pat Buchanan
not only for the excitement and hard edge of his content, but
also for his similar tone and style.
And so the proper strategy for the right wing must be what we
call right wing populism. Exciting, dynamic, tough and
confrontational. Rousing and inspiring.
Not only the exploited masses, but the often shell shocked
right wing intellectual cadre as well.
And in this era where the intellectual and media elites
are all establishment liberal conservatives, all in a deep
sense, one variety or another of Social Democrat, all bitterly
hostile to the a genuine right. We need a dynamic, charismatic
leader who has the ability to short circuit the media elites
and to reach and the masses directly.
We need a leadership that can reach the masses and cut through
the crippling and distorting hermeneutical fog spread by the
media elites. But can we call such a strategy
conservative? I for 1:00 AM tired of the
liberal strategy on which they have rung the changes for 40
years of presuming to define conservatism as a supposed aid
to the conservative movement. Whenever liberals have
encountered hard edge abolitionists who, for example,
have wanted to repeal the New Deal or feel fair deal, they
say, but that's not genuine conservatism, that's radicalism.
The genuine conservative, these liberals go on to say, doesn't
want to repeal or abolish anything.
He is a kind and gentle soul who wants to conserve what left
liberals have accomplished. The left liberal vision, then,
of good conservatives is as follows.
First, left liberals in power make a great leap forward toward
collectivism. Then, when, in the course of the
political cycle, four or eight years later, conservatives come
to power, they of course are horrified at the very idea of
repealing anything. They simply slow down the rate
of growth of statism, consolidating the previous gains
of the left and providing a bit of R&R for the next liberal
Great Leap Forward. And if you think about it, you
will see that this is precisely what every Republican
administration has done since the New Deal.
Conservatives have readily played the desired Santa Claus
role in the liberal vision of history.
I would like to ask, how long are we going to keep being
suckers? How long will we keep playing
our appointed roles in the scenario of the left?
When are we going to stop playing their game and start
throwing over the table? I must admit that in one sense,
the liberals have a point. The word conservative is
unsatisfactory. The original right never used
the term conservatives. We called ourselves
individualists, or true liberals, or rightists.
The word conservative only swept the board after the publication
of Russell Kirk's highly influential Conservative Mind in
1953. In the last years of the
original right, there are two major problems with the word
conservative. 1st, that it indeed connotes conserving the
status quo, which is precisely why Brezhnevites were called
conservatives in the Soviet Union.
Perhaps there was a case for calling us conservatives in
1910, but surely not now. Now we want to uproot the status
quo, not conserve it. And secondly, the word
conservative parks back to struggles in the 19th century
Europe and in America, conditions and institutions have
been so different that the term is seriously misleading.
There is a strong case here, as in other areas, for what has
been called American exceptionalism.
So what should we call ourselves?
I haven't got an easy answer, but perhaps we could call
ourselves radical reactionaries or radical rightists, the label
that was given to us by our enemies in the 1950s.
Or if there is too much objection to the dread term
radical, we can follow the suggestion of some of our group
to call ourselves the hard right, Any of these terms
preferable to conservative. And it also serves the function
of separating ourselves out from the official conservative
movement, which, as I shall note in a minute, has been largely
taken over by our enemies. It is instructive to turn now to
a prominent case of right wing populism, headed by a dynamic
leader who had appeared in the last years of the original
right, and whose advent indeed marked a transition between the
original and the newer Buckleyite right.
Quick now. Who was the most hated, the most
smeared man in American politics in this century?
More hated and reviled than even David Duke, even though he was
not a Nazi or a Klu Kluxer. He was not a libertarian, he was
not an isolationist. He was not even a conservative,
but in fact was a matterate, a moderate Republican.
And yet he was so universally reviled that his very name
became a generic, a dictionary synonym for evil.
I refer, of course, to Joe McCarthy.
The key to the McCarthy phenomenon was the comment made
by the entire political culture, from moderate left to moderate
right. We agree with McCarthy's goals.
We just disagree with his means. Of course, McCarthy's goals were
the usual ones, absorbed from the political culture, the
alleged necessity of waging war against the international
communist conspiracy whose tentacles reach from the Soviet
Union and span the entire globe. McCarthy's problem, and
ultimately his tragedy, is that he took this stuff seriously.
If Communists and their agents and fellow travelers are
everywhere, then shouldn't we, in the midst of the Cold War,
root them out of American political life?
The unique and glorious thing about McCarthy was not his goals
or his ideology, but precisely his radical populist means.
For McCarthy was able for a few years to short circuit the
intense opposition of all the elites in American life, from
Eisenhower, Rockefeller administrations to the Pentagon
and the military industrial complex, to the liberal and left
media and academic elites, to overcome all that opposition and
reach and inspire the masses directly.
And he did it through television and without any real movement
behind him. He had only a guerrilla band of
a few advisors, but no organization and no
infrastructure. Fascinatingly enough, the
response of the intellectual elites to the specter of
McCarthyism was led by liberals such as Daniel Bell and Seymour
Martin Lips, who are now prominent neoconservatives.
For in this era, the neocons were in the midst of a long
March which was to take them from Trotskyism to right wing
Trotskyism, to right wing social democracy and finally to the
leadership of the conservative movement.
At this stage of their hajira, the neocons were Truman,
Humphrey, Scoop Jackson liberals.
The major intellectual response to McCarthyism was a book edited
by Daniel Bell, The New American Right, 1955, later updated and
expanded to the Radical Right 1963, published at a time when
McCarthyism was long gone and it was necessary to combat a new
menace, the John Burke Society. The basic method was to divert
attention from the content of the radical right message and
direct attention instead to a personal smear of the groups on
the right. The classical or hard Marxist
method of smearing opponents of socialism or communism was to
condemn them as agents of monopoly capital or of the
bourgeoisie. While these charges were wrong,
at least they had the virtue of clarity and even a certain charm
compared to the later tactics of the soft Marxist and the
liberals of the 1950s and 60s who engaged in Marxo Freudian
psycho Babble to infer in the name of psychological science
that their opponent opponents were, well, kind of crazy.
The preferred method of this time was invented by one of the
contributors to the Bell Volume and also one of my favorite
distinguished American historians, Professor Richard
Hofstetter. Hofstetter's formulation.
Any radical dissenters from any status quo, be they righteous or
leftist, engaged in a paranoid style.
And you know, of course, what paranoids are and suffer from
status anxiety. Logically, at anytime there are
three and only three social groups, those who are declining
in status, those who are rising in status, and those whose
status is about even. You can't fault the analysis.
The declining groups are the ones whom Hofstadter focused on
for the neurosis of status anxiety, which causes them to
lash out irrationally at their betters in a paranoid style.
And you can fill in the rest. But of course the rising groups
can also suffer from the anxiety of trying to keep their higher
status, and the level groups can be anxious about a future
decline. The result of this hocus pocus
is a non falsifiable, universally valid theory that
can be trotted out to smear and dispose of any person or group
which descends from the status quo.
For who, after all, wants to be or to associate with paranoids
and the status anxious? Also permeating the Bell volume
is dismissal of these terrible, terrible radicals as suffering
from the politics of resentment. It is interesting, by the way,
how left liberals deal with political anger.
It's a question of semantics. Anger by the good guys is
accredited. Victim groups in designate is
designated as rage, which is somehow noble.
The latest example was the rage of organized feminism in the
Clarence Thomas Willie Smith's incidents.
On the other hand, anger designated by oppressor groups
is not called rage, but resentment which conjures up
evil little figures envious of their betters sulking around the
edges of the night. And indeed, the entire Bell
volume is permeated by a frank portrayal of the noble,
intelligent Ivy League governing elite confronted and harassed by
a mass of odious, uneducated, redneck, paranoid, resentment
filled authoritarian working and middle class types in the
heartland trying irrationally to undo the benevolent rule of wise
elites concern for the public good.
History however, was not very kind to the Hofstarian
liberalism, for Hofstadter and the others were consistent.
They were defending what they considered a wonderful status
quo of elite rule from any radicals whatever by the left or
right. And so Hofstadter and his
followers went back through American history, tarring all
radical dissenters from any status quo with the status
anxious, paranoid brush, including such groups as
progressive populist and northern abolitionist before the
Civil War. At the same time, Bell in 1960
published a once famous work proclaiming the end of ideology.
From now on, consensus elitist liberalism would rule forever,
ideology would disappear and all political problems would be
merely technical ones such as which machinery to use to clear
the streets. Foreshadowing 30 years later a
similar neo con proclamation of the end of history.
But shortly afterwards ideology came back with a bang with the
radical civil rights and then the new left revolutionaries,
part of which I'm convinced was in reaction to these arrogant
liberal doctrines. Smearing radicals, at least left
wing ones, was no longer in fashion, either in politics or
historiography. Meanwhile, of course, poor
McCarthy was undone, partly because of the smears and lack
of a movement infrastructure, and partly too because his
populism, even though dynamic, had no goals and no program
whatsoever except the very narrow one of rooting out
communists. And partly too because McCarthy
was not really suited for the television medium.
He had ridden to fame being a hot person in a cool medium with
his jowls, his heavy five O clock shadow, which also helped
ruin Nixon and his lack of sense of humor.
And also, too, since he was neither a libertarian nor really
a radical rightist, McCarthy's heart was broken by the censure
of the US Senate, an institution which he actually loved.
The original right, the radical right, had pretty much
disappeared by the time of the 2nd edition of the Bell Volume
in 1963, and in a minute, as we shall see, why.
But now, all of a sudden, with the entry of Pat Buchanan into
the presidential race, my God, they're back.
The radical right is back all over the place, fessier than
ever and getting stronger. The response to this historic
phenomenon by the entire spectrum of established and
correct thought by all the elites from leftover to official
conservatives and neoconservatives, is very much
like the reaction to the return of Godzilla in the old movies.
And wouldn't you know that they would trot out the old psycho
Babble as well as the old smears of bigotry, anti-Semitism, the
specter of Franco, and all the rest?
Every interview with an article on Pat dredges his authoritarian
Catholic background. Oh, and the fact that he fought
a lot when he was a kid. Gee whiz.
Like most of the American male population.
Also that Pat has been angry a lot.
Oh, anger. And of course, since Pat is not
only a right winger, but hails from a designated oppressor
group, white, male, Irish Catholic, his anger can never be
righteous rage, but only a reflection of a paranoid status,
anxious personality filled with, you got it, resentment.
And sure enough, this week, January 13th, the August New
York Times, whose every word, unlike the words of the rest of
us, is fit to print in its lead editorial.
That's the established line, a line which by definition is
fixed in concrete on Pat Buchanan.
After deploring the hard edged and therefore politically
incorrect vocabulary, Tisk tisk of Pat Buchanan, The New York
Times, I'm sure, for the first time solemnly quotes Bill
Buckley as if his words were wholly writ.
And I'll get to that in a minute.
And therefore decides that Buchanan, if not actually
anti-Semitic, has said anti-Semitic things.
And the Times concludes with the final punchline so reminiscent
of the Bell Hofstadter line of yesteryear.
What his words convey, much as his bid for the nomination
conveys, is the politics, the dangerous politics of
resentment. Resentment.
Why should anyone in his right mind resent contemporary
America? Why should anyone, for example,
going out into the streets of Washington or New York, resent
what is surely going to happen to him?
For heaven's sake, what person in his right mind doesn't resent
it? What person is not filled with
noble rage or ignoble resentment or whatever you choose to call
it? Finally, I want to turn to the
question, what happened to the original right anyway?
And how did the conservative movement get into its present
mess? Why does it need to be sundered
and split apart and a new radical right movement created
upon its ashes? The answer to both these
seemingly desperate questions is the same What happened to the
original right? And the cause of the present
mess is The Advent and Domination of the Right Wing by
Bill Buckley and the National Review.
By the mid 1950s, much of the leadership of the old right was
dead or in retirement. Senator Taft and Colonel
McCormick had died and many of the right wing congressmen had
retired. The conservative masses, for a
long time short on intellectual leadership, we're now lacking in
political leadership as well. An intellectual and powered
vacuum had developed on the right and rushing to fill it in
1955. Or Bill Buckley, fresh from
several years in the CIA and National Review.
An intelligent, well written periodical staff with ex
communists and ex leftist eager to transform the right from an
isolationist movement into a crusade to crush the Soviet God
that had failed them. Also, Buckley's writing style,
while in those days often witty and sparkling, was rococo enough
to give the reader the impression of profound thought,
an impression redoubled by Bill's habit of sprinkling his
prose with French and Latin terms.
Very quickly, National Review became the dominant, if not the
only, power center on the right wing.
This power was reinforced by a brilliantly successful strategy,
perhaps guided by National Review editors trained in
Marxist cadre tactics, of creating front groups,
Intercollegiate Studies Institute for College
Intellectuals, and Young Americans for Freedom for Campus
activists. Moreover, led by veteran
Republican Politico and National Review publisher Bill Rusher,
the National Review Complex was able to take over in swift
secession the College Young Republicans and the National
Young Republicans, and finally to create a Goldwater movement
in 1960 and beyond. And so, with almost blitzkrieg
swiftness by the early 1960s, the new global crusading
conservative movement, transformed and headed by Bill
Buckley, was almost ready to take power in America.
But not quite, because first all the various heretics of the
right, some leftover from the original right, all the groups
that were in any way radical or could deprive the new
conservative movement of its much desired respectability in
the eyes of the liberal and centrist elite, all these had to
be jettisoned. Only such a denatured,
respectable, non radical conservative right was worthy of
power. And so the purchase began.
One after another, Buckley and the National Review purged and
excommunicated all radicals, all the non respectables.
Consider the roll call isolationists such as John T
Flynn, anti Zionists, libertarians, EIN Randians, the
John Burke Society, and all those who continued, like the
early National Review, to dare to oppose Martin Luther King and
the Civil rights revolution after Buckley had changed and
decided to embrace it. But if by the middle and late
1960s Buckley had purged the conservative movement of the
genuine right, he also hastened to embrace any group that
proclaimed it's hard anti communism, or rather anti
Sovietism or anti Stalinism. And of course the first anti
Stalinist were the devotees of the martyred communist Leon
Trotsky. And so the conservative
movement, while purging itself of genuine right wingers, was
happy to embrace anyone of any variety of Marxist, Trotskyites,
Schmachtenites, Mensheviks, Social Democrats such as grouped
around the magazine The New leader Loves Tonight,
theoreticians of the American Federation of Labor, extreme
right wing Marxist like the incredibly beloved Sydney Hook.
Anyone who could present not anti socialist but suitably anti
Soviet, anti Stalinist credentials.
The way was then paved for the final fatal influx, that of the
ex Trotskyite right wing Social Democrat, Democrat capitalist
Truman Humphrey, Scoop Jackson liberals displaced from their
home in the Democratic Party by the looney left that we know so
well. The feminist deconstructing,
quota loving advanced victimological left.
And also, we should point out at least a semi isolationist, semi
anti war left. These displaced people are of
course the famed neoconservatives, a tiny but
ubiquitous group with Bill Buckley as their aging
figurehead, now dominating the conservative movement.
Of the 35 neoconservatives, 34 seem to be syndicated columnist.
And so the neocons have managed to establish themselves as the
only right wing alternative to the left.
The neocons now constitute the right wing end of the
ideological spectrum of the respectable, responsible right
wing. That is, for the neocons have
managed to establish the notion that anyone who might be to the
right of them is by definition a representative of the forces of
darkness, of chaos, old right, racism and anti-Semitism.
The article ends with a bit of optimism from Doctor Rothbard.
With the inspiration of the death of the Soviet Union before
us, we now know that it can be done.
We shall break the clock of social democracy.
We shall break the clock of the Great Society.
We shall break the clock of the welfare State.
We shall break the clock of the New New Deal.
We shall break the clock of Woodrow Wilson's new freedom and
perpetual war. We shall repeal the 20th
century. One of the most inspiring and
wonderful sights of our time was to see the peoples of the Soviet
Union rising up last year to tear down in their fury the
statues of Lenin. To obliterate the Leninist
legacy. We too shall tear down all the
statues of Franklin D Roosevelt, of Harry Truman, of Woodrow
Wilson, melt them down and beat them into plowshares and pruning
hooks, and usher in a 21st century of peace, freedom, and
prosperity. Links to this entire speech will
be in the description below. Also, if you'd like to read what
William F Buckley's proposal was for what the Republican Party
should embrace, he authored a article titled The Party and the
Deep Blue Sea. This would have been in the
1950s, where he gave some very kind advice.
This means that we have got to accept big government for the
duration, for neither an offensive nor a defensive war
can be waged given our present government skills, except
through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within
our shores. The question is raised, does it
make a great deal of difference if we lose our freedom to a
Georgian bandit or a Missouri ignoramus?
So this explains why no president has made net spending
cuts since Dwight D Eisenhower, why the regulatory apparatus
continues to grow even under Bush, even under Trump, even
under Reagan, even under Nixon. It's because these people at
National Review completely Co opted the old right.
Rothbard previously in this art in the speech.
Mentions that the old right is basically the right wing
thinkers from 1933 to 1953. They arose in response to the
New Deal programs. Thank you for watching Keith
Knight, Don't Tread on Anyone, and the Libertarian Institute.