Twilight of the Neocons: National Review Dumps Its Subscribers


Goldberg begins his Dear John letter to American conservatives, No Movement That Embraces Trump Can Call Itself Conservative, with a touching bit of self-awareness.

Dear Reader (if there are any of you left), Well, if this is the conservative movement now, I guess you’re going to have to count me out.

Goldberg wants “conservatism” to be about tax cuts for the wealthy and red team/blue team grabassery over Hillary’s email server, because he’s Jewish. Goldberg wants “conservatism” to be about battling with IslamoNazism, because he’s Jewish. Goldberg wants “conservatism” to be about ineffable abstract principles instead of faith, family, and folk, because he’s Jewish. He doesn’t share your faith. His family wouldn’t be caught dead around your family, and the single greatest fear his folk harbor is what Trump implicitly represents to the Jewish mind; goyische identity politics.

The late Bill Rusher, longtime publisher of National Review, often counseled young writers to remember, “Politicians will always disappoint you.” […]

But if it’s true that politicians can disappoint, I think one has to say that the people can, too.

For the past couple decades that Goldberg’s neocon movement has been leading the “conservative” movement’s people, it has led them through a frightful death march of cascading failures. Its advice to whiff on immigration has permanently tipped the balance of voters against National Review’s conservative readers. Its support for Israel’s proxy wars has drained our treasury faster than the socialist and populist politicians they were always so vigilant against dreamed of doing. And personally, I would have just rather the trillions wasted in the Middle East had been wasted on Democratic inner-city minority uplift programs.

For Goldberg to be disappointed in his readers for losing interest in his discredited ideas requires staggering chutzpah.

Trump is like a cat trained to piss in a human toilet. It’s amazing! It’s remarkable! Yes, yes, it is: for a cat. But we don’t judge humans by the same standard.

They can’t help but circle back to the scatological, can they?

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.

Yeah, ideas matter, and yours were terrible. You can fall back on your ethnic themes and clinically pathologize Trump’s popularity as some kind of self-referential herd phenomenon, but I think Trump’s popularity has to do with his proposing a better idea than yours, Jonah: Let’s stop giving our citizenship away to foreigners, stop giving our jobs away to foreigners, and stop giving our military power projection away to foreigners.

Every one of their films involving teens reliably features the big dumb jock bully who everybody inexplicably likes. The jock is you, the goyim, the Pharaoh, the Philistine, the Führer, and The Donald, whose very existence unwittingly humiliates him, fueling his ressentiment. Once one becomes aware of the mythic narrative Jews invariably rely upon, one can write their commentary for them.

Of course, Trump’s not the next Hitler, but that’s the only way Jonah can understand a gentile opponent. Trump actually had tremendous negatives before he got specific with his ideas, but Jonah ignores that in favor of his self-pitying framing.

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.

Exactly. For the last five years, you and the rest of your neocon cohorts have led conservatives to believe that war with Iran and opposition to free healthcare were the hills to fight on. For year after year, they listened, fighting tooth and nail for Bibi and for ensuring that people in poverty can’t afford to take their children to the doctor. You told them to do that, Jonah. You as a leader of conservative thought told your readers to fight Iran and socialized healthcare.

And they lost. Hard. How many disastrous political failures do you demand that your readers suffer before they become disappointed in you? You people always carry on about ideas. Ideas, ideas, ideas. A survey of the ideas you’ve brought to the conservative movement is especially damning. Immigration restriction is a vote loser? The Iraq War is a good idea? Invest all our political capital in pointlessly filibustering Obamacare? What has National Review brought to the table which hasn’t sucked in living memory, aside from perhaps the Derb?

I’ve written a lot about my problems with populism.

Of course you have, and we both know why. Populism is integrally rooted in a specific people and place, and you’re a rootless cosmopolitan. There’s certainly a need to guard against the excesses and failures of populism, balancing it with solid principles and theories. But those principles and theories must be our own, and we must guard ourselves against the memetic cuckoldry of hostile outsiders like yourself.

Trump’s glass-bottom id lets the whole world see his megalomania.

Freudian psychoanalysis of political opponents.

Karl Marx coined the term lumpenproletariat to describe working-class people who could never relinquish their class consciousness and embrace the idea of a classless socialist society. Hence, they were useless to the revolutionary cause.

Neo-Marxist economic reductionist critique.

Republican party allow themselves to be corrupted by this flim-flammery, then so be it. My job will be harder, my career will suffer, and I’ll be ideologically homeless (though hardly alone).

Jonah Goldberg is a pundit who shall dwell alone.

Conservatism began in the wilderness and maybe, like the Hebrews, it would return from it stronger and ready to rule.

Ahem.

Update: Join the Twitter campaign against Goldberg ‘n Pals: #NRORevolt


  • A jew named Goldberg whining about someone who treads on egalitarian mores. No one is surprised.

  • Biscione

    When engaging a joo of the “right” such as a Goldberg/Ben Shapiro or any other one of them for that matter, it is crucial that their Jewishness be brought to the forefront of debate a la Tim Wise to establish a clear distinction between us and them in debate terms, in hopes that we can directly link their propositions to their tribal identity to illustrate their hypocrisy and expose their façade, Joos of the right represent just one wing of the both conscious and unconscious Talmudic assault it is joos of the right who are mainly responsible for pushing the precepts of “cuckservatism” such as the idea that America was never a white country etc

    • Real American

      Whenever anyone claims that America was not founded to be a White country, just show them this: http://www.indiana.edu/%7Ekdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

    • Bulan Sabriel

      Tim Wise is 1/4 Jewish. He is a commmunist who wants Judaism and Israel destroyed. Have you lost the ability to think rationally, or are you all just unable to look up the facts?

    • Tim Wise has significant Jewish ancestry. I watched him ethnically identify as Jewish right before my very eyes. And he is all nasty and insulting about everything like you are.

      VERDICT: JEW

    • Bulan Sabriel

      Tim Wise is an antiIsrael activist and communist out to commit cultural genocide of Jews and the destruction of Israel. He uses his 1/4 Jewish history as a shield. And you help him by screaming Jew. Your antisemitism not only rots your mind and soul, it makes you the useful idiot of cultural marxists.

    • EricStriker

      Go back to the Generation Identity knockoff where you might convince a few rubes. We know better than to engage in pilpul with vermin. Tim Wise actively defends Jewish privilege, and blames white people for things Jews do. He went to one of the Jewiest universities in the country. That anti-Israel stuff is generally weak and a facade, and he isn’t even 1/100 as ferocious about as apartheid in South Africa. Deep down inside, he supports Zionism, if he didn’t, he wouldn’t lie about the origins of its power.

    • Bulan Sabriel

      Anyone who isn’t a genocidal neo-Nazi is a Zionist in your book. No wonder you think your inability to debate is a point of pride, rather than being something Nietzche would call an untermensch. Facts and logic are irrelevent. Only your hatred matters to you.

  • Jeroniomus

    Jonah Goldberg is a pundit who shall dwell alone

    Priceless!

  • EricStriker

    The National Jew-View has always been the standard for everything that’s wrong about conservatism. I’m surprised they’re even still around, that paper is truly disgusting.

    “Right-wing” Jews tend to preach libertarianism and “small government” for Gentiles, while at the same time demanding tax-payers subsidize Socialist, Talmudic nazi Israel. Some suggestible Anglo-Saxon types never stop to ask themselves why they want nationalism and socialism for themselves and globalist capitalism for us, Jews are really rich so of course they’re good people, says the rube baby boomer National Jew-View reader.

  • Shotgun

    This is an excellent bit of political commentary. It seems like Matt Parrott gets better and better with each article. I’m too cynical to read National Review and even if I picked it up one day, I’d never care to blast them like this. I don’t have the heart for it. I’m glad Parrott does and I hope this articles crosses that SOB Goldberg’s feed.

    • I’m getting back in the groove!

    • barzun

      Good job. I couldn’t even finish the article, let alone think up counter-arguments. In my view, these guys are way more infuriating than your garden variety SJW.

    • I recall Buckley had a piece in National Review during the Kosovo/Serbia, where he mocked the Serbs and said they derserved it. However Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, behind the Bosinian Genocide was bullshit, Buckley also purged the John Birch Society, and Robert Welch. For being against Vietnam War.

  • Diabolus Candidus

    This is brilliant.

  • Mike549

    The comment section at NRO got hammered today. Its writers despise the people who actually read the articles and, rather than allow debate, they simply delete the comments that trigger them.

    • We’re having a blast on Twitter, #NRORevolt

      I think I might have actually unlocked an achievement by making a Zionist warmonger cry earlier this evening. 😀

    • Mike549

      Hahaha. Great work you’re doing.

      They were bombarded from every comceivable angle today, including from the “left”:

  • EnochWasRightEnochIsRight

    Jonah Goldberg is yet another Jew bemoaning the White masses, the “little people” who just don’t get that conservatism is rolling over on every social issue to have open borders, wealth stratification, unchecked abuse by unregulated multinational corporations, deficit spending out the wazoo and fighter jets for Israel.

    Why don’t these stupid goyim get it?

    The nerve of him to talk about corruption of the GOP as a Trotskyite jew infiltrator still viewing Gentiles through a hostile Marxist lens. Trumpenproletariat, are we now, you doughy pantload?

  • EnochWasRightEnochIsRight

    After a summerlong coordinated assault by dozens of jews and people married to them on not only Donald Trump but any White who dares support him as a populist-nativist-fascist-Naziwhowantstogassixmillionjews, how appropriate it is that he has to acknowledge that readership is tanking and trust and respect in both directions are at all time lows in the very first sentence!

    Count you out of the right wing movement? Hell, I never counted you in!

    #NRORevolt is going to be another Twitter movement.

    It’s high time to ditch these jewed-up bird cage liners.

  • MarxMarvelous

    Great article. I’ve been waiting a long time for these subversive nation-wreckers to be exposed. Feels like we’re turning a corner.

  • This whole joke is basically a case study on jewish subversion of political movements. O’Sullivan’s Law anyone?

  • Erich Hohenzollern

    Goldberg and his ilk have attempted to define “conservatism” for far too long. And they’ve succeeded in effectively destroying it. A new one must rise from its ashes.

  • Jeff Davis

    This site is going commie. There is no “free” healthcare. So called “free” healthcare is paid for with taxes. And those taxes are not just on the hated rich. Those taxes hit middle income and lower income families. In countries with “free” healthcare, the top income bracket is around $80K, which hardly qualifies as rich. And taxes in the $50K-$70K bracket are not too far off the top bracket. Throw in the VATs (which hit all consumers), their egalitarian healthcare system has an egalitarian tax system. Their’s is nothing like the highly progressive tax system in the US where upper and middle income families pay most of the taxes while the poor have little to no tax burden. And poor White kids qualify for Medicaid like poor Blacks and Hispanics.

    You guys need to brush up on your economics.

    • We’re not commie, we’re socialist; nationalist and socialist. We believe in investing in the welfare of our people, including leveraging taxes to guarantee their health.

      Socialized medicine can and does work in several homogenous states, and a willingness to sacrifice one’s revenue for the welfare of one’s folk is inseparable from the willingness to sacrifice one’s reputation and life for the sovereignty and survival of one’s folk.

      If we scaled back the global war machine and turned off the wealth redistribution to other identities, there would be plenty left over to ensure the health of our citizenry without placing an undue burden on taxpayers and businesses.

      And, no. I’m not going to brush up on my economics. I’m not going to read a bunch of PDFs from mises.org on how the merchants must not be required to do what every citizen in a nation must do; invest in the community.

    • Erich Hohenzollern

      National Socialism is not Marxist (re-distributional) in nature. Socialism was included because it refers to “harnessing individual initiative while ensuring that actions have no adverse effects…on the Volk.” Creation and distribution of pornography would not be tolerated, for example.

      There would be no need for national health care if we weren’t under a mercantile system (where government and producers collude for their own benefits) as the U.S. is now.

    • Jeff Davis

      Without getting into all of the details, the big “C” Communist in the Soviet bloc were not actually small “c” communist, but rather socialist (United Soviet Socialist Republics). Socialism is an economic system where the means of production is owned by the state or by a collective rather than private ownership.

      I say that you need to brush up on your economics because you don’t seem to understand the basic economics. That question is how are scarce goods and services to be distributed throughout an economy. This is the basis for all economics, no exception. I stress the word scarce. There are no infinite goods and services to be distributed in an economy. The same can be said of healthcare. There is limited healthcare labor and capital to be distributed. The question is whether that capital and labor is distributed through prices and the profit/loss model or by central authority, which will invariably leads to rationing of medical care services. You stated:

      We believe in investing in the welfare of our people, including leveraging taxes to guarantee their health.

      There is no one who can make any guarantees towards anyone health for two reasons

      1. Death is the common denominator for all living things. Death is the only thing in life that’s guaranteed for all of us. There is no medical care system that can guarantee anyone’s health. If anyone shows up to a doctor with an ailment, that doctor can make no promise to restore that person’s health. That’s common sense. A doctor may be able to fix a broken bone or prescribe medicine for common ailments. But if anyone shows up to the doctor with cancer, lupus, or any of a number of expense ailments, that doctor cannot guarantee that person’s health. The closest thing to guaranteeing health would be to have a mandatory national diet and exercise plan to ensure people are in the best physical condition possible. Some national socialist would advocate a eugenics program to ensure that only the fittest are allowed to reproduce. The government may outlaw reproduction of people with an extensive family history of cancer.

      2. A socialized healthcare system can only guarantee that the government will pay for any healthcare services received. It cannot guarantee that a person will receive the healthcare they want and need when they want and need it. As stated above, there is scarce labor and capital for providing healthcare services. Distribution of those resources will be determined by a bureaucratic central planning agency. Healthcare will be rationed and we will all have to get in line in order to receive services.

      In addition to the above, there are questions as to how healthcare resources are to be dedicated absent of a pricing/profit/loss system. When you go to your local grocer, the goods that are available on the shelves are not arbitrary. They are based on communication between consumers and producers of what products are desired and the prices people are willing to pay for them. In a socialized economic system, this communication does not exist. How do healthcare administrators determine which healthcare services and or capital investments are to be made? Also, absent of a profit/loss model, what objective means are there to determine success or failure of capital and/or labor investments? What mechanisms are there to prevent malinvestment. You are leaving all of this to soviet style central planners to make decisions regarding people’s healthcare.

      Having said all of this, from a Traditionalist standpoint, any social-welfare system that’s administered by the state works against the ethic of faith, family, and folk. These welfare programs displace the role family and the Church in ensuring the material well being of people. Money that’s taxed away to the state is money that’s not available to directly to provide to one’s parents, children, and Church. The state crowds out organic society. I believe that there is a direct connection between the social-welfare state and low birth rates among Whites. Absent of a welfare state, people are highly incentivized to raise large families and build real social capital within their community, including involvement with the Church. Having the government guarantee welfare makes childbearing and social involvement optional. Note that the Amish neither pays into to receive benefits from the US social-welfare state. Although they rely on 19th century technology, they live prosperous lives and are not living hand to mouth in the absence of government social-welfare programs. They have large families and healthy societies. They are a model for White nationalist everywhere.

      I would also say that the egalitarianism that’s the basis for socialism has contributed to the death of the West. Egalitarianism is the moral justification behind anti-racism, feminism, mass immigration, gender equality, gay marriage. Far from Traditionalism, isn’t socialism a product of modernity?

    • MarxMarvelous

      Interesting. Thanks for sharing. Both arguments have valid points.

    • ML

      The number one factor in the “decline” of the West is its complexity, which embraces demographics, technology, laws, and everything else. This is why you extol the Amish: they rejected complexity beyond a certain technological threshold and have, despite cutting some corners, for the most part maintained it. But simple templates work only for the simpler societies which came up with them, not for overweening societies like ours. Profit vs centralization will mean dysfunction for different parties. Obamacare is a very meager nod to centralization in the world-historical mecca of the profit model.

      I don’t call it “socialism” or “communism”, because it isn’t, at least in Marx’s conception. For Marx, socialism is “post-commodity production”, direct-use production to satisfy the needs of the laboring producers and not the coffers of the capitalist ownership. But this is already a misunderstanding of enterprise and industrial production, again because Marx was not considering that after a certain level of complexity, alienation is absolutely inevitable. In essence he was confusing phases of civilization: alienation is bad, so let’s apply direct-use production from primitive society to industrial society. Just isn’t how it works. And it won’t work in ours either, any way you LARP it. Someone is going to be disenfranchised in this or that way by favoring profit/loss or centralization. There is no simple model for a population of 300,000,000 of all kinds of races, with all kinds of laws and ideologies, etc., without departing sharply from the “open society” framework and going full fash on everyone.

    • There are two separate debates, here.

      There’s a silly libertarian theoretical debate about whether taxes can serve to accomplish goals by people who rely on roads and communications pipelines and whatnot every minute of the day.

      There are intelligent ways to tax, and intelligent ways to spend, which can easily answer the abstract “theory” that one can’t possibly tax and spend without obliterating the market.

      The intelligent debate is one which asks whether the state or organic local churches and families should be providing the charity services, relying on the Amish as a working example of a people who do very well with a more community-oriented model.

      My answer to that is that it’s necessary to begin with a more centralized model and work toward that more distributed theocratic model, as it will require decades if not generations to transition the people toward a way of thinking and behaving in a constructive and organic manner.

    • TimothyLeBlanc

      @Matt, what is your take on a decentralized Socialist model, something along the lines of Libertarian Socialism or a Distributism? In such a Market Socialist economy, worker co-operatives manage the industries which would eliminate capitalism, and prevent your standard big businessmen from ever gaining a foothold, thus preventing any attempt at out-sourcing work to the third world. (Who would out-source their own job?) Greed is the impetus for capitalistic businessmen to import alien labor and destroy said communities, with such artificial property rights removed we would experience a radical decentralization and localization of resources and wealth.

      I agree with you that Social Democracies work, given the right people and right culture. But I don’t think that’s a good way of looking at society. Any political model can work with a highly intelligent and homogeneous population, even rather barbaric models could work. But I think we should be looking at alternatives that optimize our personal freedom and community at large.

    • What is your take on a decentralized Socialist model, something along the lines of Libertarian Socialism or a Distributism?

      The first thing to understand about my perspective and position is that I believe the culture leads policy, and that I believe good policy organically emerges from good culture and worthy goals. I reject the common notion that we can or should concoct some “good theory” like “social credit” or “distributism,” at this stage, as whether or not the idea is good is beside the point, as an alienated and degenerate people can’t be led to adopt a good idea, anyway.

      In such a Market Socialist economy, worker co-operatives manage the industries which would eliminate capitalism, and prevent your standard big businessmen from ever gaining a foothold, thus preventing any attempt at out-sourcing work to the third world. (Who would out-source their own job?)Greed is the impetus for capitalistic businessmen to import alien labor and destroy said communities, with such artificial property rights removed we would experience a radical decentralization and localization of resources and wealth.

      Honestly, I’m too much of a free marketeer fag to see much utility in that sort of arrangement being enforced. I believe that entrepreneurialism and innovation must be rewarded substantially in order to excuse the risk and investment.

      I’m basically a free market libertarian with bumpers; believing that the capitalists must not be allowed to buy the political system and that the capitalists must be taxed and regulated as much as they can bear without impairing their investment and innovation.

      Those are big bumpers, enough to make me essentially socialist and anti-capitalist. I don’t wish to punish or cast out the merchant, merely shove him back down to his rightful traditional station beneath throne and altar.

    • TimothyLeBlanc

      Well I use to be a radical Capitalist. I don’t want to give my whole life story but basically I became a Right-Wing Libertarian during the Paul campaign, (’08) and a typical follower of the Mises institute, even becoming Anarcho-Capitalist once. But yeah, I’m not sure if you have a similar backstory but I slowly backed away from it little by little until embracing Socialism.

      One point you made is something I also struggle with, under this Left-Libertarian Socialistic model one would have no incentive to be an entrepreneur save for a purely altruistic action. If I spent years acquiring skills, and then decided to implement my vision in a company, but need to hire other people (thus turning my company into a co-op) then what happens if the other members screw me over? Or don’t share my vision? Or what if I don’t make enough money to justify my initial investment since the Co-Op wishes to pay everyone the same? It’d be a problem for sure, I’m not really sure of an answer to that one except for some “entrepreneur clause” that would allow business owners to unequal rights over non-founding members. But then I don’t think that’s traditional free market socialism.

      It’s interesting to think about, but I really wouldn’t have a problem living in a society like you described. Something like a racialist socially Right-wing Scandinavia isn’t a problem for me. Then again as I stated earlier, I believe the right population can pretty much succeed under any given political system.

  • John Cabel

    Took me about 20 minutes to get banned at that Jew-rag. Immune to arguments and logic…just like the worst leftists on the planet! Stay frosty my friends the future belongs to us natural selection only deferred not defeated!

  • demize!

    This article alone may get Trump my support.

  • Erich Hohenzollern

    I was apparently banned from both Mother Jones and NR for voicing against this Bolshevik subversive.

  • John Cabel

    BTW Matt you are a very intelligent young man! Please get married soon and have as many children as possible!

    • Tradical

      He already has and him and his wife are well on their way to having a baker’s dozen. His eldest baby son is being groomed to be the king of our future white ethnostate.

    • John Cabel

      Cool very cool. One of my hero’s is my ex green beret paratrooper buddy who has 11 and 28 grandchildren with only one half of his kids married! Devout Mormon but I don’t care if he worships Vishnu!

  • Snakes on a Car

    You guys got disqus! Thank you.

  • Tradical

    Unrelated question: why have you guys stopped the podcast? iTunes shows that it hasn’t been updated since March?

  • St. Thomas More

    We prayed, God gave us Trump. Barometer of prayer.

jonah_goldberg

By: Matt Parrott


Matt is a founding member of TradYouth and is currently the project's Chief Information Officer. He's been active in the White Identity cause for years, primarily as a blogger but also as a street activist and regional organizer.
%d bloggers like this: