← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 7405 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2003-06-16
2003-06-16 19:35 | User Profile
**National Review: Veering Further into Irrelevance
In the April 7 issue of National Review, editor David Frum wrote a lengthy article called "Unpatriotic Americans," which smeared many by name and was an example of the sort of thing now increasingly common in what many once considered the flagship of American conservatism.
Mr. Frum tried to discredit all "Unpatriotic Conservatives," by which he MAINLY meant those who opposed the war in Iraq: Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, Llewellyn Rockwell, Samuel Francis, Thomas Fleming, Scott McConnell, Justin Raimondo, Joe Sobran, Charley Reese, Jude Wanniski, Eric Margolis, Kevin MacDonald, Taki Theodoracopulos, Chronicles, the American Conservative, Vdare, the late M.E. Bradford, Paul Gottfried, the Occidental Quarterly, the Council of Conservative Citizens, and the Citizen's Informer. Mr. Frum also called American Renaissance ââ¬Åwhite supremacist.ââ¬Â We sent a letter to National Review (see below), which it failed to print.
Mr. Frum's list of enemies of the people seems to us to be more than just about the war with Iraq. It is also an attempt to silence the debate on race.
As James Lubinskas has very clearly documented, National Review once understood there is an ethno-cultural core to all nations and civilizations, including those of the West. Even as recently as the 1990s, under John O'Sullivan, NR gave favorable reviews to books like The Bell Curve, and. J. Phillipe Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior. Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubenstein explored the dire consequences of Third-World immigration, and Mr. Brimelow contributed a favorable review of Paved With Good Intentions. Articles by Sam Francis and Jared Taylor even appeared in National Review during the 1990sââ¬âonly a decade ago in time but a century ago in relevance and backbone.
We are sorry to see National Review veer even further not only into irrelevance but also the most shrill and unbecoming invective. However, its once-loyal readers can still find work that follows the principles NR once proudly proclaimed--written by men NR now wishes to "exile."
Our letter, which NR refused to print:
In his April 7 article, "Unpatriotic Americans," Mr. Frum refers to American Renaissance, which I edit, as "white supremacist." If he had ever read the magazine, of which 10 years' worth of back issues are available at www.amren.com, he would not have made this silly mistake. It is true that we have published some of the overwhelming evidence in support of the view that biological differences between the races account for differences between blacks and whites in average IQ and crime rates. However, the same evidence strongly suggests that biological reasons account for north Asian superiority to whites in these same respects.
American Renaissance also takes the view -- entirely obvious to anyone not blinded by liberal orthodoxy -- that most people prefer the company of people of their own race, and that forced integration is an unacceptable violation of the freedom of association. These views, once defended vigorously by National Review itself, would be more properly known as racial realism rather than supremacy.
Jared Taylor, Editor American Renaissance
url: [url=http://www.amren.com/nr_veering.htm]http://www.amren.com/nr_veering.htm[/url]
James Lubinskas on the National Review [url=http://www.amren.com/natlreview.htm]http://www.amren.com/natlreview.htm[/url] **
2003-06-18 21:56 | User Profile
I liked the quote "All nations have a racial-cutural core" but I only wish that AR would prove my dismal apprasal of them wrong by acting accordingly. Of course my cheif hope is that the paleos in the states will realize as much seeing how the will get condemned and marginalized by the propasphere as real racialists inspite of not being so.
2003-06-19 02:56 | User Profile
I think Jonah Goldberg and his fellow tribesmen at the National Review are afraid to open the pandora's box of race because it won't stay limited to white vs black. Sooner or later the jewish question would emerge, and they can't allow that to happen, so they espouse a politically-correct pseudo-conservatism that pushes race to the periphery and celebrates IQ and merit instead. Kosher conservatism restricts itself to policies that push the interests that Jews and whites have in common, such as ending racial preferences, anything outside of this that doesn't directly benefit Jews is considered extremism. Continued homage towards Israel is of course mandatory and non-negotiable.
2003-07-04 02:14 | User Profile
It will be printed if it is 'good for jews'.
ATT
2003-07-04 02:25 | User Profile
I think Jonah Goldberg and his fellow tribesmen at the National Review are afraid to open the pandora's box of race because it won't stay limited to white vs black. Sooner or later the jewish question would emerge, and they can't allow that to happen...
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Jackpot.
2005-02-13 04:07 | User Profile
:thumbsup:
2005-02-13 10:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=damian]I think Jonah Goldberg and his fellow tribesmen at the National Review are afraid to open the pandora's box of race because it won't stay limited to white vs black. Sooner or later the jewish question would emerge, and they can't allow that to happen, so they espouse a politically-correct pseudo-conservatism that pushes race to the periphery and celebrates IQ and merit instead.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying you're wrong (far from it), but I can't help but think one can scarcely contemplate any serious attempt to "celebrate IQ and merit" that doesn't innately tend towards a recognition of the fact these traits aren't distributed equally amongst the primary demographic associations within our society, i.e. the races. It seems to me that the neo-cons are going to have to ditch IQ and merit eventually, and just wallow in pure PC, multiculturalism & affirmative action-based distribution of vocational/career opportunities. The appeal of such a doctrine to anyone who even today, reads National Review, and is a White person, remains to be discerned. It doesn't strike me as laible to be very high.
2005-03-02 05:38 | User Profile
The National Review of the pre-1990 era was a good magazine. In recent years I have distanced myself from the Frank S. Meyer style NR fusionism of my youth. However the old magazine did have some good writers with real ideas. Burnham, Kendall, Von Knunnelt-Leddin ect. ect. One might have disagreed with them, but they were first-class minds nontheless. The current crop of Neo-cons running the rag are a bunch of intellectual lightweights.
2005-03-03 03:18 | User Profile
I cancelled my subscription twenty years ago and I've never read the rag since.