Trotskyite purges continue at National Review

It seems that the Trotskyites over at National Review in addition to purging John Derbyshire this week just also purged Robert Weissberg, author of the groundbreaking book Bad Students, Not Bad Schools.

Let’s make a list of people purged from (or gagged at) neocon National Review since its inception (add names in comments):

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 neocons like, well, almost everyone there, or non-entity fratboys like Rich Lowry.  How many readers do they have left with IQs above 90?

As Richard Spencer noted in his recent piece, “The conservative movement deserves to die. And it must be fully de-legitimized before we can build something new in its place.”

Updates:

James P. Lubinskas’ classic article “The Decline of National Review

Alex Kurtagic demonstrates how Rich Lowry borrowed his wording  from Cultural Marxists for the Weissberg purge.  Ooooops.

Alex Kurtagic interviews John Derbyshire.

John Derbyshire responds.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

18 thoughts on “Trotskyite purges continue at National Review

  1. Kirt Higdon

    Note how far back the list goes and how extensive it is. This is further evidence for the theory that I mentioned under the first Derbyshire topic that the very purpose for which National Review was created was to police rightist opinion and keep it within limits acceptable to the regime. Since I haven’t really been a NR reader for ages, I haven’t heard of Weissberg. No doubt I’d have been unfamiliar with Derbyshire had I not frequently read his material on Taki’s site.

  2. Bradley

    The purpose of NR from day one was to be a (CIA-funded) instrument of Cold War (neo)liberals, like Buckley, to silence and police any opposition (from the right) to their globalist projects.

  3. TS

    well if this is gonna be anything other than a typical paleo bitchfest about NR’s foreign policy position (and how this is apparently the sole arbiter of whether you’re a “true” conservative or not) we’d need to, you know, know what Weissberg said.

  4. TS

    and i see from one above comment that apparently every Cold War intervention was a betrayal of conservatism as well. really dude? i was under the crazy impression that anti-Communism was the defining principle of Cold War-era conservatism. must be imagining things.

  5. RedPhillips

    “i was under the crazy impression that anti-Communism was the defining principle of Cold War-era conservatism.”

    TS, you are indeed correct, and this is precisely the problem. The militarism and gung-ho interventionism of the current “conservative” movement is a vestige of the militant (actually militaristic) anti-Communism that defined the “new” conservatism that arose in the post war period.

    Militaristic interventionism is unambiguously a part of the post-war “conservative” movement, but that doesn’t make it conservative philosophically speaking.

  6. RedPhillips

    C Bowen, Hart and Buckley the Younger voting for Obama was stupid. I wouldn’t have purged them for it because I don’t like purges, but I would have called them out on it. If they didn’t like Bush, and no conservative should have, then they should have registered that discontent by voting third party, not by voting for Obama. It is no coincidence that both those men were already squishing left anyway.

  7. TS

    so real philosophical conservatism shouldn’t’ve taken an active stand against the most insidious international leftist movement in modern history? not buyin’ it, though of course you can quibble on the details.

  8. C Bowen

    TS;

    A Southern Cold Warrior who was against the Civil Rights movement, was a confused chap–the Civil Rights movement was designed to placate Third World non-aligned nations.

    A pro-life Cold Warrior was a confused chap. While feminism was taking over the US, the Soviet was pro-natal.

    Anthony Sutton’s work for the (conservative) Hoover Institute on the Soviet Union itself (as a beneficiary of Western finance and tech transfers) has been endorsed by establishment types like Richard Pipes and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution is readily available free on the web. Might be a good starting point for re-evaluating the period, but the discussion of tech transfers to the Soviet in later books is where it gets interesting.

    Always in the back of the mind, recall Cold Warrior Ronald Reagan restarting the grain shipments to the Soviet, after Carter had halted them.
    _________________________
    Red;

    Purging Hart and Buckley over something so cheaply partisan was ham fisted, but my point was to mention the other Lowry purge.

  9. TS

    “and they all came to the U.S. and became good liberals and conservatives.”

    look i know there’s this “neocons everywhere” mentality but this is completely ahistorical. the conservative movement prior to Reagan was definitely not composed of ex-Trotskyites, and though some existed at NR they were not neoconservatives.

  10. RedPhillips

    “so real philosophical conservatism shouldn’t’ve taken an active stand against the most insidious international leftist movement in modern history?”

    Real conservatives should not presume for their country some special and exaggerated role as the world’s fighter for freedom. Such a conceit is quintessentially radical.

  11. thaddeus

    I see this silliness quoted again. It was wrong the first time, and it’s wrong now. The word “before” is the poison in this idea:

    As Richard Spencer noted in his recent piece, “The conservative movement deserves to die. And it must be fully de-legitimized before we can build something new in its place.”

    Yes, it deserves to die. But we must build something new in its place to de-legitimize it, not the other way around.

    The building on our side must come first. It must be more than just online blogs and ‘zines. It must be television exposure. It must be media ownership and control. Until we have a Fox News of our own, we’re not there yet.

    Spencer’s statement claims that the de-legitimization of the conservative moment must come first. And that’s ludicrous.

    That’s like having a coup but having no government-in-waiting to put in place of the deposed rulers.

    You have to establish and legitimize a government-in-waiting first. Only then can you have the coup.

  12. TS

    “Real conservatives should not presume for their country some special and exaggerated role as the world’s fighter for freedom”

    democratizing the world and stopping the spread of Communism are two different things, as seen by the fact that the U.S. offered support to nondemocratic regimes fighting Communist insurgencies. the idea that we should’ve just sat on our hands while the USSR pushed its ideology throughout the Third World is silly.

  13. TS

    i don’t get what you’re talking about. Western Communists were worse than the USSR? we should’ve gone full Joe McCarthy on “Anglo-Communists” and left the Soviets alone? we’re talking a huge superpower vs. individuals not in an official position of political power in the U.S. here.

    it seems like you’re making a show of pointing out lesser-known history as if it somehow makes the case against our Cold War policies, when it doesn’t.

  14. TS

    so because several major institutions today are leftist, the USSR collapsing doesn’t matter. k…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>