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.