I would no sooner trust the future of my country and its people to a bunch of Big Business CEOs than I would to a bunch of politicians in Washington. I don’t want a centrally planned economy but I also don’t want an economy dominated by mega corporations—many of whom have no allegiance to America given their multinational nature.
Ben Shapiro and Tucker debated whether it would be the right course of action to forbid trucking companies from replacing human drivers with self driving trucks. Tucker said absolutely do it. He made the point that he’s a capitalist, but that we shouldn’t treat it as our religion. It is not an infallible system. It is not the solution to everything. It has flaws. Doesn’t mean it’s not the best system we’ve come up with.
But a lot of True Conservatives mistake that phrase—the best system we’ve come up with thus far—to mean totally flawless and impossible to improve in any way.
Big business does not have our back. First of all, most of them are in thrall to the left. They push leftwing social talking points, are run by militant HR gestapos that are outright hostile to white men.
Look at what Heineken puts on its bottles nowadays:
Second of all, they are out to make money, not better society. Sure, their products improve our lives but the companies themselves are not striving for a better society. They would fire all their workers and replace them with robots in a second if they could.
When NAFTA was passed in 1993, the big companies moved their plants and factories to Mexico and Asia, leaving American workers—entire communities, even whole regions—behind. There have been massive social and cultural consequences for big business pursuing its own interests. Yes, we get cheap shit, but also we get decimated communities and a hollowed our middle class.
What’s the point of cheaper goods when dad’s out of a job and your oldest son can’t get a job so he gets high and drunk all the time?
A pure free market will pursue efficiency, and that ends with a large number of people out of jobs. You cannot simply blindly trust the free market. This is a major deficiency in the Reagan-worshipping Movement Conservatism. The free market is not the answer to everything.
The manager said, “You’ve gotta pay because you never have money.”
Of course, because America’s new national pastime is the never-ending Racism Witch Hunt, the video blew up on social media
This is what happens in America 2018. People see the viral tweet, entirely devoid of context, and immediately fly into SOCIAL JUSTICE OUTRAGE.
America is such a racist country!
Young black men can’t even order from Chipotle without being racially discriminated!
DONALD TRUMP IS ENABLING THIS!
Who got the benefit of the doubt immediately? The random black guy on Twitter. Because we live in a Racist Country or something.
But guess what: it turns out he and his friends have a history of dining and dashing, and at that specific Chipotle location, too. So the manager was perfectly right to be suspicious of them and deny them service.
She knew who they were, the social justice outrage mob on Twitter didn’t.
Someone dug up Ali’s old tweets and, yeah, he’s a piece of shit:
Here’s yet another instance of supposed RACISM that turned out to be not only a hoax but exactly the opposite. If anything, it was these young black men victimizing the store manager (who doesn’t even look white, she seems to be Hispanic) because they knew they would be believed.
Why do so many people in this country want to be Victims Of Racism?
Our media and culture encourage it. There is perhaps no easier ticket to relevance than being a Victim–of Racism, Sexism or what have you. So it’s no wonder we have scumbags like Masud Ali perpetrating hoaxes on a overly-credulous and race-obsessed Media.
Kristina Wong is, according to her Wikipedia page, a “comedian” although she just seems really, really angry and hateful, and not at all concerned with making people laugh.
Apparently her latest “comedy” project is a series called “Radical Cram Session” in which she brainwashes little kids to hate white people. I am not kidding. See how much of this you can stomach:
The most chilling part of the video is when a little Asian girl, also adorned like Wong in a communist-style beret, says, “There’s just, like, this thing about white people that makes me be like: *rolls eyes*.”
The little girl has been completely brainwashed.
Leftists like Kristina Wong are raising a whole generation of people like her.
Let me ask this: how does this not lead to anti-white genocide? How does the mass indoctrination of young children to hate people based on their race lead anywhere good for this country?
The little girl was so pleased with herself for her remark, too. She’s rewarded with approval from Grown Ups when she expresses racist sentiments about white people.
This is child abuse. This little girl doesn’t know any better, and this is how predatory, radical adults like Wong encourage he–and millions of little kids just like her–to despise white people.
And of course there’s the obligatory “let’s reverse the roles.” Imagine a little white child says, “There’s just, like, this thing about black people that makes me be like: *rolls eyes*”
The media would be in hysterics for a week, shrieking about the evils of Donald Trump’s Racist America.
Then, if you can possibly stomach the video for its entire duration, about 4 minutes in, Wong asks the kids if they’re familiar with the term “gender non-binary,” and asks if they know anyone that’s gender non-binary. One girl, no older than like 7-8, announces that she’s “gender fluid.”
What the fuck, man.
Kristina Wong’s Wikipedia page says she’s a third generation Chinese American, which is interesting because I’d bet her grandparents, who moved here to flee a brutal communist dictatorship, probably wouldn’t approve of her wearing a communist-style beret and preaching racism.
And imagine if I moved to China and began lecturing people’s kids about how evil Asian people are.
People would call me an ingrate. I’d probably not be well received in my new country. I would deserved to be kicked out, honestly.
But it would also make a horrible person. Only a person completely filled with anger and hatred could do something like this.
What is the point of immigration if we’re letting in people who hate us? No sane country on earth would let this happen. And yet we do.
I’ve kept abreast with the ongoing Brexit “negotiation” (read: surrender) playing out in Britain because in two major ways, it parallels the Donald Trump saga here in America:
Both Brexit and Trump were democratically-achieved populist uprisings against corrupt, entrenched ruling classes that have led both nations to the brink of ruin.
The repudiated ruling classes in America and Europe are both trying to overturn the will of the voters who chose Trump and Brexit.
Trump and Brexit are intertwined and represent pivotal moments in the history of the Anglosphere. Brexit and Trump are part of a wider popular rebellion against the same corrupt, politically correct leftwing globalists in charge here in America, and in Britain and Europe.
If the elites are allowed to kill Brexit, I feel Britain might be “lost” forever, and that would be very bad for America. Brexit is Britain’s final stand: will Britain regain its independence, national identity and sovereignty, or will it be crushed under the bureaucratic fist of the dystopian EU superstate?
British Prime Minister Theresa May replaced David Cameron in 2016 after the Brexit vote. Cameron staked his entire Prime Ministership on Remain prevailing, and when Brexit won he was forced to resign. May was chosen as his successor, however May was never a full supporter of Brexit, and often equivocated on her position. It’s likely May was even secretly fully on-board with Remain. Still, she was determined to be the right person to lead Britain forward in the wake of the Brexit vote. She and her cabinet have been negotiating the terms of Brexit for over two years now, and at last the contours of her “deal” are coming into focus.
Regardless of her original position on Brexit in 2016, it’s undeniable by now that May lacks either the desire or the ability to do right by the British voters who chose to leave the EU. Perhaps she lacks both. The terms she has negotiated with the EU are simply unacceptable for anyone who voted for Brexit. Recently, Jacob Rees-Mogg, a rising Conservative star and prominent Brexiteer (and hopefully the next Prime Minister) stood in Parliament and denounced May’s “deal”:
“My right honorable friend [May], and she is unquestionably honorable, said that we will leave the Customs Union. Annex 2 says otherwise.
My right honorable friend said that she will maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom. The whole protocol says otherwise.
My right honorable friend said that we will be out of the European Court of Justice. Article 174 says otherwise.
All my right honorable friend says and does no longer match.”
Rees-Mogg also said that May’s deal “is not Brexit” and that it “must be rejected.”
Nigel Farage called May the “worst and most duplicitous Prime Minister in British history” and he’s 100% correct. May is so awful it’s hard to put into words.
Fortunately, numerous members of her cabinet have submitted their resignations in protest to her “deal” and it is likely May will be out by the end of the week. Rees-Mogg is said to be supporting Boris Johnson, who publicly campaigned for Brexit before the vote, to be the next Prime Minister. Hopefully, May will be sent packing and true Brexiteers can come in and save Brexit.
What’s at stake in Britain is not simply whether it gets good terms for its departure from the EU, but whether or not democracy still genuinely exists.
In his 2016 book “Why Vote Leave,” Daniel Hannan, a Conservative MP and prominent Brexiteer, documented over a half-dozen instances where the EU outright rejected the results of elections that did not go its way:
Paul Joseph Watson claims that May’s Brexit deal was specifically designed to be so bad that it would lead to a second Brexit referendum vote, which the EU hopes will go its way, unlike the 2016 vote. Then, the EU–conniving, corrupted snakes that they are–will claim Remain was the will of the people.
If the voters choose Brexit and their elites overrule them, then what is the point of voting anymore? If the voters choose Trump and the swamp rises up in defiance to destroy him, then why would we ever waste our time with elections again?
Time and again we’re seeing elites reject and subvert democracy when the voters defy them. This is not how it’s supposed to work.
When voters reach the ends of their ropes, and still they are denied the right to vote for the changes they desire, things will get ugly.
The political establishment, in both America and Europe, has been telling voters to go fuck themselves for the past two years.
If the elites think Trump and Brexit are bad, wait until voters come to the conclusion that voting doesn’t actually mean shit. I say it all the time but it’s important to remember: democracy is nothing more than a way to affect political change without violence.
If the elites do not allow voters to affect change with the vote, they’re making a very dangerous wager that the voters will simply accept defeat, and accept the fact that they are not allowed to have a say anymore.
Perhaps the elites will be able to get away with it. Perhaps the voters will simply give up and get the message: the elites know best, and democracy is dead.
But perhaps the voters will be stubborn and insist on getting what they want. At that point, with voting no longer an option, what else can the people do but take up arms?
I must be clear: I do not want a violent uprising. The last thing I want is for democracy to collapse. It’s the elites, in their profound arrogance and entitlement, who are the ones setting us on a course for violence. They’re the ones breaking the social compact.
Western democracy rests on the agreement among the people that we do not have to go to war with one another so long as we are able to resolve our political question by way of the ballot. If one side does not hold up its end of the bargain, then what other option is left for the rest of us?
This is not a threat of violence. It’s a simple request that the elites start holding up their end of the social compact: just give the people what they voted for.
Earlier this year, Rep. Eric Swalwell (Tyrant-CA) proposed a “gun buyback program” but with a twist: if gun owners didn’t “voluntarily” “sell” their guns back to the government, they would be prosecuted.
I’m not sure why this was brought up today, but it was. And the gun debate ended with a Democratic Member of Congress entertaining the idea of nuking gun owners.
Shorter Eric Swalwell: don’t even try to resist. We’ll nuke your redneck asses if you don’t give up the guns.
Boy, I wonder why those nutty conspiracy theorist conservatives are concerned about the government going tyrannical, and thus want to arm themselves.
This country is really headed for a bad place.
Ten years ago, would you believe it if someone told you that Democrats in 2018 would be fantasizing about nuking gun-owners?
The fact that a Member of Congress is entertaining this idea is terrifying, and also deeply depressing. Functionally, we are not a single country anymore.
“The judge said the government could not say who initially decided to revoke Acosta’s hard pass. The White House had spelled out its reasons for revoking his credentials in a tweet from White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and in a statement after CNN filed its lawsuit. But the judge said those “belated efforts were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process.”
Now Jim Acosta’s right to a press pass is not only covered under the First Amendment but also the Fifth Amendment: you can’t take his press pass away without “due process,” meaning he basically has to commit an actual crime and be convicted by a court of law in order to lose his press pass.
The judge also found that Acosta suffered “irreparable harm,” dismissing the government’s argument that CNN could simply send other reporters to cover the White House in Acosta’s place.
I wish Trump-appointed judges felt as strongly about conservatives who also suffer “irreparable harm” when they are de-platformed by Facebook, Twitter and Youtube and censored all over social media as they do about protecting and boosting Jim Acosta’s career. I guess Liberal Journo Careers Matter, and Conservative Journo Careers don’t.
The suit by CNN alleges that Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated by suspending his hard pass. While the judge didn’t rule on the underlying case, he signaled they were likely to prevail in their claims.”
Nobody has a right to a White House press pass, not even the great Jim Acosta. This is utter nonsense. There is nothing in the Constitution about it.
Where’s my Constitutional right to a White House Press Pass, then? Where’s yours?
How the hell can there be “Constitutional rights” which only apply to “reporters” from liberal news outlets, and not everyone else? Why does Jim Acosta have a Constitutional right to a press pass and someone like, say, Alex Jones doesn’t?
The whole entire point of the Bill of Rights is that they all apply equally to every American. The Bill of Rights is not career-specific. Why do corporate media “reporters” get their own (invented) section of the First Amendment?
I don’t know what’s the worst part of this: that a judge was pressured into issuing a Constitutionally laughable ruling out of pure social pressure from the left, or that Jim Acosta now gets to be the center of attention and claim he was vindicated and some sort of First Amendment Martyr.
The conclusion is this: we will never drain the swamp. Trump cannot win. His advisers and “allies” in Congress give him names to appoint to the courts, and when those people are on the courts, they rule in favor of the swamp and the Establishment that has run this country into the goddamn ground for the past three decades.
I’m not saying Trump is completely surrounded and enveloped by the Swamp, but they are certainly a major presence in his administration and have significant control over his decision-making. The Swamp is simply too vast and its roots too deep to actually be drained.
There is only one Donald Trump.
There are too many posts and vacancies to fill. Maybe there are enough genuine nationalists out there to replace the Clintonites, Bushites, Obamaites and swamp creatures, but the problem is Trump is not being made aware of them, and therefore he cannot appoint them.
The 2016 election was the prologue to the war against the swamp. Once Trump actually got into the White House, that was when the real war began.
And it’s a war our side appears to be losing, too.
What have we gotten so far?
Tax cuts? Sure, they’ve been good for regular Americans, but they were mostly to the benefit of big companies and the rich. I’m not saying that because they were better for the rich and the big businesses that they weren’t good for us, because that’s a leftist way of thinking (i.e. envy). But a tax cut was not what the country needed most after eight years of Obama and nearly a quarter century of Globalist Establishment rule.
We still have Obamacare mostly in place, although the individual mandate is gone.
Trump just announced a that crack dealers and other criminals will be let out of prisons and back onto the streets in a futile effort to win over black voters.
Trump-appointed judges are inventing Constitutional “rights” that apply only to CNN’s Jim Acosta, while online conservative media is under full-scale assault and censorship by left-wing tech monopolies.
It’s not just a matter of having Trump in the White House. The past two years have made it clear just how massive and powerful the swamp truly is. It’s the media, it’s the entertainment industry, it’s academia, it’s the federal judiciary, it’s the bureaucracy, it’s every corporate HR department pushing militant feminism and “multiculturalism.”
Look at the corrupt Democrats who are trying to steal elections we rightfully won in Florida and Georgia. The swamp is massive.
There’s only one Donald Trump. The Presidency is powerful, but it cannot overcome the combined cultural and political might of the swamp.
By now it’s a well-established truth that porn is devastating young men’s sex lives. This piece from New York Magazine dating back to early 2011 lays out pretty clearly that men’s brains are not wired to be able to comprehend porn. It turns out that the ability to view a nearly infinite number of beautiful naked women on a screen at a moment’s notice has seriously distorted mens’ attraction to real-life women.
Men are beginning to lose the ability to be aroused by real women because they’ve inadvertently trained their brains to be aroused only by pornography.
“Eva Wiseman explores why disaffected young men need more pornography: more nuance, more perspective and, crucially, more truth.”
Even though she admits this:
“At art college I picked up Andrea Dworkin’s Pornography, because I thought it might have rude bits. I was disappointed, but inadvertently learned about what Dworkin and her fellow Eighties activists threatened would happen if porn was not controlled: that men would begin to objectify women the way pornography did, encouraging incidents of rape and assault and inequality to rise. Then the internet happened and the prospect of limiting porn became an impossibility. But while unlimited free porn did change the world – and the world of desire in particular – it didn’t turn men into grabbing, rutting beasts. It did the opposite.
In 2003, Naomi Wolf visited campuses across the US to talk to students about sex. Women told her that in a “pornographised” world, rather than having all the sex, all the time, they found themselves unable to form sexual relationships with men. “For how can a real woman… possibly compete with a cybervision of perfection, downloadable and extinguishable at will?” Instead of encouraging sexual mayhem, as Dworkin predicted, Wolf concluded, “The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women.” Last year, Ronson reported a 1,000 per cent rise in erectile dysfunction in young men since 2007, the advent of free porn. Has online porn replaced sex itself?
For a lot of men, it has.
It’s worth considering, isn’t it? And not just the effect of porn, but the digitalisation of all our sexual relationships, from gamified dating on Tinder to the advance of sex robots – a phrase I can’t type without also saying out loud in a movie trailer voice. Cultural analyst Sherry Turkle warns that we’re rapidly approaching a point where, “We may actually prefer the kinship of machines to relationships with real people.” A study by Stanford University says this might be because, as Newsweek put it, “Our brains aren’t necessarily hardwired for life in the 21st century.” Which is, well, a shame.”
Even while admitting all this, GQ still says men need to watch more porn.
“According to the research approximately 64 percent, or two thirds, of U.S. men admit to viewing porn at least monthly, with the number of Christian men nearly equaling the national average. When divided by age “eight out of ten (79%) men between the ages of 18 and 30 view pornography at least monthly, and two thirds (67%) of men between the ages of 31 and 49 view pornography at least monthly. One half of men between 50 and 68 looks at porn monthly.”
The study claims three out of every 10 men between the ages of 18 and 30 are daily viewers of porn; three percent of women in the same age group purportedly access pornography daily.”
It’s a major problem and nobody talks about it. Because it’s “lame” and you’re an uptight fundamentalist Christian weirdo if you do.
Pornography has totally changed in the past 20 years, too. It’s unprecedented.
Up until the advent of the internet, pornography was little more than skin mags like Playboy and Hustler, none of which featured hardcore sex scenes, and which were not nearly as widely available as online porn is today.
In order to view hardcore sex scenes, you used to have to order an actual porn tape or buy one from a sex shop. It was way more than a click away, and it definitely wasn’t free. Up until about the late 1990s, you really had to go out of your way to watch hardcore porn. Going back further in time, pornography prior to the modern era was a joke. You can have a look at “Fanny Hill,” the first English pornographic book written and illustrated in 1748, here. It’s not even in the same ballpark as modern online porn. And it probably wasn’t easy to acquire, either.
But now watching porn is the easiest thing in the world. And ease of access–not to mention the fact that it’s free–has caused porn to proliferate wildly.
Pornhub is the 29th most visited site on the planet and the 17th most visited site in the United States:
This is a major problem.
And it’s not exactly a secret, either, especially to the author of the GQ piece. She knows full well that pornography is turning young men into a generation of impotent losers. Want to know why men are putting off marriage and why birthrates are falling all across the developed world (read: places with widespread hi-speed internet access)? Porn has a lot to do with it. Porn has radically changed modern sex.
Which then leads to the inevitable conclusion: is this what GQ magazine, and the larger Western liberal cultural/societal establishment GQ represents, wants?
“Michael Avenatti, who became famous for representing Stormy Daniels in her battle with President Trump, has been arrested for felony domestic violence … law enforcement sources tell TMZ.
Our law enforcement sources say Avenatti was arrested Wednesday after a woman filed a felony DV report. We’re told her face was “swollen and bruised” with “red marks” on both cheeks.
Our sources say the alleged incident occurred Tuesday night, but there was another confrontation Wednesday between the two at an exclusive apartment building in the Century City area of L.A.
We’re told security brought her inside the building, took her upstairs and Michael showed up 5 minutes later and ran into the building. He screamed repeatedly, “She hit me first.” We’re told he angrily added, “This is bulls***, this is f***ing bulls***.” We’re told he tried getting into the elevator but security denied him access.”
You haven’t even heard the funniest part though:
5:50 PM PT — Avenatti bailed out and held a brief news conference, saying, “I have never struck a woman. I will never strike a woman.” He added he’s looking forward to the investigation and is confident he’ll be “fully exonerated.”
LOL–he thinks we’re going to wait until he’s had his day in court to withhold judgement.
And, Stormy Daniels also says we should withhold judgement:
11/15 — Stormy Daniels has just released a statement on the incident, saying, “These are serious and obviously very troubling allegations, but right now that is all they are: allegations. We should all reserve judgement until the investigation — an investigation Michael has said he welcomes — is complete, and that’s what I’m going to do.”
She continues … “But of course I do not condone violence against women and if these allegations prove true I will be seeking new representation.”
What’s with all this talk about “proven true”? LMAO!
We are not in that world anymore.
Avenatti plays by the same rules he applied to Brett Kavanaugh: accusation = guilt.
But how adorable that now one of their guys is on the hook for a Crime Against Women™ and they suddenly love due process.
Never forget the governing principle of the left:
“When I am Weaker than you, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles.”
For the supposed last remaining defenders of “True Conservatism,” they are an awfully liberal bunch:
George Will says the only way to save True Conservatism is to. . . elect a bunch of radical Democrat socialists:
Max Boot opposed Brett Kavanaugh (a judge who was on Mitt Romney’s list of potential SCOTUS picks) and criticized the philosophy of judicial originalism. He also called the Second Amendment a “suicide pact” and praised Beta O’Rourke for “challenging the GOP’s fanaticism on guns.”
I could go on and on with the examples but the point is clear: these “True Conservatives” in the NeverTrump faction are indistinguishable from Democrats. The whole idea that they’re the only real conservatives left is hilarious: they have become basically generic partisan Democrats.
You can predict exactly what they’re going to say on virtually every issue: whatever the Democrats are saying, that’s what they’re saying.
And so that inevitably leads to the question of why?
Why have the NeverTrumpers become virtually indistinguishable from partisan Democrats?
The answer is because that’s what they’re paid to do.
Take Bill Kristol:
NeverTrump “conservatives” are aiding Schiff and the media in their campaign to paralyze if not remove Whitaker. Commercials attacking the acting attorney general were aired on several Sunday morning political shows. The ads were sponsored by “Republicans for the Rule of Law,” a groupfounded earlier this year by Bill Kristol, the editor-at-large of The Weekly Standard. The group’s primary role so far appears to be pimping for the Mueller probe, a political witch-hunt that Kristol and his fellow NeverTrumpers pray will lead to the impeachment and removal of the president. The Left and their NeverTrump footsoldiers fear Whitaker will thwart the special counsel’s investigation instead of rubber stamping Mueller’s ever-expanding investigation as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has done over the past 18 months.
What a positively Orwellian name” “Republicans for the Rule of Law” is an organization run and funded by partisan Democrats committed to protecting a lawless and out of control special counsel investigation, which itself is a punishment in search of a crime.
Buying primo air time on network television doesn’t come cheap. So who is funding “Republicans for the Rule of Law” and their attacks on the Republican president and his acting attorney general? Is it big Republican donors?
We haven’t found any, but we have learned learned that one of Kristol’s benefactors is progressive billionaire Pierre Omidyar, the co-founder of eBay.
In addition to funding dissident ex-conservatives, Omidyar, 51, and his wife—who have pledged to give their more than $10 billion fortune to charity—operate an extensive network of nonprofits and foundations around the world. Omidyar has directed millions of dollars to a variety of progressive causes and political candidates: he and wife “have have given more than $500,000 to federal candidates and groups—nearly all of them Democrats—since 1999,” including six-figure donations to the Democratic senate and congressional campaign committees.
And there it is.
One of Omidyar’s nonprofits is the Democracy Fund. In 2015, the Democracy Fund awardednearly $9 million in grants, “many of which went to left-wing organizations.” One Democracy Fund recipient is currently in court fighting the results of the Georgia gubernatorial race, which was won by Republican Brian Kemp.
An affiliate of that fund disclosed on its website that it has given as least $600,000 to Kristol’s umbrella group, Defending Democracy Together, since May. (Other NeverTrumpers involved in the group are author Mona Charen, strategist Linda Chavez, and former governor Christine Todd Whitman.) Republicans for the Rule of Law operates under the purview of Defending Democracy Together.
Republicans for the Rule of Law accepts hundreds of thousands of dollars from Democratic billionaires?
That explains why Kristol and Co. have become indistinguishable from Democrats.
And I’m sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. For instance, why has Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard, a magazine that was already failing pre-2016 and which now has virtually zero appeal or audience, suddenly become dedicated to Defending George Soros?
Ace of Spades has been all over this for a while now.
Filmmaker Embedded in “Migrant” Caravan: This Caravan Costs Millions of Dollars. Who’s Paying for It? Why Isn’t Any Media Asking Who’s Paying For It?
He says the main group funding for this, Peublo Sin Fronteras, is being funded by groups which have been funded by [CENSORED] in the past.
Because you’re not allowed to say George Soros funds the left, according to the left and the left-adjacent “conservatives” which have suddenly grown so very protective of him now that, coincidentally, their previous streams of grifty funding have diminished.
I just wonder why they’re spending so much time tracking down each and every minor reference to Soros and defending him as if he were, I don’t know, paying handsomely for the reputation-rehabilitation service or something.
Which I’m sure is just preposterous. George Soros doesn’t fund political organizations that advance his leftist vision of the world, ever. It’s antisemitic to say otherwise.
The Weekly Standard lets a thousand false claims by the left pass by unmolested, but say one thing about George Soros, and bang! They’re on it like grifters on a well-heeled sap.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say Kristol was receiving a good bit of Soros money. But I’m not saying that, because that would be anti-Semitic.
But come on: who reads the Weekly Standard anymore? It’s a magazine for and by “Republicans” who despise Donald Trump. By all measures, Trump is wildly popular with Republicans. So what is the market for the Weekly Standard? Who’s subscribing?
As of 2012, Weekly Standard had a total circulation of about 104,000:
Is there any chance the Weekly Standard’s circulation today in 2018 is higher than it was in 2012? Of course not. It’s probably significantly lower, if anything.
If you doubt a magazine like Weekly Standard is solvent, much less profitable, all by itself–and anyone with a brain doubts this–then it’s almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Weekly Standard is being kept afloat financially by other means.
It’s really all quite obvious when you think about it.