The rich are under attack nowadays, never more so than in America, where The Donald continues to trump his critics, amaze and surprise his fans, and drive his haters to paroxysms of sexual fantasy, with Trump as the main actor. National Review, where I got my start 40 years or so ago, devoted a whole issue to rubbishing Donald Trump. There were contributions from great conservatives, such as Thomas Sowell, and great clowns, like John Podhoretz. It was an issue that inadvertently looked in opposite directions while hating The Donald. William Kristol’s bit was in there — the one where he calls Trump vulgar. That he may be, but coming from a true vulgarian like Kristol, it’s a bit rich.
The rich are loathed in America by the media, not by hardworking white or Hispanic people — or Chinese, for that matter. Blacks have been told by their leaders to hate the rich, but they certainly don’t hate rich blacks; they look up to them. But boy, does the so-called élite (they are nothing of the kind, just envious types) loathe those with very big money!
Take the case of the Koch brothers. They are libertarian philanthropists and multi-billionaires, whose moolah derives from oil and gas. A rather homely woman by the name of Jane Mayer, employed by the New Yorker, has made it her life’s crusade to ‘expose’ the brothers. In this, as in her physical appearance, she has failed miserably. There are no skeletons in their closets, except those that give money away, their bones covered in velvet. This has obviously driven Mayer nuts, because she has gone as far as to write a very long book against the brothers in which she calls their money dark. But she has come up with nothing except good old American go-get-’em capitalism at its best. In essence, the book is a long and bitter diatribe against inherited money and great philanthropy. The usual suspects like the New York Times have praised it. I could not even read a review of it, it is just too boring and vituperative; a fantasy by a fantasist, who probably fantasises about Trump’s hair spread all over her while she sleeps.
Jane Mayer may be a very unhappy woman, her unhappiness deriving from her inability to stop the Koch brothers changing the conversation in the good old US of A. That is par for the course among those who wish to control the conversation — the New Yorker, the New York Times, and the so-called pundits on television who think that same-sex marriage is normal and sex between men and women out of the ordinary. As I said, the Koch brothers are libertarians and believe that everyone should be free to do and think as they please, as long as it’s within the law. No, say the uglies like Jane Mayer. Everyone should say what she — the homely one — thinks and says. Not exactly cricket, is it?
Conservatism is by its very nature not ideological. I am a conservative because I do not like change for its sake alone, and love the institutions of family, nationhood and Church. The idea that Trump is against these institutions is ludicrous. So why devote a whole issue against him, as if he were a Hitler-in-the-making? Because Trump does not fit the mould, I suppose; does not follow so-called conservative principles, and other such bullshit. National Review is no longer a conservative journal but a Republican party one. There’s a great difference, but now is not the time to go into it. The reason for the anti-Trump issue is that The Donald appeals to people who don’t know what an oxymoron is, but think it’s someone very stupid. These are the same types who, unlike the Bill Clintons and George W. Bushes of this world, stormed the beaches in Okinawa and Normandy under blistering fire. I love these people as much as I hate the likes of the Clintons, the ghastly Hillary being a shoo-in as the next American president.
So we have the ‘élites’ hating both the very rich, like the Koch brothers, and the lightly educated, like those who stormed the beaches. The irony is that the ones who stayed behind while the dumb ones served own publications like the unmentionable ones I mentioned above. I know I make it sound simple, but simplicity is the closest thing to the truth. Pseudo-intellectuals like to confuse matters in order to establish control over the great lumps that constitute the voting public. Here we call it as we see it. For example: who is more undemocratic, Putin or Brussels? I say Brussels — by far. Who has ignored the voters who are for Trump, while giving a pass to a woman who plays the feminist card when it suits her, and made multimillions by getting paid huge amounts of corporate moolah for speeches written by others? The pundit élite. Who has enabled IS to flourish? Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Erdogan the stealth-Islamist, or Bashar Al-Assad? I say the former. Who was more for the war in Iraq? Bush and Hillary, or the Koch brothers and Trump? Again, it’s the former.
Putin put his money where his mouth is and forced jihadists to the table. Obama, a decent man, played Pontius Pilate. Brussels has turned my country into one vast refugee camp. Who is the bad guy in all this? It’s undemocratic and incompetent Brussels, Brussels, Brussels!
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10