The rich are under attack nowadays, nowhere more than in America, where the Donald continues to trump his critics, amaze and surprise his fans, and drive his haters to paroxysms of sexual fantasies, with Trump as the main actor. National Review, where I got my start 40 or so years ago, devoted a whole issue to rubbishing Donald Trump, an issue that included everyone from great conservatives like Thomas Sowell to great clowns like John Podhoretz, an issue that inadvertently looked in opposite directions while hating the Donald. Included in the issue was William Kristol’s bit, one that calls Trump vulgar. Yes, that he is, 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—or Chinese, for that matter—people. 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, do the so-called elite—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 multibillionaires whose moola 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, like in her physical appearance, she has failed miserably. There are no skeletons in their closets, except those giving money away, their bones covered in velvet. This has obviously driven Mayer nuts, because she has gone so far as to write a very long book against the brothers calling their money dark, except she has come up with nothing except good old American go-get-’em capitalism at its best. In essence, it 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, just too boring and vituperative, a fantasy by a fantasist who probably fantasizes 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 from changing the conversation in the good old U.S. 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 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 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 by its very nature is not ideological. I am a conservative because I do not like change for its sake alone, and love the institutions of family, nationhood, and the 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 mold, 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 this is not the space to digress about 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 stormed the beaches in Okinawa and Normandy under withering fire, unlike the Bill Clintons and George W. Bushes of this world. 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 “elites” hating the very rich, like the Koch brothers, and the lightly educated, like those who stormed the beaches. The irony being 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, or who has become a multimillionaire by getting paid with great corporate moola for speeches written by others? The pundit elite. Who has enabled ISIS to flourish: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and Erdogan the stealth Islamist, or Hafez 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!