The Greatest Secret Of All, Or...No Shit.

They begin to wake up to reality? Or should we say that that West's "scholarship" re: USSR was always defined by ideological imperatives of the Cold War 1.0 and was framed, in the US especially, by people who overwhelmingly were ideologues and shysters from "humanities" field. The main function for the "Russia Studies" field in the US was always a provision of the employment (or cash flow) for all kinds of dissidents (aka useful idiots) and obfuscating the fact that the USSR with the exception of a few post October 1917 Revolution years was predominantly a conservative country. 

Glenn Diesen now speaks in broadsides trying to make people aware of the Soviet past and how it formed several generations of Russians. 

Is Russia plotting a return of the Soviet Union? That is the question Western politicians and talking heads ask every time Moscow so much as contemplates the more positive aspects of its history, imagining imperialism everywhere. Liberalism versus communism was the lens that dominated discussion throughout the Cold War while, since then, the question has been about whether Russia has finally driven out its purported past sins in favor of US-style liberalism. Any sign it hasn’t, and any failure to transform itself into a carbon copy of the West, is interpreted as a retreat to its Soviet past. Renowned scholar Samuel Huntington dismissed this binary ideological prism as the “Single Alternative Fallacy” that severely corrupts analysis of Russia. For most of its history, Moscow pursued conservatism as a third alternative and is now returning to this long-held tradition.The communists and conservatives were typically fierce enemies, although conservatism demands a cohesive national narrative and identity. Thus, Russian conservatism entails salvaging what it can of Soviet history.

For people who never experienced life in the USSR, especially in its post-WW II period--that makes it an overwhelming majority of Westerners ranging from regular plumbers to Ph.Ds in Russian History--it may sound as an insult, but they don't have a fucking clue. But then again, I am making my writing career based very much on showing the intellectual impotence of the Western "scholarly" class majority of which, when it comes to Russia, views it as "solzhenitsified" version (that is a caricature) of hell. This is not to speak to the fact, that this very same Solzhenitsyn, who was thrown out of USSR in 1974, never had a clue about my generation of people, and this is a generation which is a main driving political force today--I am talking about decision-making level. This is the same reason why most Russia "scholars" in the US cannot wrap their brains around a simple fact the most Russians will yawn and read themselves to the death from boredom by Pasternak's literary mediocrity (not to speak of watching Hollywood's second-rate lubok universally admired..in the West) Doctor Zhivago, while will have tears in their eyes when watching Soviet adaptation of Bulgakov's Beg (The Flight). 

 

USSR was no paradise and it had its share of problems but it was NOT what was presented in the West and it is this "presentation" which is a major factor in the geopolitical defeat of the combined West and a destruction of Russian-American relations. And even Diesen, while promoting seemingly right thesis of Russian conservatism, doesn't go far enough in naming the real reason for it:

Conservatism embraces the concept of evolutionary change, stability and national unity. These things, it holds, hinge on building the present on the solid foundations of the past. In contrast, revolutionary change entails uprooting the past to give way to something entirely different. Russia’s attraction to conservatism derives from the disruptiveness of its revolutionary history. The continuous uprooting of Russia’s past has created a fragmented history that produced conflicting national identities and aspirations. Subsequently, society becomes divided and vulnerable to subversion by foreign powers.

Yes, "subversion by foreign power" in Russian case are wars, whose scale, scope and brutality  have no parallels in human history, period. West alone is responsible for tens of millions of Russians wiped out throughout the history of invasions and there is no bigger "disruption" than war in the humanity's tool kit of destruction. Diesen's calls on liberals to "take a note" is an exercise in futility--they will not, nor will America's nominal "conservatives", who are as illiterate as their "liberal" opponents. So, don't waste your time, Mr. Diesen. 

 

There is a reason Sergei Shoigu went on record yesterday:

"There is a more awful part, it is becoming or has already become, the main danger for any country over the recent time, over the past decades. These are internal threats. All this is connected with a gradual degradation of society," Shoigu told a panel discussion at the Territory of Senses youth forum on Tuesday. As an example, the defense minister cited Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Syria and Egypt. "Some have withstood, while others haven’t," he added. It is clear how to fight against external threats, he stressed. "Threats to use force is when we are threatened, and we understand who is threatening, what they threaten us with, know what they armed with, know how to resist it, how to fight this, and we build our military defense accordingly," the minister added.

He continued: 

МОСКВА, 10 августа. /ТАСС/. /ТАСС/. Министр обороны РФ генерал армии Сергей Шойгу заявил, что Россия не должна позволять никому "вымывать" память о людях, которые являются символами страны. Глава военного ведомства отметил, что у России много символов, в том числе космонавт Юрий Гагарин, певец Федор Шаляпин, поэт Роберт Рождественский. Также среди символов страны он назвал первую в мире женщину-космонавта, ныне депутата Госдумы Валентину Терешкову. "Но вы все видите, что их постепенно пытаются "вымыть", <...> уже <...> и Терешкова не та, и Гагарин плох, и много чего. Мы не должны позволять делать это", - сказал Шойгу, выступая на панельной дискуссии на молодежном форуме "Территория смыслов". По словам министра, уничтожать память об этих людях, оскорблять их нельзя позволять ни соседу по лестничной площадке, ни "вражине" из-за рубежа.

Translation: MOSCOW, August 10. / TASS /. / TASS /. Russian Defense Minister General of the Army Sergei Shoigu said that Russia should not allow anyone to "wash away" the memory of the people who are the symbols of the country. The head of the military department noted that Russia has many symbols, including cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, singer Fyodor Chaliapin, poet Robert Rozhdestvensky. Also, among the symbols of the country, he named the world's first woman-cosmonaut, now a State Duma deputy, Valentina Tereshkova. "But you all see that they are gradually trying to" wash ", <...> already <...> and Tereshkova is not the same, and Gagarin is bad, and a lot of things. We should not allow this to be done," Shoigu said. speaking at the panel discussion at the youth forum "Territory of Meanings". According to the minister, neither a neighbor on the staircase nor a "foe" from abroad should be allowed to destroy the memory of these people, to insult them.

Speaks volumes, doesn't it. Guess three times who was a Supreme Commander who led the country to the defeat of a combined West's forces in the Great Patriotic War? Right. The worst news for the West today is the fact that overwhelming majority of Russians recognized their history as a unified, continuous journey, most of it very difficult, but always resulting in the accomplishment of an enormous scale. That is why today the names of Alexander Nevsky and Stalin, of Peter the Great and of Zhukov are in the same pantheon of Russia's greats and that is the only way it is supposed to be. That is a huge part of conservatism, a real one--the preservation of the history of people. Diesen, however, beat me, to a degree, to the second part of my post on the Getting the Time Scale Right. Because what exists in the West as a "history" of the Cold War 1.0 has very little to do with the realities of the Soviet Union as presented by Soviet dissidents and liberal "reformers" of 1990s who didn't hate communism, they merely hated Russia and almost genetically driven conservatism of the majority of Russian people. I will omit here, for now, famous prediction by late Alexander Zinoviev who twenty years ago foresaw the "Re-sovietization" of Russia's life and it has nothing to do with the "restoration" of the USSR which Russians don't need and don't want as part of their country. It was same Zinoviev who coined the phrase about Soviet dissidents: we aimed at communism but hit Russia.  

P.S. Just ask yourself a question why Tucker Carlson is in Hungary right now, and why, strangely (not really), these are the countries of the former Soviet block who actively resist globalist post-modernist plague. You know, Victor Orban, Puti... cough, cough. Just saying.

Thank You, Peter Hitchens.

Unlike his late brother Christopher, an open and unrestrained neocon and demagogue who passed for an intellectual among Western academe, Peter was always deep. I mean it without this 1960-s pop-culture connotation. I recall Peter's honest and enlightened position on the events of 2014 and Crimea. Now, we hear it from a person who has the right to speak on the issue of conservatism. I was on this issue from the get go and spoke ad nauseam that there is no conservative party in the US. Here is a recent one by me on the issue:

The United States doesn't have a true conservative party. All this BS about Burke, let alone mediocrity such as Buckley is as related to conservatism as I am related to Chinese.

Fact is, America's (and in general Anglo) intelligentsia today is a pathetic... well, you know what, a lot of it is in my books, especially in the last one. And here is Hitchens. 

“I do not think there have been any conservative parties in the Anglosphere states for some time, if ever there were such things,” he replied. “The defence of private wealth from taxation was never much of a basis for conservatism, and the Reagan-Thatcher era was one of liberalism, not conservatism. The remnants of conservatism were posturing at home on issues such as abortion and criminal justice (about which ‘conservative’ parties have actually done nothing for decades) and starting foolish wars abroad.”

Thank you, thank you, Peter. Read my lips: conservative party and ideology is a euphemism for national consciousness. US political parties were in the business of destroying a fledgling American nationhood for decades. The only thing these people know is how to reelect themselves and engage in the never-ending bickering on how to bypass real economic and cultural interests of the majority of Americans, while preserving the status quo which cannot be preserved by definition. Period. Well that, plus institutionalizing perversion, cowardice and hypocrisy. In fact, I doubt that current crop of utterly corrupt American thinkers, or, rather, what passes for them, can even grasp what conservatism is. Yes, it is that bad. One can go and attend twenty different churches and carry Bible with him in the pocket all the time and smash own forehead at the altar--that doesn't make one a conservative. Conservatism is a an obverse side of prudent nationalism. American "nationalism" is skin deep and is primarily expressed in declaring football (American variety) important, in cartoonish militarism and invocations of America's greatness. Enough to listen to the cringe-worthy psychobabble by Dinesh D'souza, passing for history, and "conservatives" such as Laura Inghram, to get the gist of American "conservatism" pretty accurately. That's it--there is nothing more there. 

The only America's claim to the possible core national value--constitutionalism, and law and order--are being destroyed this very minute and there is nothing more left there. There is no nation anymore. Or, being more precise, there is no proto-nation which America was becoming in 19th century. The US today is a one-party political system, which serves American oligarchy which is highly uncultured and uneducated and is incapable to produce a statesman. To be sure, mediocrities it produces aplenty. This is not a gene pool which can produce a conservative, national that is, idea. Some sparks of intellect and passion, such as Candace Owens or Tucker on his good night, are simply not enough. Punditry is not a substitution for substantive approach to nationhood which is not survivable--in fact, it is disintegrating at an alarming speed--in the present economic and political paradigm. Trumpism gave a glimpse at some ideas but the person who articulated them turned out to be the fraud and a coward and those were not his ideas anyway. 

So, here we are--what is an American conservative today? Is he (she) a Republican? GOP is not a conservative party, not even close, it is a party of old wealth and homicidal economic policies, which constantly BSes deplorables while laughing at them or condescendingly patting them on the back when allowing them to clean restrooms at their country clubs. I could be on this topic for a long time but I don't see reason. I stated my position not for once: no conservative party in the US--US has no future. As the events of the last couple of days have shown, GOP is a party of treason and cowardice, but then again, they have good rivals in the matters of destroying the country in democrats. So, what a lovely choice we have between the two shallow ends of the America's political and faux-intellectual cesspool. But thank you, Peter Hitchens, for stating obvious--modern Anglo-conservatism is a joke and we better get used to living with this fact.

About American "Conservatism", Again.

The United States doesn't have a true conservative party. All this BS about Burke, let alone mediocrity such as Buckley is as related to conservatism as I am related to Chinese. Tucker now learns that Heritage Foundation, allegedly "conservative" org is not really conservative--of course it is not, all American so called "conservative" movement is shaped by the Cold War anti-Russian chimera and, as I said many times now, is represented by GOP which is nothing more than a collection of cowards who are:

1. Neo-liberal (globalist) economically in the extreme; 

2. Are tax-cutting machine for really rich people;

3. Neocon cock sucking bunch of "exceptionalists" and war-mongering political outlet of the Military-Industrial Complex.

These are anything but conservative values. The rest is pretty much pseudo-academic political doctrine-mongering. Good for Tucker that he speaks this openly:

I want to reiterate though, while GOP can create only revulsion, Democrats are clear and present danger not only to the existence of the United States, but given their insanity, they are increasingly looking as a party capable, once it overthrows however utterly corrupt political order, to unleash a global conflict. As many noted, a monkey with a nuclear red button. Can you imagine explaining to some douchebag from democrats who has a degree in law and got to position of power (any power) what real global conflict will look like? It is beyond their experiences, which, BTW, applies fully to GOP too--practically all of them are office plankton and people capable only for BSing others in their attempts to hold on to power. If they need to suck somebody's cock--they will. At least most of them. 

Now, we are only at the beginning of major political tribulations for the United States, which will be compounded by the economic catastrophe unfolding in a front of our eyes, and in this time the American statehood will be degraded even more. I looked at Seattle yesterday--I do not recognize once loved by me city, it is dead. I, certainly, recognize Trump's conundrum here, there is a method to his cowardice, in the end--let America see what those "lefties" want for it. If this doesn't wake it up, the case could be closed, Statue of Liberty removed (after all the lady has all facial features of a white woman) and original US Constitution flown out of a country. But there is still some time but even Trump's landslide victory, granted elections will be held at all, will change absolutely nothing, because there is nobody out there who is not a treasonous backstabber who would move a finger to deal with the situation. In the end, look at their faces. Moreover, Trump himself is not really a man who understands governing and leadership. But the world already saw enough to conclude, correctly, that the United States is a colossus on the legs of clay which is crumbling in a front of our eyes. But then again, you read this blog, you know how it started and with what conclusions almost 6 years ago. As per real conservatism, which is a euphemism for a variety forms of nationalism--I don't see anybody on the American "academe" horizon who even has a concept of real nationhood. It is simply beyond America's historic experience in the last 100 years or so.

An Interesting Coincidence.

I do not know who reads me, if anyone at all, out of The American Conservative contributors, but the coincidence is remarkable. Two days ago (in fact, it is my long standing position) I posited: 

And then, of course, there is this little teeny-weeny issue of American "conservatism" which allegedly exists somewhere out there but is somehow obscured and is not allowed to manifest itself by this Conservatism Incorporated (aka Conservatism Inc.). Can we stop this charade, what goes under the title of American Conservatism Inc. IS THE American conservatism. It is a USA, USA, USA Ra-rah, NASCAR, NFL, flag waiving "conservatism" which is as conservative as I am Chinese. There is nothing conservative in American "conservatism" because it is radically Neo-liberal economically and ignorant culturally. As GOP demonstrated in the last couple of weeks it is not a conservative party. It hasn't been in ages. Real conservatism to be a viable ideology requires a nation and here is the problem, the United States never really coalesced into one and if any trend on true nationhood existed at some point of time, it was destroyed completely in the XXI century. Now the destruction is being formalized 

And yesterday TAC publishes this piece: 

American Nationalists. Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party provides a blueprint for conservatives today.

The problem with the authors' argument about the Federalist Party is that despite this observation: 

It was at the constitutional convention, as well, that the term “Federalist” came into use to refer to the nationalist party and its program. Up until this point, Americans had used the terms federal and confederal interchangeably to describe the cooperation of the thirteen independent states under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. However, as the constitutional convention opened in 1787, nationalists discovered that the word “national” was troubling in the eyes of some of the participants, precisely because it implied a single, unified nation rather than a coalition of independent states. The nationalists at the convention decided to concede on the semantics, while preserving the substantive achievement of a national government.

No condition exists today in the US for nationalist principles professed by Federalists--the world changed and so did the US, profoundly at that. One cannot even put in proper context this statement: 

But the Federalists were not supporters of a Jeffersonian policy of building a “wall of separation between church and state.” On the contrary, they hoped to cultivate a tolerant Protestant nationalism, which they believed would strengthen the constitutional republic they had created. 

I cannot even conceive how this statement applies to today's realities, both in terms of extreme forms of the so called "Protestantism", much, not all, of it being in the foundation of a disproportionate influence Israel exerts on American foreign and domestic policy, with a substantial number of Catholics adding to a complexity of the American society still. Modern American Protestantism is a militant proselytizing movement which to a large degree is responsible for growing "elites" who are complicit in the catastrophe which American foreign policy and military interventions has become in the XXI century. For a country which destroyed several countries, killed and maimed millions of people in the last 20 years term "tolerant" is inapplicable. Good intentions are only worth something when they translate into practical actions which support those intentions. 

American intentions in the last 80 years are those of ruthless proselytizing power drunk on the myth of own exceptionalism in which wisdoms of its founding have been long forgotten and do not work anymore in largely corrupted institutes of power. We can observe how corrupt they are in real time. Obviously there is NO American nation without its white Christian European core population, but this is not how American "elites" view the issue--they define it only in terms of political power, political creed and economic robbery model which are not only not helping but incredibly detrimental to emergence of the American nation, which, as US nemesis Russia, will have a core ethnicity which will embrace those ethnic minorities around it to become indeed an American nation. 

At this stage is this not even on the horizon, no matter how political process of founding was framed in 18th century. Remarkably, the chaos and open danger of Black Lives Matter and their handlers from Democratic Party and circles close to it may serve as a long awaited impetus for white majority to claim its status and rights as a stepping stone to formation of a real American nation. To do so America needs a national and real conservative party which will unify both white and minorities' voices which want to preserve the country and want to live in the modern state. GOP is NOT the party for this precisely because it is not a conservative party but a second fiddle to Democrats who are hell bent not only on destroying the US but due to their incompetence and insanity may even unleash a global war. Meanwhile, I think Atlanta Police, same as Seattle PD should simply stop reporting to work and allow "progressive" districts to get a load of their idealism by means of violence, robberies, rapes, drugs--you know Democrats' dear values and agenda.  

Some Strategic Generalities.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote today a passionate and bitter in its truthfulness piece about US economy. It is titled What Globalism Did Was to Transfer the US Economy to China. Roberts writes:

How does a country recover when it has given its economy away to a foreign country that it now demonizes as an enemy? What better example is there of a ruling class that is totally incompetent than one that gives its economy bound and gagged to an enemy so that its corporate friends can pocket short-term riches? We can’t blame this on Trump. He inherited the problem, and he has no advisers who can help him understand the problem and find a solution. No such advisers exist among neoliberal economists. I can only think of four economists who could help Trump, and one of them is a Russian.

This excellent piece by PCR brings to the attention a contemporary balance of power and this whole tempest in a teacup re: Russia's "return" to G-8 and such useless European structures as Council of Europe. As Putin said today: "if they (Europe) do not want to see us in the Council of Europe, it is fine with Russia, she is not really desiring to get into it in the first place." (In Russian). And here is what I think about all that.

1. I am not original, I will repeat what many observers arrived to in the last few days: all these clumsy and unprofessional PR moves on combined West's part, from Macron's exercises in Russian language on Twitter, to Trump's G-8 thoughts are nothing more than dawning realization that Russia and China do have serious plans which are not "Western" in the nature. So, the combined West started the "detach Russia from China" play. It failed even before it started. Modern West has no enough geopolitical currency to buy Russia--as I said many times--she is simply out of West's price range. Europe will continue to buy Russia's hydrocarbons and, increasingly, some quirky high technologies, but that is as far as it should go. But, at least, some attempts at changing current geopolitical configuration on West's part are duly noticed. This, however, brings us to a very interesting question:

2. US is in "decoupling from China" mode big-big time, Europe is irrelevant here. So, what's the spread, so to speak in all that. The spread is very simple: Russia has few degrees of freedom of actions more than US alone or West as a combination. Truth of the matter is, as I wrote not for once, that China needs Russia big time. But, as of today, August 21, 2019, Russia can (she will not, but still) "decouple" from China and be able to withstand anything combined West would try to throw at her. In 2013-14 that proposition would have sounded dubious, now--it is not. Combined West has very little in the tank and in purse left to realistically hurt Russia without hurting itself even more. The force, so to speak, is simply not there anymore: be it moral or physical, especially military one. China knows this. Now, evidently, the West begins to understand, however late, this too. But the West missed the "starting gun". China did not.

3. Now, with the United States trying to coerce China (good luck with that) by economic and military-political means, Chinese may acquire additional taste for more things Russian and, with all my respect to Chinese culture and, undeniably impressive, achievements economically (not least through the United States and its corrupt elite being suicidal, or homicidal, depends on POV--that  what PRC's article is about) and scientifically--pay attention to these recent news, I already posted that once, I believe:

BEIJING (Reuters) - Commercial Aircraft Corp of China (COMAC) aims to obtain Chinese certification for its C919 jet in 2021, the company said, marking a delay from a previous timetable for the jet which aims to challenge Airbus SE (AIR.PA) and Boeing (BA.N) planes. State-owned China News Service first reported on Wednesday the latest certification target for the homegrown plane, citing a speech made by the chief designer Wu Guanghui for the C919 program at a recent industry event.A COMAC spokesman confirmed the report to Reuters, but said the date was subject to regulatory approval and the aircraft’s safety remains a top priority.

Recall how I constantly, ad nauseam, talk about aerospace industry and cutting edge engine-manufacturing. Now compare the news (in Russian): MS-21 confirmed maximum (extreme) characteristics during test flights. PD-14 already received certificate of a type and has operational FADEC. That's the difference. It is also the difference at the starting gun. China's civil aviation future to an important degree rests with what Russia accomplishes as a Eurasian R&D powerhouse in aerospace and military technologies. Well, that and resources, of course. Russian-Chinese "marriage" is a marriage of convenience, but the West can not even afford anymore to utter engagement proposal for Russia. 

Trump maybe, deep down, has some less hostile intentions towards Russia, however misplaced and delusional they are, but Russia will talk only to those who keep their word and can talk rationally--this is not the case with US elites for a long time now. So, if you are Putin and you have a say in all that, granted you are briefed daily on the true state of the affairs in EU, USA and China, what would you choose as your not forced (I stress it--NOT FORCED, that is done without any duress) big geopolitical play?

A. You decide against the "marriage of convenience", a difficult but totally doable, that is endurable, one, in favor of someone who constantly lies, hates you and, in general, good only for doing some (very limited) business with. This one will betray you in the end;

B. You decide to go it alone, granted you can do that, but that increases risks, albeit rewards in case of win could be immense, but so could be the difficulty of adaptation period in case of a triumph. It is a truism--it is easier to get to the top than to stay there;

C. You agree to the "marriage of convenience" and continue to triangulate knowing for sure that numerous opportunities to exit the arrangement will present themselves along the way. 

What would you choose? The choice is rather obvious, especially for the nation which only wants to be left alone, especially after a nightmarish for her XX Century. Some people simply cannot conceive that to be happy it is possible to be content with 2nd or 3rd place in something, it is still an elite position, that it is normal not to desire to hear constant praises, however false, in own address. It is normal not to have any desire to convert anyone, especially by force of arms, into own beliefs. This is what emerges today in Russia as a national idea and it is becoming attractive to more and more people--being oneself, not betraying own nature, by means of non-stop Kafkaesque metamorphosis. This is real conservatism, not its fake neoliberal version practiced in the US or virtual eradication of such in Europe. People, all people on Earth, sense that. Why do you think this continues to happen almost every year, now in 2019, again?

The finest travel brands in Europe were unveiled at a star-studded gala ceremony in Madeira. The elite of the travel industry assembled for the World Travel Awards (WTA) Europe Gala Ceremony on the Atlantic island to find out who amongst them would be crowned best of the best. Winners at the red carpet reception included the enchanting city of St. Petersburg, Russia, voted ‘Europe’s Leading City Destination’

There are things more important than money, however nice it is to have enough of them. Recall my remark more than a year ago:

Getting into St.Petersburg and encountering gigantic crowds of West Europeans, from Portuguese and Italians to armies of Germans and Spaniards doing their touristy osmosis (or diffusion, if you will) into St.Pete's environments (see, I do not write about ever-present Chinese and Indians--half of our Sapsan to and from St.Petersburg was occupied by them, BTW) makes you think why these people flock to Russia in general and St.Petersburg in particular thus making it for a number of years in a row the number one destination in Europe? Then it occurred to me, observing German family with children standing in a front of Eliseevsky and watching figurines of old Russian bakers and merchants moving around (up and down too) in the front window--it is a typical nonchalant, no excuses required, Russian contemporary attitude towards all those Westerners who visit Mother-Russia which makes it click and is so attractive, granted one appreciates both scale and immense cultural significance of both Moscow and St.Petersburg. It is an easy attitude of a very confident nation and civilization--it is absolutely not afraid nor gives a damn about showing its both bright and dark sides. Yet, as my son noted, a huge number of pairs of young men and women walking together, hugging and kissing--it is a sight to behold today. The same as a bunch of bands setting up on Nevsky and delivering some good rock-n-roll and blues--Dostoevsky would have loved that.

A Thought Of Note.

Some interesting piece from The American Conservative, albeit I have to disagree with opening phrase--OAC has very little to do with real politics let alone knows about what "socialism" other than the welfare state, which has nothing to do with socialism, is. But it is good and healthy that TAC brought up this issue. It couldn't be better framed than with Tucker's, and Pat's, brilliant quotes:

“Market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster,” Carlson said. “Any economic system that weakens and destroys families isn’t worth having.” Does this observation make Tucker a socialist? Hardly. As is often the case, TAC founding editor Patrick J. Buchanan was more than a decade ahead of the curve. “To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people,” Buchanan said in a 1998 speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. “I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the market that must be harnessed to work for man—and not the other way around.”

Good, very good, that such a message comes from, however debatable, important source of remaining American sanity. It is symptomatic that they used this:

There is more of a willingness to contest the idea that what’s good for General Motors is good for conservatives—or America.

Finally, the heart of the issue. If America remains a corporate state--she dies, possibly with catastrophic consequences for everyone. If she, in the end, finds own definition as a nation--she has a chance. For that to happen new elites must emerge. Is there a time for those to grow and enter politics? I don't know, but Trump, who betrayed his main pool of supporters--mostly white (there are few Black and Latino voters too) working and middle class people, without who there is no United States of America, is not representative anymore (he never was, Stephen Miller, however is) of those people. I would start with American universities and colleges--which are primarily hot seats of both radical "leftism" or religious exceptionalism, depending on particular school--and this could be done. There is no other, namely relatively peaceful way, than evolution, but it has to be stated that American so called "conservatism" as it was framed by late Buckely and headless war hawks is not about neo-liberal economics, war-mongering and jingoism--it is, in the end, about nation and what's good for it. And it is to the credit of TAC that they close off with this:

The periodic electoral successes conservatives have enjoyed since the 1980s have caused us to lose sight of an important question: what is it that we are trying to conserve? The search for answers is finally ready for primetime. 

In related news, Trump is slowly learning (is he?) that global economy and geopolitics require a better set of skills than that of NYC real estate hustler.  

WASHINGTON/BEIJING (Reuters) - U.S. negotiators have tempered demands that China curb industrial subsidies as a condition for a trade deal after strong resistance from Beijing, according to two sources briefed on discussions, marking a retreat on a core U.S. objective for the trade talks.   

Trump is really running US into the ground, but then again, having teenage (most likely Mossad asset) husband of his rather not too smart daughter as main advisers, or the cabal of aggressive neocon morons in national (in)security apparatus, is not conducive to required American transition to a normal country. Well...