Lion of the Blogosphere

Establishment Republicans and education

Commenter “jimmygandhi” wrote:

The Establishment Right is very dishonest when it comes to education. The National Review advise their readers to send their kids to small Catholic colleges or Bob Jones university and that Rural Life is the best. Meanwhile the writers work out a Manhattan office, send their children to Ivy leagues, and recruit interns from the Ivy Leagues!

Don’t know for sure if this is true or not, but it sounds like it might be true.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

September 1, 2015 at 6:30 PM

Posted in Education

101 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I don’t know, but years ago as a wannabe reporter I realized that the top news outlets like NTY, Time, WaPo did not bother with J school grads. They instead hired English or lib arts majors from *good* schools, and gave them on the job training. Journalism degree people were proles who went to work at prole outfits.

    Mrs Stitch

    September 1, 2015 at 6:37 PM

    • NYTimes hires kids with elite connnections for entry-level positions. I frequently see the byline for Tatiana Schlosberg on the NY Times website, who is the granddaughter of John F Kennedy.


      September 1, 2015 at 6:52 PM

      • Yes that too. That’s why the student need not bother with a vocational major like journalism.

        Mrs Stitch

        September 1, 2015 at 8:48 PM

    • This is not entirely true. For example, if you have foreign language skills (Russian, Arabic, Chinese) and a J-School degree you can get an internship with The Wall Street Journal. The J-School degree would certainly not be the difference maker, but it is easier to take a 24-year old intern than a 22-year old kid. But a WSJ reporter cannot land a job at the NYT, though there are of course exceptions.

      No one is interested in the “writing skills” you honed at journalism school. They are interested in the commitment attending it entailed, the willingness to take on $30-$40K in debt, etc, in order to break into the industry and the obvious subservience implicit in this act.

      The statement below about Schlosberg, etc, is nonetheless correct. Essentially, newspapers themselves are tiered, so that an ordinary middle class or upper middle (not prole!) reporter could spend a decade, or even an entire career, on the real estate or business pages of the NYT. Or simply editing. Then they might get a more “prestigious” job on the education desk. Similarly, they could work as a “foreign correspondent” covering the German auto industry or the Russian energy sector.

      Unlike the WSJ, the NYT does not really take interns, unless they represent token minorities. Yet these minorities do not generally speaking rise to prestigious positions within the newspaper. They are simply there to add diversity to the bylines. A white Columbia J-School grad who applies for an internship with the NYT in Manhattan will be told that such positions do not exist (or so it was in my day).

      This explains why almost all New Yorker writers, people like McPhee, etc, are from the upper middle class, prepping for Princeton and so on. In fact, a number of McPhee’s students now write for the New Yorker, including its editor. And none of these people, Remnick, Peter Hessler and so on, attended J-School. A ludicrous notion.

      Sorry for rambling, but even a superficial analysis of the media can provide great insight into the US class structure.

      The Shepherd

      September 2, 2015 at 8:46 AM

      • I looked at the background of senior NYT staff in Wikipedia. About two thirds have an entry. Of this group less than 25% are Ivy League graduates. The same is true of writers on today’s front page.* Whilst Schlosbergianism is a fundamental facet of the upscale New York culture scene there does also seem to be a far amount of confirmation bias amongst LOTB readers on this score.
        Obviously this is not a scientific survey.


        September 5, 2015 at 2:45 AM

      • The junior staff is more Ivy than the senior staff.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 5, 2015 at 9:10 AM

      • Ivy league grads with elite connections have many options. If they get bored or just tired of working at the NYTimes, they can easily get in doing so other well paying job because of their connections. So, I can see them just quitting and moving on to something they like better or just want a change of scenery.

        not too late

        September 8, 2015 at 6:18 PM

  2. Those types of colleges often take out paid advertisements in conservative publications. I specifically remember seeing ads from Hillsdale College, which is a college oriented toward conservative families, in National Review.


    September 1, 2015 at 6:56 PM

    • Hillsdale’s big thing is to get old conservatives to put them in their will. My own alma mater spends considerable time on this and knows which alums have good jobs but no kids. To this group they engage in all kinds of outreach programs tailor made to hide the hideous left-wing turn the college has taken in the intervening years. Amazingly, it seems to work. Old conservatives with money who quit paying attention put them in their wills oblivious to the fact that the political science department aligns itself with the SPLC or wants to make Caitlyn Jenner president.


      September 1, 2015 at 11:45 PM

      • Hillsdale I really doubt has turned left wing. When I was young it was known as the only accredited school that took no federal money at all. Not even financial aid or loans for students. It was the top choice for extreme libertarians (less extreme ones liked Auburn and George Mason).


        September 2, 2015 at 3:52 PM

      • “Hillsdale I really doubt has turned left wing”

        I was speaking about my alma mater which employs the same tactic as Hillsdale of seeking to be placed in a will. Hillsdale wasn’t my alma mater. I also doubt that Hillsdale went Left wing.


        September 2, 2015 at 4:48 PM

  3. A musing I had at work today: a future with driverless cars means fewer accidents, which means fewer personal injury lawsuits and insurance defense work, which is a huge percentage of legal work outside of BIGLAW.

    The upshot of this is that robots will ultimately disrupt guido law.


    September 1, 2015 at 7:11 PM

    • Ha! Yes, robocars will downsize guido law.


      September 1, 2015 at 8:12 PM

    • And minority and recent immigrant insurance cons, a booming business in some vibrant parts of this diverse tapestry we call America.


      September 1, 2015 at 11:47 PM

    • Nobody can independently verify anything Google says about driverless cars. Contrary to their puff pieces driverless cars = major regulatory, insurance, and hacking liabilities.


      September 2, 2015 at 12:40 AM

  4. I do not see any issue here. They do seem to advise what is best for their readers. Advising sending those kids to Yvy leagues would be much more dishonest for multiple reasons that are obvious.


    September 1, 2015 at 7:38 PM

  5. The education at the Jesuit schools are of great value, and the student demographic is more grounded. Perhaps they have a point.

    Sociopaths are always in denial of their bad deeds (in this case, hypocrisy, and the Ivy League breeds sociopathic people, embarking on sociopathic fields).


    September 1, 2015 at 7:56 PM

  6. The Establishment Right media wants kids to go to conservative colleges so they learn to imbibe precisely the kind of tepid, feckless cuckservative dishwater that publications like National Review serve up. In other words, if you go to Hillsdale College, maybe you’ll end up as a National Review subscriber. They are attempting to grow subscribers.

    I suppose the people that work at the once-great Nat Review these days are a combination of pasty true believers and shyster Morlocks who know exactly that they are playing a game and trying to make a name for themselves in a field with less competition (how many Ivy League grads are conservative??). Then, with previous examples like Gary Wills and David Brock dangling before their eyes, after achieving a certain amount of name recognition they will suddenly “grow” into smart new Liberal positions, winning fame, fortune and cute punky girls.

    Hell, if Lion gets slightly more popular he can pull the same move. Slate and the Huff Po await, Lion. Just say the word.


    September 1, 2015 at 8:37 PM

    • Hard to believe that magazine was once operated by adults who ran articles by serious writers like Peter Brimelow, John Derbyshire, Samuel Francis and others who only get published these days in Unz Review for those still living. That John O’Sullivan was once the editor is stunning considering the nonentity currently editing that rag. The decline of that magazine can be characterized by one name, Jennifer Rubin, the execrable WP columnist who got her start there.


      September 2, 2015 at 12:07 AM

      • Sam Francis turned into an anti Semite nut late in life.


        September 2, 2015 at 3:54 PM

      • This is what Sam Francis said 20 years ago: The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.

        Fast forwarding to 2015, we have swarms of non-Whites in all of our Western nations, with East Asians, being on top of the evolutionary food chain, in terms of non-Caucasoids, and have yet to achieve anything of substance.


        September 3, 2015 at 1:08 PM

    • Are you sure David Brock was with NR? I thought the only right-ish publication he worked for was The American Spectator.


      September 2, 2015 at 12:52 AM

      • Yes, as an intern for 2 years.


        September 2, 2015 at 10:01 AM

    • shyster Morlocks who know exactly that they are playing a game and trying to make a name for themselves in a field with less competition (how many Ivy League grads are conservative??)

      Went to college with Jamie Kirchick, can confirm. Even as an undergrad he was shamelessly gunning for the position of establishment conservatism’s token gay guy.

      Don’t forget Joan Didion as another NR writer who made a well-timed swerve to the left.

      Ivy League Prole

      September 3, 2015 at 9:38 AM

  7. While an Ivy degree helps I was under the impression NR casts a wider recruitment net these days; surely more so than the Buckley era. Of course, back when Buckley was scoping out talent, elite universities had a deep pool of talent.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    September 1, 2015 at 8:53 PM

  8. A lot of conservative “elites” went to the top tier Catholic colleges like Fordham and Notre Dame but not Ivies. I have noticed that over the last fifty years the Republican Party has gotten taken over by Catholics. Before then Catholics were staunch Democrats in the Northeastern U.S. The transition took place when Catholics starting moving into the Middle Class and had to start paying taxes and see their ethnic neighborhoods destroyed by social engineering programs fostered by liberals in the 1960s.

    At this same time more and more Wasp elites left the Republican Party and joined forces with Jewish elites within the Democratic Party and forged “top and bottom” alliances between the very rich and very poor in the large cities like New York. This alliance pitted them against middle class Catholics. Throw in some social issues like abortion and you get an ongoing conflict. Catholic scholar E. Michael Jones has written a lot about this phenomenon.

    I have Catholics in my family. They are a lot like evangelicals when it comes to higher ed. If their kid went to Catholic high school they force them to go to a Catholic college and it becomes a feedback loop. These colleges are decent but only prepare them for the middle class. These Catholic conservatives don’t seem to get the fact that in order to break into true levels of influence you have to break into the Ivy League. For this reason there are few Catholic kids that go the elite universities and they are on the outside looking in. The ivies are still completely dominated by what could be called the Judeo-Episcopal liberal power elite and they have access to the higher levels of business and government. So to answer the question, No most Republican elites do not go to elite universities. If they do they become rino/liberals like David Brooks.


    September 1, 2015 at 9:41 PM

    • The ivies are still completely dominated by what could be called the Judeo-Episcopal liberal power elite

      They’ll have to come up with a new name shortly. The Episcopal Church is running on fumes.


      September 2, 2015 at 12:28 AM

      • A lot of Episcopalians don’t go to church anymore just like a lot of Jews don’t go to temple anymore. Both of these denominations are filled with prosperous and highly educated people. There is a tendency that with increasing education people become more secularized. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church there is not as much central authority and hierarchy in the Episcopal Church. Parishes vary greatly from place to place. Some of the Northern ones are whacko left-wing but a lot of the ones in the South are still very traditional, with many shades in between.


        September 2, 2015 at 9:40 AM

    • “These colleges are decent but only prepare them for the middle class.”

      Nothing wrong with that. Most people, Catholic or not, are going to be middle class. They are not going to break into the “true levels of influence” even if they go to an Ivy. I know plenty of people with Ivy degrees who are middle class, and none of the VPs in my corporation has an Ivy degree.

      You have to assess your own kid’s potential. If the kid is superintelligent and a superachiever, then sure try applying to an Ivy. If not then accept the kid’s limitations and go for the best affordable non-Ivy option.


      September 2, 2015 at 8:09 AM

      • I don’t disagree that a middle class life is fine for most people. My point is that many conservative Catholics and fundamentalist Christians want their kids to be insulated from the secular world of the elites. As a result they go to smaller, rural colleges that act as cocoons. This may nuture their own belief system but unless they penetrate the Ivies and go toe to toe with their ideological enemies they are not going to change anything.


        September 2, 2015 at 9:28 AM

      • “unless they penetrate the Ivies and go toe to toe with their ideological enemies they are not going to change anything.”

        If they thought they were going to penetrate the Ivies and change them, they’d be truly deluded indeed. Better to go to a “cocoon” school elsewhere than undertake such a pointless, quixotic quest.


        September 2, 2015 at 4:25 PM

      • you can have a middle class income and still be swpl. especially since swpls don’t have as many children, and swpl households are more likely to be 2 income. sure you can go to a catholic or midwestern / southern state school and graduate with a vocational degree that will provide you with a middle class life, but you’ll still be prole. i wish lion would talk more about his experiences working in az vs ny. i’m sure white middle class white collar workers in ny are much more tolerable than those in az.


        September 2, 2015 at 10:21 PM

    • Ha, you’re hitting a little close to home here. I’m Catholic and grew up in the circles you’re talking about…and I went to Notre Dame. I could write a whole treatise on this. There’s definitely something to what you say, although the degree of it varies depending on which group of Catholics you’re talking about.
      I went to a conservative Catholic high school, and in environments like that you hear two main complaints about elite schools: first, that the on-campus environments are hedonistic, and second, that they’ve ditched the traditional core Western Civ. Canon in favor of Progressive Moonbat Studies 101.
      Of course, those complaints are kind of true. But what that crowd misses is that a lot of learning comes just from hanging around really smart people, even if the class material isn’t ideal. I know a lot of people who went to the small colleges that National Review raves about. They do read some Aristotle and Locke there, and a lot of the progressive wackiness is absent. But the academic caliber of the student bodies tends to be kind of unimpressive. I also see a certain amount of self-congratulation that makes them complacent, i.e. “Only we are upholding the standard of tradition. Mainstream college students are ignorant and decadent…” etc. But the fact that their curriculum is better on paper doesn’t mean that they’re actually working hard. I see a lot of these kids graduate and then go into generic middle class jobs without getting real exposure to what’s possible.
      (As an aside: an exception to this rule is the Opus Dei crowd. They put pressure on young people to go to the most elite schools possible, and then go to work amidst the movers and shakers in big cities like NYC. Almost all of their university centers are at Ivies and other elite schools, not at places like Christendom or Thomas Aquinas College.
      In Opus Dei circles, I get the impression that the Ivy considered most friendly to conservative Catholics is Princeton. I know a few Opus Dei people who’ve gone there in recent years, and there’s a circle of social conservatives around Robert George and the organizations he supports.)
      Incidentally, all this is why I had a problem with that giant essay Ron Unz wrote on Ivy League admissions. He estimated the numbers of National Merit Semifinalists in various groups and compared them with the representation those groups had in elite schools. The key assumption, which he stated clearly, was that all groups have an equal desire to attend those schools, so that variations in admissions can only be explained by bias in the admissions offices. I laughed when I read that.
      Unz was so trapped in his elite college town mindset that he couldn’t put himself in the shoes of people from other backgrounds. I was a NMF, and I ended up at ND for reasons unrelated to its ranking. I remember going to a social event with some faculty early in my freshman year at which a young professor explained that ND only wanted new faculty from schools that were more elite than ND. So I asked him where he got his Ph.D, and he told me smugly that he went to Yale. I remember being surprised that he seemed smug, because I was only vaguely aware that Yale was considered a good school. The main thing I associated with it were road signs on I-95, but I’ve learned a lot since then.

      Summa Theologica

      September 2, 2015 at 10:08 AM

      • Mr. Thomas Aquinas – NYC is no longer a place of movers and shakers. In fact, the populace fits nicely with the description of “ignorant and decadent”. Walk the streets of the Big Apple, and what is the likelihood, you’ll find a pedestrian who has read the Summa Theologica? If you think our elites and upper classes have abandon the liberal arts curriculum, solely for money making endeavors and petty status signaling, then you’re absolutely correct.


        September 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM

      • Intellectually curious souls at the remote, Jesuit campuses, study a subject, such as Medieval Logic, where as the low brow, Hollywood induced, hipster types, at a big city, ultra-liberal school, dabble with a modern avant garde subject. Do you think the latter is more of a mover and shaker? If you think liberal radicals have sunk this nation into a deep abyss, then YES!


        September 2, 2015 at 1:08 PM

      • Unz greatly overestimated that share of Jews at Harvard. He simply took unsourced and usually old estimates from campus Hillel.

        it might have been 25% when Unz was at Harvard, but that was the demographic peak of smart secular American Jews.


        September 2, 2015 at 3:58 PM

      • do tell Lot.

        i’m waiting for the substantive rebuttal of unz.

        why would hillel overestimate the % by a lot?

        according to unz if american jews were represented at elite campuses by their % of national merit scholars they would be greatly over-represented, by 3x, but this would only be 6%.

        and this is exactly their % at CalTech.

        do they really apply 12x as often as similarly smart gentiles? or whatever?

        kim jong un

        September 2, 2015 at 9:30 PM

      • @summa

        another example of how, despite the pw, the present US is the most classist and status obsessed country in the history of the world.

        kim jong un

        September 2, 2015 at 10:03 PM

      • it might have been 25% when Unz was at Harvard, but that was the demographic peak of smart secular American Jews.

        I think 20-25% is still correct but only because a majority of college students who identify as Jewish are now half-Jewish.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 2, 2015 at 11:03 PM

      • i’m waiting for the substantive rebuttal of unz.

        why would hillel overestimate the % by a lot?

        Unz ignores the fact half of all Jewish college students are now half-Jewish:—blog/news-and-views/2004/01/21/jewish-students-involved-connections-vary

        The NJPS data reveal that the college-age Jewish population is almost evenly split between those who have two Jewish parents (48 percent) and those who have only one Jewish parent (45 percent). Students with two Jewish parents tend to be more religiously observant and Jewishly connected than those with only one Jewish parent. For example, 80 percent of those with two Jewish parents felt very positive about being Jewish compared to 65 percent among those with one Jewish parent. Both groups demonstrated an interest in Jewish studies, with 43 percent of those with two Jewish parents and 24 percent of those with one Jewish parent taking at least one Jewish studies course during their time in college.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 2, 2015 at 11:29 PM

      • Bacon cheeseburgers. Christmas. No one wants to be Jewish after having a taste (literally) of gentileness.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 3, 2015 at 1:01 AM

      • Kosher pizza is usually not good tasting. It must be the cheese, and Jewish style anything.


        September 3, 2015 at 11:45 AM

      • Bacon cheeseburgers. Christmas. No one wants to be Jewish after having a taste (literally) of gentileness.

        A Lion without bacon and peperoni pizza is an unhappy Lion.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 3, 2015 at 11:08 PM

    • The Catholicification of the GOP (and the Establishment American Right in general) is really fascinating. You look at the top presidential candidates (Bush, Rubio, Christie, Santorum), you look at the right-wing Supreme Court judges, you look at the editors of National Review, you even look at some of the main people over at Fox — Catholic, Catholic, Catholic.

      Though I think some of BTDT’s analysis above is correct, it’s important to realize that the Catholic vote has still been basically split 50-50 over the last couple of presidential elections, making it a relatively competitive community. But the elite leadership has been completely taken over. I think it’s because Catholicism has come to seem like the only intelligent, intellectual form of Christianity (a lot of elite GOPers are Catholic converts). But we’ll see if Francis succeeds in ruining the brand.


      September 2, 2015 at 11:27 AM

      • Even at the local level, at least here, the GOP is dominated by Catholics. You wouldn’t know it, because it’s so low key. I am a convert and I see these people at my church.

        Mrs Stitch

        September 2, 2015 at 4:47 PM

      • As an outsider to Catholicism, aside from the liberation theology period, Catholics seem less driven by the one-upsmanship moral preening so characteristic of Puritanism and present now in the puritan analog political correctness. Although I do know some wildly vocal and liberal Catholics and there is always the Berrigan brothers so maybe it’s a stupid theory.


        September 2, 2015 at 4:59 PM

    • ” Some of the Northern ones {Episcopal Churches] are whacko left-wing but a lot of the ones in the South are still very traditional, with many shades in between.”

      Some in my family went to a southern Episcopal church. It was “traditional” in the sense that this particular congregation still opposed gay marriage but that’s just notional since unlike with evangelicals, local congregations don’t own their own facilities, so they have to go along with whatever the national church says or get the boot from their facilities. , At one time that had an out lesbian and an unwed mother as I imagine Episcopal will eventually just give up trying to be a church and just admit they are a half way house to atheism.

      Mike Street Station

      September 2, 2015 at 3:46 PM

      • They believe in a Universalist God, and that the Old Testament was written by human beings who reflect the unscientific superstitions and prejudices of ancient times rather than the literal word of God.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 2, 2015 at 4:02 PM

      • Episcopalian Southerners are still liberal compared to other Southern Protestant denominations. Leftists John Meacham of Newsweek and Howell Raines of the New York Times are Southern Episcopalians.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 2, 2015 at 11:04 PM

      • I imagine Episcopal will eventually just give up trying to be a church and just admit they are a half way house to atheism.

        My anecdotal impression, from having known a couple of Episcopal div school students, is that the church attracts upwardly mobile evangelical converts who want to adopt socially acceptable liberal positions while remaining nominally Christian. They’re sincere believers, in their own way, but they’ll lose their kids to secularism.

        Ivy League Prole

        September 3, 2015 at 10:12 AM

    • At this same time more and more Wasp elites left the Republican Party and joined forces with Jewish elites within the Democratic Party

      Most of what you wrote is correct except that WASPs had already become liberal, pro-Communist Democrats or liberal Republicans by the end of FDR’s regime. It was early 20th century and New Deal progressive WASPs who Harvardized ethnic whites. And it’s this political model that ethnic white elites still follow no matter how much secular Jews, Cuomos, Pelosis, Kennedys bang on about their tenuous hold to their ethnic heritage.

      Ethnic whites didn’t become a majority of the progressive establishment until the early 1970s, by which time progressive WASPs had already finished building most of the New Deal and Great Society statist infrastructure.

      Even by the 1930s, the best the Republicans could come up with to lead the party were pre-Rockefeller Rockefeller Republicans such as Alf Landon:

      Landon respected and admired Roosevelt and accepted much of the New Deal but objected that it was hostile to business and involved too much waste and inefficiency. Late in the campaign, Landon accused Roosevelt of corruption – that is, of acquiring so much power that he was subverting the Constitution. Landon said:

      In 1961, Landon urged the U.S. to join the European Common Market.[1] In November 1962, when he was asked to describe his political philosophy, Landon said: “I would say practical progressive, which means that the Republican party or any political party has got to recognize the problems of a growing and complex industrial civilization. And I don’t think the Republican party is really wide awake to that.”[1] Later in the 1960s, Landon backed President Lyndon Johnson on Medicare and other Great Society programs.

      In his novel, Mammonart, he suggested that Christianity was a religion that favored the rich and promoted a drop of standards. He was against it.[45]

      The Undiscovered Jew

      September 2, 2015 at 11:21 PM

  9. Two of the bigger names over there, Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowry, are non-Ivies.


    September 1, 2015 at 9:45 PM

  10. To back up what I’m saying:

    National Review used to publish a guide of best colleges. Its not searchable online but I remember most of the colleges were small obscure schools no one has ever heard of.

    Their offices are at
    215 Lexington Avenue Manhattan

    William F Buckley was a Yale snob who recruited interns from best schools: David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Charles Krauthammer, etc.


    September 1, 2015 at 9:55 PM

    • Buckley was not a snob. That’s just a sloppy miscalculation by those who made no effort to understand him. His most famousine line was, “I’d rather be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston phonebook than by the faculty of Harvard College.” Hillary is a snob. You think she has any staffers from Iowa State?


      September 2, 2015 at 12:49 AM

      • Buckley was indeed a snob, it’s just that he was also a contrarian, so his snobbery sounded different than that of other snobs. But it looked the same. Joe Sobran’s later writing provides numerous anecdotes.

        Shriner's Convention

        September 2, 2015 at 12:11 PM

      • Huma is an unremarkable GWU grad.


        September 2, 2015 at 2:33 PM

      • Buckley sounded like a parody of a snob, like Mr Howell from Gilligan’s island or Mr Moody from Lucy Show.


        September 2, 2015 at 3:59 PM

  11. College is important, avoiding STDs and finding a good spouse is more important. Many Establishment Right types will agree, so I credit them with that. Actually, I don’t know any “Establishment RIght” guys in real life, but pre-internet, the general tone of advice for men in NR – be a real man as much as you can – was uncommonly pure gold (to name some names others might remember, a few of them still alive and kicking, de Toledano, the effete but non-uxorious and happily married Buckley, the over-intense Sobran before he lost his reasoning powers, the European Royalists, Bruce Lee’s nemesis Darbyshire,Nixon’s friends, Goldwater’s friends, Churchill’s friends, Reagan’s friends, ex-OSS guys, David Niven, Florence King, Mal, even liberal paycheck collectors like John Simon and Guy Davenport, and a few others). Obviously, advice for women is another topic.

    howitzer daniel

    September 1, 2015 at 10:00 PM

    • I never got the point of the John Simon movie reviews nor Florence King. There was nothing conservative about them.


      September 1, 2015 at 11:45 PM

      • Florence King was pretty funny. She’s also a non practicing lesbian who wrote bodice ripper novels under another name.


        September 2, 2015 at 7:00 PM

      • Hermes, maybe you are right, the funny thing is that for the first ten years or so I subscribed to or bought National Review the thought never crossed my mind that anyone writing there was not conservative. I was clueless, sort of like my friends’ daughters who have no idea that something like one in five of the guys in boy bands they adore are not all that heterosexual. Anyway, John Simon was (and is) amusing and well-informed on most of the things he wrote about, but of course, like most people, the proverbial idiot on many real issues. Lot – I didn’t know that, what is the other name Florence King uses? Not that I would ever read a bodice ripper, it just would be nice to know what kind of name she would think up.

        howitzer daniel

        September 2, 2015 at 9:16 PM

      • howitzer daniel, it wasn’t that they were not conservative as in liberal or anti-conservative. There just wasn’t anything particularly conservative about them. Florence King wrote these cynical humor pieces (and yeah, she was an out lesbian,) and John Simon wrote, well, just film reviews. Not that those things don’t have their place in society, but National Review was supposed to be America’s flagship conservative magazine, dedicated to “standing athwart history yelling stop,” and those features just didn’t seem to have anything to do with that.


        September 2, 2015 at 11:36 PM

    • The elite universities occupy what has been called the “commanding heights of culture.” Most leftwing ideas of the last 100 years from the New Deal to gay rights were originally incubated in the elite universities. From there the ideas filter down to the media, judiciary, and elite professions and become dominant.

      When Conservatives boycott elite schools they cede the high culture to the Left.


      September 1, 2015 at 11:56 PM

  12. This is a bit aspie of me, but I used to subscribe to National Review, and it irks me when people call it “The National Review.” There’s no “the.” The name of the magazine is just “National Review.”


    September 1, 2015 at 10:02 PM

  13. Let’s be honest- “establishment” Republicans are weak sauce little girls, who will be stomped on by the tough liberal stormtroopers. Liberals take what they want, and they raise hell and they scream and they destroy people’s lives, no matter who it is, to get what they want.

    Either you can resign yourself to submission or death, or you can fight these people tooth and nail.

    Playing nice is Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney and all these other cuckservative loser men, asking, practically BEGGING to be destroyed by the liberal juggernaut.
    Trump is an alpha male, he is the Beowulf to the liberal degenerate Grendel.

    You can be Beowulf, or nothing.

    Every year is more theft, more immigration, more destruction of society, more attacks on the status and security of white males and white families and all kinds of virtuous behavior. Even Christian charity has been subverted so transplant foreign muslim immigrants into our nicest cities, to send daughters to Africa to get raped.

    It’s completely ridiculous and it NEEDS to be called out. It BEGS to be called out. Giving these Grendels tacit permission is pure cowardice. Jeb Bush, supposedly part of this great conservative dynasty from a preppy WASP family, all about that YALE thing and SKULL AND BONES, these people are LOSERS, the strength of their bloodlines are GONE. These people are no strong defenders of western civilization. Jeb speaks SPANISH, his wife is an INDIAN. These people are beneath contempt.


    September 1, 2015 at 11:29 PM

  14. You had me at “The Establishment Right is very dishonest.” No more need be said.

    National Review hasn’t been conservative since… I don’t know, 2000 at the latest.


    September 2, 2015 at 8:02 AM

  15. Conservatism is now prole. Until it can recapture the status it used to have our elites will continue to avoid and undermine it. This will continue until there is a major war or catastrophe in which Western Civilization has no other choice but to reassert itself and reclaim its dominance. I suspect that the psychological reason why so many ultra-conservatives seem to secretly want a race war or middle eastern Armageddon is because they instinctively know that those are the only circumstances in which a truly conservative revolution could take place.


    September 2, 2015 at 9:58 AM

    • It’s been a while since conservatives had any elite status. Never in my lifetime. The best they can hope for, I think, is power and the growth of more middle class media outlets (like Britain’s DailyMail).

      Once the political Left moved from a movement focused on dividing whites by class based on economic issues and moved more towards a coalition of the elites and the lowers (including blacks) against the middle it became pretty hard for the Right to claim elite status. You can’t be anti-elite and elite at the same time.


      September 2, 2015 at 12:51 PM

  16. The journalism industry is in a very strange and fast-shifting place right now, and the job situation is difficult but complicated.

    I think it’s still relatively easy for hard-working j-school grads to get jobs as reporters, so long as they’re willing to live in the middle of nowhere and spend years doing cat-in-a-tree stories. I actually know a few people from college who moved to really rural cities in obscure states to take no-questions-asked jobs as editor-in-chief of some tiny local rag. In theory, enough time doing this sort of thing can get you jobs at bigger city papers or TV stations. To a large extent, hard news reporting is still regarded as a craft or a trade, and is hired based on technical proficiency, not creativity or status or anything like that. If you’ve ever been to a press conference, or even seen one on TV — not for the president, but maybe some sheriff after someone is murdered or something — you’ll see a lot of proley white men or dumpy women taking notes or holding microphones.

    But because people like us, the readers of this blog, are obsessed with politics, we tend to overemphasize political journalism, particularly political commentary journalism, which is a very different beast. That does indeed seem to be a realm in which elite status, Ivy education, and little to no formal training is rewarded. The National Review Charles CW Cooke seems like a good example of that; who is he? He’s just some smug-voiced Oxford grad who has learned to write in a sort of florid Buckley-esque style and has some very strong, provocative opinions. He never did cat-in-tree stories I can guarantee, but he still gets to be a major talking-head in his 20s because he’s doing a different kind of journalism and thus had to pass a different kind of test.


    September 2, 2015 at 11:40 AM

    • After college I hung out for a while on the periphery of NYC-DC movement conservative circles- think Manhattan Institute, AEI, National Review, etc. I would go out to a bar and shoot the shit with the twenty-somethings who were just getting their feet in the door, writing for the websites and occasionally getting stuff in print. For the most part they were intelligent and articulate, but I realized after a while that debating them about some political issue was just like arguing with my family members around the dinner table. They didn’t have any more deep wisdom than most well-educated people- they just had more practice at packaging ideas into plausible-sounding talking points.


      It all sounds amusingly obvious now, but it was definitely a revelation at the time. I’ve never taken any of the talking heads and columnists so seriously since then.

      Summa Theologica

      September 2, 2015 at 5:08 PM

      • You’re absolutely right. I mean, I was reading a long comment threat on one of Lion’s posts the other day, and it really struck me — half these people could easily be columnists at any major newspaper. Just as articulate, insightful, interesting, etc.

        Blogging really hurt opinion journalism because it exposed how easy it is. So today’s columnists/pundits are expected to be celebrities — good at public speaking, good at television, physically attractive, etc. because without all that “value add” it’s hard to justify why they deserve a salary.

        In fairness, though, a lot of newspapers/websites/magazines these days don’t pay opinion writers.


        September 2, 2015 at 8:20 PM

  17. O/T – Lion – I’ll be heading down to a high prole area of Kingston, NY, in the Hudson Valley, coming from Montreal. Talking about a reverse commute.

    I’m quite surprise to find that this area votes more Democratic than Staten Island, which means, high proles are more likely to lean lefty than righty.


    September 2, 2015 at 12:38 PM

    • How much of that D vote comes from high proles rather than NAM Section 8 tenants, though?

      Not a rhetorical question — I’d be curious to know the answer. I daydream occasionally about buying a vacation home in Kingston, since the city proper (not the adjacent yuppified country towns) is pretty cheap and has beautiful old architecture with easy access to the Catskills. But the “Newburghification” of the city by underclass tenants pushed out of NYC seems like a real possibility.

      Ivy League Prole

      September 3, 2015 at 10:41 AM

      • I just never understood the allure of living in NYC, for the average person, who shoves themselves in a box, paying more for what it’s worth. Granted, everybody wants amenities at their fingertips and reside in proximity to their workplace.

        The crowding of NYC, from transplants, many of whom are from uninspiring towns, is a testament to Meriprolestan’s lack of civilization and 3rd world status. Brooklyn is infested with flyover carpetbaggers.


        September 3, 2015 at 12:21 PM

      • All true, but what does that have to do with Kingston?

        Ivy League Prole

        September 3, 2015 at 6:30 PM

    • It relates to your discussion of transplants pushing existing tenants out of NYC, because they inflate the housing market. They then move on to cheaper areas, and the gentrification process starts again.


      September 4, 2015 at 9:33 AM

  18. Lion, among Ivies, how do you evaluate Cornell, U Penn, Brown?

    How does a graduate degree from an Ivy fit into your social analysis?



    September 2, 2015 at 4:43 PM

    • The greater Ivies are Harvard, Princeton, Yale.

      The middle Ivies are Columbia and Penn.

      The lesser Ivies are Dartmouth, Brown and Cornell.

      The lesser Ivies are equivalent to the top-three liberal arts colleges: Williams, Amherst and Swarthmore.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 2, 2015 at 5:32 PM

      • You should really switch Penn and Dartmouth on your list.


        September 2, 2015 at 5:49 PM

      • @Renault – don’t underestimate the power of Wharton


        September 2, 2015 at 8:36 PM

      • That is correct. UPenn is a low tier Ivy, not in the mid range. Furthermore, it is often confused with Penn State, when people say they have attended Penn.


        September 3, 2015 at 10:12 AM

      • Donald Trump when to Penn.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 3, 2015 at 11:20 AM

      • FWIW, I think of Brown in particular as being the least “Ivy” of the Ivies and closer to a SWPL liberal arts school like Swarthmore or Oberlin. How many Wall Street or Washington elites come out of Brown?

        The only public figure I can think of off the top of my head who went to Brown is Bobby Jindal, and I suspect that’s a case of an upwardly mobile immigrant not getting into HYP and deciding that any Ivy is better than no Ivy.

        Ivy League Prole

        September 3, 2015 at 10:52 AM

      • Thanks.


        September 3, 2015 at 2:09 PM

      • @JS

        Only retards confuse Penn with Penn State, so it doesn’t matter.

        @Ivy League Prole

        Ted Turner and JFK Jr are Brown alumni, FWIW


        September 3, 2015 at 7:42 PM

      • Which is a good reason not to attend UPenn, because nimwits think of the state school more than the Ivy League, when someone mentions “Penn”.


        September 4, 2015 at 9:25 AM

      • Brown was the first school I heard of that had absolutely no general ed requirements. So you could get through with no math or science or expository writing class or anything that gives below-average students grief. Then it turned out that many schools went that route in the 70s, I guess. Sheesh. Like not having to take the bar exam..just think how ill educated our overlords are who went to school in that era.

        Mrs Stitch

        September 5, 2015 at 3:28 PM

  19. The System has taken the Ivies. I wouldn’t call them schools unless in the sense of schools of fish. The really shocking takeaway from the so-called “elite” we see on the lying eye of newz is the unbridled ignorance and pedantic sophistry these dweebs like Billary and Jeb and Romney have in loaves. Their stupid repetition of party lines would be funny if this were a Marx Bros movie, but the idea that well-educated adults could be so mindless and drone on so dully seems like some body-snatcher or conspiratorial film.
    The idea that these mindless drones could ever possess leadership is quickly belied by the crushing downward spiral the economy and country has taken so recently. Any idea of a slow decline like Rome is quickly dispelled by a daily perusal of disastrous economic numbers like the Wall Street implosion that is now taking place. These placeholding schools like the Ivies depend on the system for survival and when the system collapses these diplomas may as well be coasters at a roadside diner at that point.
    Those small conservative colleges still educate their students in real course like Western Civilization and Philosophy. Those dried up Ivies are bedregged by fake degrees in crap like wimmens studies and racebaiting excuse-athons. When the country implodes, which you’re seeing now, these fools who wasted their youth at those stuffy overblown saunas of hot air and breathless pedantics will find little interest in their future employment prospects. The collapse is here, and system organs like Ivy League Sophistry will wither quickly on the vine without the support the system gives them now…

    Joshua Sinistar

    September 2, 2015 at 5:06 PM

    • You’re lucky that rifleman doesn’t reply to your post. American Collapse is one thing s(he) doesn’t want to hear.

      Jesuit Colleges are filled with normal middle class students, not the upper middle class strivers or wealthy hobnobs that one finds in the Ivies or the avant garde degenerates (Hipsters) at the numerous ultra-liberal schools.


      September 3, 2015 at 3:14 PM

  20. Ironic how bleeding heart SWPLs praise praise diversity and 3rd world immigration, yet send their kids to private school or strive to live in ‘good’ school districts with few NAMs. They then complain about the high cost of living then move to a cheaper “up and coming whitetopia” only to continue the cycle of decay and gentrification. SWPLs love to hate on LA, but imagine if LA had a similar race distribution as the 1960s, I bet LA would be so much better and few Angelenos would flock elsewhere.


    September 3, 2015 at 4:32 AM

    • Yes, many of them migrate to college towns in the Rockies and then “complain” about the lack of diversity. They came for the backpacking, of course, and not for the demographics…right…It looks like HUD is going to fix this “problem” for us anyway.

      Mrs Stitch

      September 5, 2015 at 3:32 PM

  21. The Roman Church, with its banned books (abolished only in 1966), was no friend of Western Civilization.


    September 4, 2015 at 6:15 AM

  22. Law school is the perfect example of dishonesty in education. The bimodal salary of lawyers has not been a “forever” phenomenon. It has emerged in the last 40-50 years as the debt load of students at law schools (esp. elite law schools but others as well) has soared. The legal academy shifted from practical, vocational instruction to more abstract “academic” instruction. This attracted the EXACT WRONG type to law school: conformist grinders. Why? Because they are perfect in BIGLAW. BIGLAW services wealthy clients. BIGLAW partners ride associates like nothing else, and the people who are easy to ride and extract value from are who…conformist grinders; and no, most of them will not make partner. Most of them will wash out after about 5-6 years to an in-house counsel gig — which is a terrible job.

    Many people who are not grind-y and conform-y enough (but who went to law school for the money anyway) wash out faster and find themselves confronting a harsh reality: they have zero skills that make for revenue generation in the real world and their job opportunities absent those skills are zero. Worse still, many realize that, upon learning what the profession actually is, they hate it (similar to BIGLAW).

    Lion picks up the first part: it is deceptive, it is bad, and the opportunities and market are not what you are led to believe. But there’s more to it. The fact that people still parrot “the only way to be successful is to get in to BIGLAW” is a crock of shit. Go there! It’s hell! Don’t do it for the money!. The reason that line is parroted is just another bit of propaganda: serving the wealthy is the only way forward. There is IN FACT an UNDERSUPPLY of lawyers for middle-income individuals (no, not “ambulance chasing”). A lawyer, to serve their proper function in a democracy cannot be conformist. Instead, they must have a keen sense of reality past their particulars. And they must be willing to take on substantial risk for a client who has been wronged. And they can’t do it for the money.

    Just a salient example of how the real defects (that is to say, ‘the people’ exercising the powers allotted them) in our democracy are covered up by propaganda.


    September 4, 2015 at 2:51 PM

    • “There is IN FACT an UNDERSUPPLY of lawyers for middle-income individuals”

      There is no such “fact.” The marginal value of legal services is less, to “middle-income” than the income that people are willing to accept in order to provide such services. That’s not an undersupply. Just as there’s no “undersupply” of fresh vegetables in poor neighborhoods.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 4, 2015 at 4:32 PM

      • There is no such “fact.” The marginal value of legal services is less, to “middle-income” than the income that people are willing to accept in order to provide such services.

        because a) law school and the media generally has fed the wrong image of what a lawyer is to would-be lawyers, b) middle-income earners have been told all their lives that lawyers are terrible and no good for them (even though their betters whom they worship are flanked by lawyers), and c) economic conditions have deteriorated to where a middle-income individual could desperately need the help, and the eventual outcome would be worth that second mortgage or outright sale of the house, but they are afraid and dissuaded by having to take such a large risk to get what is theirs with the possibility of being even worse-off.

        The marginal value of legal services is less, to “middle-income” than the income that people are willing to accept in order to provide such services.

        Most people must learn to provide such services to thrive as/is: most don’t go to BIGLAW. The problem is that they do not understand how to generate income (mixed contingent models come to mind) while doing so because law school does not prepare them to do so. Many wash out (unsurprising because their ‘education’ has not prepared them for anything) and have to find employment elsewhere (a shame).


        September 4, 2015 at 5:20 PM

  23. I’ve calculated the compared value of law school to have a chance to clerk at the supreme court, compared to the feeding schools (22 JD)and to the main schools of law (150).

    –> Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Chicago are the only one effective feeders with a bid advantage for Yale.

    If you go to Yale, you have 54 times more chances than other JD alumni to clerk at the supreme court and 8 times more chances than student from top 22 top feeding schools.

    If you go to Stanford, Harvard, Chicago and Virginia, you have respectively 23, 22, 15 and 8 more chances of being elected than other JD students and 3, 3, 2 and equal times more than other feeding schools.

    Columbia, Northwestern, Duke, Berkeley and Georgia give you the 5 times more chances as average JD graduate (and halve you chance compare to top22 JD).

    Other 12 schools, neither help nor hirt your chances compare to average JD, and divide them by 4 compared top top 22JD.

    For all the other schools (128), they give you almost no chance to be selected.

    Feeding schools All JD

    Yale * 8 *54
    Harvard & Stanford *3 *22
    Chicago *2 *15
    Virginia *1 *8
    &Duke&Berkeley&Georgia -0,5 *5

    Other 12 feeding schools -0,2 *1

    Bruno from Paris, France.

    September 5, 2015 at 5:24 AM

  24. Georgia owes it mostly to Clarence Thomas ….

    Bruno from Paris, France.

    September 5, 2015 at 5:28 AM

  25. Raw data is as follows :

    University. Total number of Clerk 12 years. 1 year JD promotion Size.

    Harvard University 101 575
    Yale University 89 200
    Stanford University 33 175
    University of Chicago 25 200
    University of Virginia 25 375
    Columbia University 16 425
    New York University 14 475
    Michigan, Ann Arbor 11 375
    Georgetown University 10 675
    Northwestern University 9 250
    Berkeley 9 300
    Duke University 7 200
    George Washington U 7 550
    University of Georgia 6 200
    University of Texas, Austin 6 400
    University of Pennsylvania 5 250
    Brigham Young University 3 150
    Cornell University 2 200
    University of California, LA 2 325
    University of Minnesota 2 250
    University of Notre Dame 2 175
    Vanderbilt University 2 200

    Total 386 6925

    Bruno from Paris, France.

    September 5, 2015 at 5:35 AM

  26. Yes, and in terms of traditional T14 ranking :
    – 4% of Yale become supreme court clerks (1 for 25),
    – 2% of HS (1 in 50)
    – 0,5% for T14-T3 (1 for 200),
    – 0,16% for T22-T14 (1 for 600)
    – and next to impossible for the others (less than 1 for 10 000 JD).

    Bruno from Paris, France.

    September 6, 2015 at 4:04 AM

  27. And then it pays. For example, the firm Kellog Huber (abovethelaw data) pays 330K welcome bonus for those kids and starting base salary is 225K for first two years, and 275K after, with big bonuses on top of that.

    For public service&Judiciary, Yale is the best option, for private practice, Columbia is the one, if you don’t know Harvard and Stanford are the best one.

    If you look at the evolution of Stanford figures since 10 years, it will be probably the best law school in around 10 years time.

    Bruno from Paris, France.

    September 6, 2015 at 4:35 AM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: