ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, September 29, 2016

The petty evil of William F. Buckley

Anonymous Conservative exposes the thought policeman of the conservative establishment to have been a malignant narcissist:
Jonah Goldberg recently said it was time to John Birch the Alt-right. Good luck with that, numbnuts, as an economic apocalypse approaches and the nation finds itself overrun with your Establishment-approved, religion-of-peace amigos. You’ll be lucky to one day escape the mob that is coming yourself. I look on this piece as my get out of jail free card, should I ever have the misfortune to be captured in Jonah’s vicinity.

So I am free to discuss things like this openly now. If the Cuckservative Establishment wants to attack the Alt-right, lets take a look at their saintly standard bearer through the lens of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Our source material will be the piece written by his son in the New York Times. At the time I read it, I was repulsed by what appears to be a case of pretty severe Malignant Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Here I will explain why, after quotes from the article.

First is the picture of him. Notice how despite his youth, you can still see the glassy, disconnected eyes. And the sneer of contempt, almost to the point of a growl with an upcurled lip, which is manifest on the left side of his face, and masked on the right side. That facial asymmetry always seems to hold when I see something aberrant. Faces are handed, and the left side almost never hides the demons within as well as the right.

Now the article.

Pup’s self-medicating was, I’d venture, a chemical extension of the control he asserted over every other aspect of his life. The term “control freak” is pejorative. Put it this way: Few great men — and I use the term precisely, for Pup was a great man — do not assert total control over their domains…

He was invariably the sunniest and most pleasant creature in the room. The moods of those in attendance upon him — Mum’s, mainly — did not always match his.

A TV remote control in the hands of an autocrat of the entertainment room becomes a “Star Trek” phaser set on stun. He and Mum might be watching “Murder on the Orient Express” with a half-dozen guests when, just as a key plot point was being introduced, suddenly the screen would fill with a documentary on Che Guevara or the Tuareg nomads of the Sahara…

There, the three of us would eat one of Julian the cook’s delicious meals on trays and watch a movie. I say “a movie,” but “movies” would be more accurate, since several minutes in, without bothering to say, “Let’s watch something else,” he’d simply change the channel. One day, when I was out of town and called to check in, Danny reported, with a somewhat-strained chuckle, “We watched parts of five movies last night…”

Once or twice during the convalescence, I became so splutteringly frustrated after the fourth or fifth channel change that I silently stormed out of the room.

I know what Buckley was doing because I have seen this mind in action. That storming out was what Buckley wanted. Think about it. He was watching those shows. Was he not drawn into them? Was his interest alone not piqued to see the climactic resolution unfold? Was his boredom climaxing at the exact moment everyone else’s interest was maximally invested?

The satisfaction he felt when everyone else was enraged at that critical moment was more pleasurable to him than seeing the plot twists revealed.... Buckley was not a great man. He was, like all narcissists, an insecure, mentally damaged coward, elevated to his position by an establishment that saw him as a useful idiot who would happily suppress the most fierce advocates for freedom, from John Birch to Ayn Rand.
I never, ever liked Buckley's writing. There was always something that was distinctly off about it to me. There was never any depth or substance to it; there is more meat to a single chapter of Sam Huntington than there is in Buckley's entire oeuvre. His columns never seemed to hit the target, and his novels were meandering and pointless. Yes, he was intelligent and influential, but always in the most shallow and superficial manner. It is not even remotely surprising to me that the establishment he constructed and policed has not long survived his death. In a different situation, he would have been a dictator, and probably have met with much the same fate as a Mussolini.

Read the whole thing. The incident with the boat at Christmas makes it very clear that there was definitely something seriously psychologically wrong with the man. He was basically the real-life version of Ricky Bobby's father in Talladega Nights, if the father had punched out the waitress and burned down the Applebee's instead of just mouthing off to her and being thrown out.

AC explains the driving motivation of the intelligent malignant narcissist:  This is the cerebral narcissist’s dream – tangible proof which they can handle in their brain, that everyone else is an idiot, and they are the smart one. It relieves the great insecurity which drives them unrelentingly to try and one-up everyone else.

This is why I don't worry about to those who can admit that they have failed, admit that they are wrong, and don't feel the need to inappropriately flaunt their intelligence at all times, but keep a very wary eye on those who are never wrong, always win, and claim even the most abject defeat to be a victory in disguise. They're not all malignant narcissists, they may only be garden-variety Gamma secret kings, but in no circumstances can any of them be trusted in any way.

Notice how often Christopher Buckley tried to reason with his father, to absolutely no avail. That's an unwinnable scenario with malignant narcissists, it is the Kobayashi Maru. Don't argue with them, don't try to correct them, don't try to fix things for them, don't enable them in any way, just keep your distance, keep them out of your life, and leave them to their delusional hellholes.

Labels: , ,

104 Comments:

Anonymous Faceless September 29, 2016 11:22 AM  

I questioned how great the "dean of conservatism" really was when I first heard the Rush Limbaugh story about how Rush was accepted into the fold.

There was no wringer; there was no orthodoxy test. It wasn't a question about what he believed; it wasn't a question about policy positions; it was whether he was a pleasant addition to a weekend party at the Buckley's.

Blogger Durandel Almiras September 29, 2016 11:27 AM  

So Buckley was the original Alt-Retard.

Blogger CM September 29, 2016 11:33 AM  

It is clear I glommed onto conservatism with my own ideas of what it was without knowng how it had been defined by those who came before.

I half expect I have done the same with nationalism, but I have ideas of how the world should be and these words appeared to fit.

Is there any philosophical thought on nationalism that appropriately defines it outside historical observation and the Bible?

Anonymous Golden Josh September 29, 2016 11:39 AM  

The last page pretty much exposes conservatives for what they are

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/143749-us-elections-apocalypse-upon-the-horizon/&page=15

Anonymous christeline September 29, 2016 11:42 AM  

"There was never any depth or substance to it"

This is where you stop reading, shake your head, and move on. What an idiotic statement.

Anonymous Broken Arrow September 29, 2016 11:42 AM  

No wonder the Conservative Movement failed. The current leaders without disorders are typically Gammas or low Deltas.

Perhaps that was always the point though by the people who cut their paycheck.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 29, 2016 11:43 AM  

This article also explains quite a lot about Chris Buckley, starting with his support for Obama.

It also explains much about WFB's repeated purging of "conservatism" starting with the Birchers and concluding with the shunning of Sobran; Buckley had to be the center of "conservatism", so any competitors needed to go.

It's rather astounding how many seriously damaged people became leaders of one sort or another in the latter half of the 20th century.

Anonymous andyknoor September 29, 2016 11:45 AM  

From what I've seen of his debates he seems like a straight man imitating gay mannerisms. And he would never get to the point. He would circle around it but would never actually manage to make a point.

Anonymous User September 29, 2016 11:50 AM  

"...keep a very wary eye on those who are never wrong, always win, and claim even the most abject defeat to be a victory in disguise."

Does this apply to Trump?

Blogger James Dixon September 29, 2016 11:53 AM  

> This is where you stop reading, shake your head, and move on. What an idiotic statement.

Let me guess, you're a big fan of George Will too, right?

Blogger James Dixon September 29, 2016 11:55 AM  

> Does this apply to Trump?

Trump admits when he realizes he was wrong. He just doesn't apologize for it. And he's always looking for a way for defeat to make him stronger.

Anonymous mature craig September 29, 2016 11:59 AM  

semi related Joseph Farah has an interesting article aout the last 30 years of Republican / Conservatism in govt...I am beginning to question whats up with the Bush family

Blogger Arrgh September 29, 2016 12:02 PM  

If you want to point out someone's evil you probably need more than "was a dick with the remote".

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 29, 2016 12:05 PM  

@12
Maybe you should try reading the entire article before commenting on it?

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr September 29, 2016 12:09 PM  

Buckley always struck me as a Grade-A snob, a typical product of the post-war Ivy League. And I maintain that his influence on conservatism was primarily as a gatekeeper. Ideologically, Robert Heinlein had more influence.

It really highlights the opening for the Alt-Right. Old School Conservatism was defined by what it stood against...and when the Soviet Empire collapsed, much of that "against" purpose vanished. We need a Right that stands FOR something.

Anonymous Bob Just September 29, 2016 12:10 PM  

@12 Possibly, but a testable hypothesis nonetheless.

NPD or mis/undiagnosed Bipolarity

"The manic phase of Bipolar I Disorder is often misdiagnosed as Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Bipolar patients in the manic phase exhibit many of the signs and symptoms of pathological narcissism - hyperactivity, self-centeredness, lack of empathy, and control freakery."

Blogger dc.sunsets September 29, 2016 12:11 PM  

This is hardly a surprise.

Finding an honorable man among the pedophiles, sociopaths, pederasts and such who are allowed to "join the Big Boy's Club" is on the same level as finding a 20 year old female virgin in a Bangkok whorehouse.

If you don't have an exploitable weakness you are not allowed above a certain ceiling. This is true in politics, in the pundit class and any other area where gatekeepers above you control your access to advancement (including if the gatekeepers control the press, the newsletters, or other forms/lists/awards/credentials required to move up.)

They're all scum. They all went to Epstein's Island (or would have, if invited.) They're all demons.

Blogger VD September 29, 2016 12:14 PM  

If you want to point out someone's evil you probably need more than "was a dick with the remote".

There is considerably more. But the remote alone is a telling glimpse into a deranged psychology.

Anonymous CarpeOro September 29, 2016 12:15 PM  

Arrgh wrote:If you want to point out someone's evil you probably need more than "was a dick with the remote".

Maybe... but if your looking for more actually reading the link would be a point of wisdom. Before, you know, commenting on something.

Blogger S1AL September 29, 2016 12:16 PM  

"That facial asymmetry always seems to hold when I see something aberrant. Faces are handed, and the left side almost never hides the demons within as well as the right."

Going to indulge my inner sperg for a moment. It is a well-documented observation that the left side of the human face is more emotionally expressive than the right. There's nothing sinister, aberrant, demonic, or otherwise unusual about it. This is like commenting that people most often use their right hands.

Blogger Johnny September 29, 2016 12:18 PM  

James Dixon wrote:> Does this apply to Trump?

Trump admits when he realizes he was wrong. He just doesn't apologize for it. And he's always looking for a way for defeat to make him stronger.


Trump is an odd personality and I can't get a good take on him. On the face of it he is a somewhat flamboyant narcissist, both vain and in your face about it. But then he does not carry all the characteristics. He is easily self critical, that is why he is still in the president race. And he seems to form close associations with other people. There isn't this sense of isolation that comes from an excess of vanity.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 29, 2016 12:20 PM  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a man who is a dick to his kid, just for the sake of being a dick to someone for whom he is responsible and over whom he holds great power, is a very special kind of asshole.

People who torment the weak are too repugnant for polite discussion.

Blogger Mr. Naron September 29, 2016 12:22 PM  

Two things:

1. The best thing he wrote was the first thing he wrote, God and Man at Yale. It destroyed the left's pretense to academic freedom. But, yes, his novels weren't good. Red Hunter was informative--very much so, actually, but fell apart as a story.

2. The scene where he drives people nuts with the TV remote is not a good example of narcissism. It's alpha male behavior. It's his freaking TV. He paid for it. If he's bored with what's on, he gets to change the channel. Same with the boat thing. I'd be pissed. I'd resent his behavior. But aren't we all just here to entertain the alpha males?

Blogger Cataline Sergius September 29, 2016 12:25 PM  

I just saw a Netflix documentary called Best Enemies, and it was about the feud between Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal which had simmered through out the late fifties and early sixties. Culminating in their 1968 debate on ABC for the presidential primaries.

Which by the way Buckley handily lost.

The reason he lost quickly became obvious while I was watching it. Buckley always accepted the liberal paradigm and then tried to deconstruct it. It was a fundamentally lazy way of doing business that relied on his own talent and nothing else. The problem is that Buckley was the only game in town for conservatives. He set the tone and pace. And he always let the left begin by presenting their paradigm, which he accepted.

Once you accept their paradigm you have let them dictate where the battlefield will be. And that means you are better than halfway to losing the battle.


Although in that case, Buckley mostly lost the final debate by completely losing his shit on live television and snarling at Vidal, “Now listen, you queer,stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in the goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered.”

He was almost out of his chair. His own finger nearly drilling itself into the side of his head through his ear hole.

Vidal was of course, a queer. Everybody knew it and nobody who was anybody was allowed to say it. Buckley had broken the rules of his own tribe when he said it.

Vidal made no attempt whatosever to debate the issues with Buckley. He went for the narcissist's jugular as only a gay guy can.

It was entirely a personal attack from nasty start to brutal finish and Buckley never seemed to have any idea what was being done to him.

Blogger pyrrhus September 29, 2016 12:25 PM  

Buckley was CIA, even after he started NR with CIA money...classic case of entryist destroying the movement.

Blogger Robert Divinity September 29, 2016 12:25 PM  

Wow. Thanks for the link. I haven't previously read Anonymous Conservative and will make it a point to do so now.

Just a few quick observations.

I never had cared for Christopher Buckley, either, until this essay. Frankly, it seemed the fruit had not fallen far from the tree. Apparently that assessment was too harsh although the younger Buckley's Obama fetishism back in 2008 cannot be forgiven.

I take a back seat to no man in my abject hatred of William F. Buckley, Jr. One anecdote always has defined him for me. During the Vietnam War era, Buckley of course was a fierce proponent of the war. When Christopher became draft eligible, his father pulled many strings so he could avoid service. When Christopher told Buckley he would not be drafted, Buckley laughed and shared a drink with him. This story outraged me on its face, given how many young men Buckley was willing to sacrifice because he deemed them expendable (this isn't a criticism of the war itself, to be clear). Analyzed through the lens of the actions of a malignant narcissist, this episode is all the more appalling.

Buckley looked good to Christopher when he pulled those strings, and now it is obvious he laughed at those who did his bidding. There is little doubt he loathed the young men who died in that war as well.

Fuck William F. Buckley, Jr.

Thank you again, Vox.

Blogger CM September 29, 2016 12:27 PM  

It is a well-documented observation that the left side of the human face is more emotionally expressive than the right. There's nothing sinister, aberrant, demonic, or otherwise unusual about it. This is like commenting that people most often use their right hands.
----
More likely to express our inward emotion. For most who honestly express themselves in most cases, this is moot.

For the dishonest who hide their true feelings, it is a reliable window.

Blogger Ben Cohen September 29, 2016 12:30 PM  

I know this type very well. They hate you but don't want you to leave.

Keeping your distance is very important.

Anonymous Gen. Kong September 29, 2016 12:36 PM  

How sad so few saw this back when he was doing the damage. Tossing the Birchers under the bus should have been the first solid clue he was really on the other side. The question we're left with now is: How can we learn from the mistakes that were made? William F. Cuckley is but one example. How many churches and other organizations have been hijacked by his kind?

Anonymous FitzRobert September 29, 2016 12:39 PM  

Thanks for the link, Vox. Brilliant essay. There was always something about Buckley that I found off-putting, even in my blue-pill days.

Blogger Robert Divinity September 29, 2016 12:44 PM  

The question we're left with now is: How can we learn from the mistakes that were made? William F. Cuckley is but one example. How many churches and other organizations have been hijacked by his kind?

I guess for starters avoid a doy(enne) who clears his or her throat just to be annoying. As to the second half of your question, we were too focused on the communists' Long March through the institutions to notice our own doing the same damage in the name of Burke.

Blogger Revelation Means Hope September 29, 2016 12:58 PM  

The anecdote about the boat was quite revealing, he was quite willing to put everyone's life and comfort in danger to spoil the moments of happiness.

But the real revelation is how he messed up his son's graduation day. And reassures me that while I have some healthy self-regard, doing something like that is almost unthinkable to anyone I cared about, much less someone I love as much as my son.

Anonymous Sensei September 29, 2016 1:08 PM  

I have enjoyed some of Buckley's writing, but there was always a strange kind of flippancy about him. I didn't know how to define it at the time, but now I'd say it was the attitude of a man who never truly had any skin in the game. Most of the time it all seemed like an urbane and witty intellectual exercise to him, but one in which maintaining the frame was always more important than winning the fight.

OpenID boardroomal September 29, 2016 1:16 PM  

This "Analysis of Buckley-ism" that the alt right has been doing over the last year has been a problematic "red-pill moment" for me as when I finally "Turned" from Jedi to a Sith some odd 16 years ago...it was Buckley whose flag I followed to the dark side. Soon after, I became mildly aware of all the intellectual hullaboo I was proudly gobbling up, but seeing no "Wins" as troubling, but yup I would tell myself, our ideas were better and waited for next election or cultural hill that was taken. During "Bush the Younger" i pondered rather loudly that, post 9/11 he has an excellent political opportunity to absolutely seal the border, deport illegals, pass immigration laws and perhaps even a constitutional amendment if he wanted in the name of safety, security and americanism....yet, instead of that, the Neocon flies into Iraq..I convinced myself it was the right thing to do...Buckley was becoming harder to pin down at this point...he appeared to be anti-bushy..but to guarded....It was the original election of Obama and the Mormon Wax Figure of Mitt Romney which really made the power turn for me and reading more Buchnanan. However, when my thoughts turned to Buckley, in that time period, I still would just say, "They just don't listen do they?"

I had recently abandoned NRO altogether approx 8 months ago and now only tune in occassionaly to view their inane shriekings at the wind & claims to relevancy, through a red-pill "Gamma Aware" lenz. The destruction of Buckley? Whelp?..............Sheeeeeiiiittt

Anonymous Discard September 29, 2016 1:19 PM  

22. Mr Naron: Tormenting your inferiors is not alpha behavior. Being rude to guests is not alpha.

Anonymous Sam the Man September 29, 2016 1:45 PM  

I think Buckley had very little effect on the right post 1980, at least the middle class Reagan era types. Most of the folks I knew, who were not mental lightweights viewed him as a pretentious snob. At best those of us that came of age in the Reagan era viewed him as something from the past, a former lonely voice in the wilderness, archaically suited to another time after Reagan was elected.

Kind of like a Taft figure post Eisenhower's election. Taft is unless you like history a pretty much forgotten figure who fought the good fight for conservative principles back in the late 1940s.


Buckley's son's description is rather rough, does not show the father in all that good a light. I wonder if he intended it to be so, I would guess he is skilled enough wordsmith that the impression left was one he intended. The question is , was Buckley a monster or just a self absorbed achievement driven man? I say that as I have known some relatively smart driven-individuals that could be noticeably clueless about those around them. These folks can be very frustrating to be around, as they pretty much do things there own way and the only alternative you have to follow or get out of the way. Sometimes such folks can be endearing in their own way, but then again not having any such folks in my family I have not seen the destructive side of such folks.

The article and the article it was based on provide much food for thought.

Blogger VD September 29, 2016 1:53 PM  

The scene where he drives people nuts with the TV remote is not a good example of narcissism. It's alpha male behavior. It's his freaking TV. He paid for it. If he's bored with what's on, he gets to change the channel. Same with the boat thing.

You could not be more wrong. That is not alpha behavior in any way, shape or form. It's far more indicative of a Gamma with power.

Blogger VD September 29, 2016 1:54 PM  

The question is , was Buckley a monster or just a self absorbed achievement driven man? I say that as I have known some relatively smart driven-individuals that could be noticeably clueless about those around them.

He was a monster. He was the exact opposite of clueless about those around him. Everything he did was intently focused on them and their reactions. Based on those descriptions, he may have even been sociopathic.

Blogger J Van Stry September 29, 2016 1:55 PM  

Wow, just, wow.
The article itself is worth reading, as it really exposes much about narcissists and makes a lot of sense.

As an aside, a former friend of mine's wife is a complete narcissist and she now has a book out about 'how to deal with narcissists' and she runs a support group for those that have to deal with them, and when I ran into her a few months back and heard of all this, I had to resist the urge to ask her, if she had finally realized that -she- was a narcissist?

Some how, I suspect she was pointing the finger at her ex, and projecting it all on him.

Blogger J Van Stry September 29, 2016 2:01 PM  

The scene where he drives people nuts with the TV remote is not a good example of narcissism. It's alpha male behavior.

Actually no, it's not. The Alpha male does not torture his subordinates. He may pick the show, but if the others are enjoying it, he does not punish them by taking it away.
Leadership does not involve abuse or game playing or making your followers suffer.

Blogger GracieLou September 29, 2016 2:07 PM  

People confuse the personality disorder narcissism with ordinary braggadocio. Trump is a braggart, but he's not a narcissist.

The difference is; narcissists hate you. They really, really hate you.

Blogger Revelation Means Hope September 29, 2016 2:15 PM  

Here is how an Alpha does the TV thing. John Madden has a large entertainment room with at least 6 large screen televisions, with 1 main and biggest one in the front.

On NFL game days, he invites many friends over, radio personalities, sports stars, etc... He controls the remote controls. The game that he is most interested in goes up on the main screen, with the volume up. Other TVs show other games going on, so that he and the other guests can keep an eye on them. If something interesting is happening on another channel, Madden may switch the main TV screen to that channel, so that ALL may watch it together.

He provides the food that he likes, but everyone gets stuffed and all have a great time.

While Madden retains the remote control for the main screen, he is open to input from others in the room as to what is interesting, while making the final call.

And he doesn't channel surf. But then, he also managed to coach the Oakland Raiders during their outlaw era, so I guess he had a few things going for him. All without coming across as a dick.

Blogger Revelation Means Hope September 29, 2016 2:22 PM  

I wonder sometimes if Trump is using the tax returns as a distraction for the Clinton camp. Whether he reveals them or not, they don't seem to realize that most people are not that bothered by it.

Maybe they're hypersensitive after all their own scandals, like the birth certificate, the Bankster speech transcripts, Obama's academic records, and on and on. And this makes them believe that it is a sore point for the electorate.

Perhaps he is waiting for someone in the IRS to leak it, to expose how blatantly biased the IRS establishment is toward progressives.

Perhaps he will do another Rick roll to reveal his tax returns and make the MSM sit through more endorsements before tossing out his returns and saying "here they are, see, no big deal". Take a few hard ball questions that he can use to pivot to attacks on Hillary.

Anonymous Broken Arrow September 29, 2016 2:32 PM  

VD is right on about the Gammas and power. Gammas abuse their power in all sorts of petty ways, and take pleasure in "fucking with people" for no other reason than their personal enjoyment. It's why they cry about bullies so much as they want to be that bully. I've never met a Gamma who got power and didn't makes use of it in petty ways.

Since Gammas personalize everything they think that when someone with power makes a decision which personally impacts them it's because the person in charge has it out for them and is "fucking with them". I've seen this so many times in my life: a blanket rule change is interpreted as "why are they after me!?!?".

If you explain that the person making rules doesn't even know the Gamma, it makes no difference, the Alpha has it out for them. Through this distorted lens they think in part that's how leadership works and power is used.

It's arguable that Gammas are more clueless about power and leadership than women. I think they actually know what women want and deny it, but they literally don't understand leadership.

Blogger Johnny September 29, 2016 2:32 PM  

The lesson to be drawn from Buckley is that if they get anything like decent treatment they are not really on your side. At best neutral. Which brings Milo to mind. Wonderfully articulate, and in our current weird environment being a homo might be a small plus, but no want to be broad based movement needs a flaming homo is its standard bearer.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 29, 2016 2:38 PM  

Oh well, it seemed I liked WFB back in the day, but this really drives a nail in the coffin and I wonder, "What was I thinking?"

Blogger Teri September 29, 2016 2:39 PM  

Excellent article. The thing that I've really discovered about cuckservatives, this election, is how much they despise the common man. I get the feeling Trump does not. I believe he learned that respect from his father and has passed the attitude on to his sons.

Anonymous Sam the Man September 29, 2016 2:40 PM  

VD.

I got your point from the article. The more I read it the worst it got. That said I wondered, given how the son is a skilled writer, if he was not engaging in a bit of the "daddy dearest" kind of hatchet job. Because when I got done I felt very sorry for the son, if his father was like that he was a monster (the father that is).

He also paints his mother in a very unflattering light, as she is a serial liar and not a person who most would want to be around. Not the mother milk of kindness type.

That said the man is dead and while I hold no particular fondness for him, anytime you have the son of a very driven man sort of doing what he can to reduce the fathers image in history I have to wonder. Psychological defects/jealousies/resentments can inhabit more than one generation in a family. The thing that makes me suspicious of the sons account his he refers to the father in a somewhat glowing phrases, and then pretty much destroy the image of his father and his mother with what used to be called in my day "faint praise". It might all be true, but it might also be two parents who were part of an old time world with a different way of looking at life and child rearing. The son comes out looking like a long suffering martyr. Such a narrative could be presented about a mid 20th century patrician family by a few omissions: For example the X-mas story might well be about the father trying to move the ship to avoid that storm (which is acknowledged to be coming) and just being quite incompetent when it comes to sailing at night. The graduation story seems hard to fake, but I have seen stories that clearly indicate a problem with someone that fall apart when you hear both sides. That the father could induce every one else to leave without their questioning the abandonment of the son seems odd, some part of this story is missing. Which I suspect.

The father and son are at odds with regards to religion. Now I have observed Catholics and it seems to me that the father cared that the son went to church but did not directly speak to him about it implied the father cared about the son. Perhaps the father was a monster, but the man who at the end of his life seems to care about the sons beliefs does not seem to be the same man who would cruelly leave his son stranded at a graduation.

I simply do not know and in any such case, unless there are other folks who can verify that Buckley was the monster presented, reserve judgment on the man. That said your condemnation of Buckley's attack on the John Birch society does ring true, though even there it could be more of a reflection of the mid 20th century east coast patrician world view, these are the guys that allowed the English-Dutch aristocracy to be supplanted by our modern day class of rulers. They certainly did not have to allow it and there fall from power was certainly a reflection of their inner hubris/assumption of universalist values/failure to lead.

I guess in the absence of more information I am not entirely willing to embrace this narrative as presented.

Anonymous Jon Bromfield September 29, 2016 2:40 PM  

Buckley lost me when he advocated National Service for young people. No doubt for kids other than his own.

No wonder Ayn Rand despised him.

Blogger GAHCindy September 29, 2016 2:42 PM  

And what a peach the mama was, too! Yikes!

Anonymous Discard September 29, 2016 2:43 PM  

44. Johnny: The homo Ernst Rohm was useful to the NSDAP for a number of years. Until he wasn't.

Anonymous mature craig September 29, 2016 2:52 PM  

If i recall correctly he was able to play beginner to intermediate piano. Unless maybe I dreamt that

Blogger Mr. Naron September 29, 2016 2:52 PM  

Vox,

You're wrong. I could certainly be more wrong, and you know this.

Now, I only visit Alpha Game sporadically, so it's possible that I missed the part where Alphas are, to a man, imbued with a moral sensibility equal to or superior to others. Am I to take it that, unlike the rest, alphas don't have to learn morality and good manners?

Anonymous Vermithrax Pejorative September 29, 2016 2:58 PM  

This part of the essay is brilliant:

"And the sneer of contempt, almost to the point of a growl with an upcurled lip, which is manifest on the left side of his face, and masked on the right side. That facial asymmetry always seems to hold when I see something aberrant. Faces are handed, and the left side almost never hides the demons within as well as the right."

I don't want to get into this or relive it or give details. But I remember confronting someone who took part in a gang-rape. "You raped her." I said, and he replied "No she liked it. She's a slut." The right side of his face stayed still and the entire left side twitched massively - it was contorted with so many different negative emotions that I'd have trouble describing them all. I was so surprised that I repeated what I said, and he repeated what he said, and twitched again. And then again I repeated it, and the same thing happened.

I hadn't heard of 'micro-expressions' at the time. This was the mid-90's. But this was more of a macro-expression anyway. His verbal left brain was in denial about what happened and told itself a little story that made him innocent. But his right brain knew he was guilty - and half of his body convulsed in anguish every time he remembered it.

Always watch people's body language. Always.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 29, 2016 3:00 PM  

Buckley was before my time, but it's always good to solve these unsolved crimes for posterity.

Blogger haus frau September 29, 2016 3:05 PM  

@50 It's not about morality and good manners. It's about leadership. Alphas exude leadership. Petty, pointless tormenting is the opposite of leadership.

Anonymous mature craig September 29, 2016 3:15 PM  

Fascinating

Blogger Mr. Naron September 29, 2016 3:20 PM  

No, there's clearly a moral component to it.

Blogger VFM #7634 September 29, 2016 3:22 PM  

Petty, pointless tormenting is the opposite of leadership.

@haus frau
What with all these Gamma assholes getting into positions of power, I find myself wondering what the hell all the Alphas other than Donald Trump are doing to try to help matters.

Or maybe they're much rarer than even I had suspected.

Anonymous Casey September 29, 2016 3:23 PM  

Anyone who would fire Joseph Sobran had to be an asshole of the highest order.

I never gave a damn about Buckley. I couldn't stand the pretentious manner with which he presented himself so I never listened to what he had to say.

My way of assimilating information isn't perfect, but fortunately my mind is configured with a very efficient asshole detector.

Buckley was a giant economy sized example.

Anonymous Discard September 29, 2016 3:34 PM  

Mr Naron: An alpha can lead men. Leaders who abuse their followers will have followings of craven worms, not self-respecting men. Moral or not, a man who wants to lead men will recognize this and act accordingly.

Anonymous mature craig September 29, 2016 3:35 PM  

I do recall he had an article about voting statistics and education level...if remember bachelors degree more likely rwpublican than high school diploma but masters and doctorate was more likely democrat than republican

Blogger Mr. Naron September 29, 2016 3:37 PM  

I understand that leadership requires decency. But does that apply, say, to how they treat women?

Blogger scimitar September 29, 2016 3:38 PM  

Geez channel surfing is inconsiderate and a bit rude but wouldn't call it evil . Bit over-the-top I would say. I've heard a lot of great things about the man . Heard he paid for a few of his employees mortgages. After his death an endless stream of " WFB did this " and all manner of good deeds done by the guy. WFB type conservatism is obsolete but don't think I would describe the man is "evil"....

Blogger tz September 29, 2016 3:38 PM  

I find it interesting that Buckley was fast to purge fellow very orthodox Catholics like Buchanan and Sobran than to purge a single (((neo-con))).

Anonymous Toddy Cat September 29, 2016 3:43 PM  

Buckley was doubtlessly a self-centered asshole, but shitting on your Mom and Dad in public is not exactly a virtue. The apple obviously didn't fall very far from the tree when it came to Christopher Buckley.

Blogger scimitar September 29, 2016 3:43 PM  

Didn't WFB call Gore Vidal a "big queer" ?? That should win him some alt-right points , right?

Blogger VFM #7634 September 29, 2016 3:44 PM  

I find it interesting that Buckley was fast to purge fellow very orthodox Catholics like Buchanan and Sobran than to purge a single (((neo-con))).

@tz
Buckley was an obvious CINO.

Blogger VFM #7634 September 29, 2016 3:45 PM  

Didn't WFB call Gore Vidal a "big queer" ?? That should win him some alt-right points , right?

@scimitar
Not considering his other positions. That's like saying Victoria Nuland scored points with us by saying "Fuck the EU".

Anonymous Discard September 29, 2016 3:49 PM  

Mr Naron: An alpha treats his followers decently, but not necessarily anybody else. A true alpha, for example, could share the surviving virgins equitably with his men after sacking a city and killing all the males.

Blogger Cataline Sergius September 29, 2016 3:49 PM  

It's instructive to watch clips of him interacting with people.

The constant scanning for reactions is a very distinct tell for someone whose empathy is non-existent.

There is no known prolonged traumatic events from his childhood that would create a sociopath. Indicating that Buckley was possibly a born psychopath.

Blogger Cataline Sergius September 29, 2016 3:53 PM  

Didn't WFB call Gore Vidal a "big queer" ?? That should win him some alt-right points , right?

Here is the clip in question.

No, he doesn't get points for that one.

Anonymous FP September 29, 2016 3:53 PM  

Johnny wrote:James Dixon wrote:> Does this apply to Trump?

Trump admits when he realizes he was wrong. He just doesn't apologize for it. And he's always looking for a way for defeat to make him stronger.


Trump is an odd personality and I can't get a good take on him. On the face of it he is a somewhat flamboyant narcissist, both vain and in your face about it. But then he does not carry all the characteristics. He is easily self critical, that is why he is still in the president race. And he seems to form close associations with other people. There isn't this sense of isolation that comes from an excess of vanity.

About a year ago, during one of his rallies, Trump was ranting about do nothing politicians or some such when he stopped a second and said something along the lines of 'well, I guess thats me too since I'm a politician now'. That was one of the main selling points of Trump for me.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 29, 2016 4:10 PM  

Based on those descriptions, he may have even been sociopathic.

That's being kind. I'd have gone with "was." Sociopaths aren't all that rare.

Blogger Mr. Naron September 29, 2016 4:12 PM  

So, a soldier or subordinate under and alpha's command is treated fairly, but a non-entity like a conquest or an enemy, not so much?

How does that translate to, say, an office? Who is the alpha allowed to abuse? Or is there anyone?

Anonymous Fran September 29, 2016 4:13 PM  

I don't know but I think this would make a great movie!

Blogger Student in Blue September 29, 2016 4:16 PM  

How does that translate to, say, an office? Who is the alpha allowed to abuse? Or is there anyone?

Go read the million+ posts at AlphaGame.

OpenID simplytimothy September 29, 2016 4:17 PM  

Barnhardt has a useful intro to Diabolical Narcissism and related posts at her site.

I haven't read the link yet, but I liked Buckley. His Charlie Rose interviews where enjoyable and I felt nothing untoward.


Blogger Mr. Naron September 29, 2016 4:18 PM  

I'm on it.

Blogger Tom Terrific September 29, 2016 4:18 PM  

I would occasionally, o.k., rarely, watch Firing Line and invariably found it boring on a level rarely reached on public television.

Buckley would just NEVER get to the fucking point! And when he did make it, he would lean back further in his chair (I was amazed he never fell over!), look at his pen, at the other person, smile and mumble something he thought would end all debate, smile smugly and move on. The obviousness of his rightness clear to all.

And how is it that a man who spoke with his mouth so wide could still barely be understood for the mumbling?

About his articles and essays? Good God, Man! Get to the FUCKING POINT ALREADY!!

I read one of his CIA novels, the one with the pretentious blue blood as the hero. Oaks? Oaksworth? I can't remember and I can't remember the plot either. I wish we'd had amazon around back then. It would have been fun to see his rankings!

Anonymous Stickwick September 29, 2016 4:54 PM  

Buckley looked like the love child of George Soros and Michael Caine. The older Buckley got, the more he looked like Soros, especially the cold, glassy eyes.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 29, 2016 5:40 PM  

Buckley never impressed me, except with his sneering disdain for the working class, his unjustifiable high opinion of himself and his class, and his pretention to intellectual prowess he did not actually possess.

If you revere Buckley, chances are you are worthless, you've never won a political battle, and your hate ordinary Americans.

IOW, If you like Buckley, you're a cuck.

Blogger Johnny September 29, 2016 5:41 PM  

Mr. Naron wrote:So, a soldier or subordinate under and alpha's command is treated fairly, but a non-entity like a conquest or an enemy, not so much?

How does that translate to, say, an office? Who is the alpha allowed to abuse? Or is there anyone?


I don't know about the alpha male stuff, but one way of saying it is that an honest politician stays bought off. You know, doesn't back stab his supporters.

Blogger Dr. Mabuse September 29, 2016 5:45 PM  

FP @68 said "About a year ago, during one of his rallies, Trump was ranting about do nothing politicians or some such when he stopped a second and said something along the lines of 'well, I guess thats me too since I'm a politician now'. That was one of the main selling points of Trump for me."

For me, it was when he won the West Virginia primary and expansively told the people who hadn't yet voted that they didn't need to bother now. Everyone freaked out, and the message got clawed back the next day, to "We want to keep this going." But rather than showing that he was an arrogant bastard who "didn't need" the voters, it sounded to me that he was more concerned about THEM than about himself.

All this political campaigning is a lot of work, and Trump was assuming that *naturally* everyone would prefer to stay home if they could. So he was doing his best to spare them unnecessary effort. He figured their time was important, and they'd be happy to be let out of school early. I don't think he quite realized that a lot of people WANT to participate in electing him. They don't see it as a chore, they're pumped up and excited and want to be able to say that they were there and helped make it happen. But it's an innocent mistake, and I think shows that he does think about other people. No narcissist would have said that; he'd have wanted to push the vote total as high as possible, because it would count as a reflection of HIS power and charisma.

Anonymous Discard September 29, 2016 6:32 PM  

70. Mr Naron: I find your question peculiar. Do you imagine that military leaders would treat their own soldiers and the enemy equally?

Anonymous CC September 29, 2016 6:58 PM  

That article makes a lot of sense, Buckley would have had the ideal personality for an agent and entryist. Devious, loved his secret knowledge and unseen power over everyone. I've only seen a few clips of him over the years but he never really looked like he had any serious convictions just enjoyed projecting a laconic intellectualism.

I'd say his son's account is mostly true and he's even holding back a bit. He probably wants to express himself and can do it now his Dad's gone. Even then he might not even fully understand his father or why he acted the way he did. Being abandoned at your graduation is really messed up and somehow the cruelest thing. From the little I know about the behavioural disorders, narcissistic disorder is nearly the worst. These people hate themselves and feed like vampires on everyone else around them.

As for Trump, I don't think he's a narcissist, not in that way anyhow. He might have his vanity and certain material standards, but he has genuine empathy and believes in himself very strongly. He seems to have a lot of positive energy as new agey people would say. He could have slimed his way to the presidency with less personal cost, but he has spoken out for what he believes in and taken a lot of flak for it. And I can't imagine him carrying on with a TV remote like that.

So the smooth polished conservatives fighting the good fight have always just been handmaidens to their supposed enemies and misleading their followers. Characterising them with NPD like Buckley is an interesting observation, making them malignant cucks. And now here comes Trump riling a lot of people and causing the elites to shriek in fear with of his mean words and crude behaviour. But I can't help thinking of Frodo the first time he meets Aragorn:

You have frightened me several times, tonight, but never in the way that servants of the Enemy would, or so I imagine. I think one of his spies would – well, seem fairer and feel fouler, if you understand.

Blogger Robert Divinity September 29, 2016 7:36 PM  

malignant cucks

Stealing/borrowing.

Blogger GFR September 29, 2016 7:38 PM  

I'm old enough that I remember when Buckley was essentially all there was of conservatism in popular culture. I came to the US when Watergate and anti-Vietnam war hysteria dominated the MSM. The only people representing the other side were Buckley, George Will, Firing Line and the Manchester Union Leader.
.
Maybe Buckley was a dick - who cares? Napoleon was a dick, Steve Jobs was definitely a dick - but they got things done, or at least they tried.
.
If I want someone loyal who I can look up to I'll get a dog..

Anonymous mature craig September 29, 2016 8:09 PM  

He certainly didnt come across as a dick but he draw them from time to time. https://youtu.be/f1z03b1wveM

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 29, 2016 8:21 PM  

GFR wrote:The only people representing the other side were Buckley, George Will, Firing Line and the Manchester Union Leader.
The problem was, and still is, that Pat Buchanan on Firing Line and the Editorial board of the Manchester paper were the only actual Conservatives on your list.
Buckley and Will were not conservatives. Buckley was always an agent of the Globalist Left, pretending to be conservative. Will is the sort of conservative that recoils in horror at the thought of being associated with people who work for a living. As you can see in his reaction to both Trump and the alt-Right. He's a bought and paid for opposition, always willing to raise his voice mildly in polite, deferential disagreement to his (((paymasters))) losing a nickel. Not too loudly, of course, that would be crude. Unless he is calling out his own side. I remember him being apoplectic over the "Jump You Fuckers" sign at an Occupy Wall Street rally.

Blogger lyovmyshkin September 29, 2016 8:26 PM  

Could any comparisons be made regarding the rise of Bill and Milo? (Forgive me, is this an AltRetard question?)

The trouble I see with Milo today is the exact same one that is now well documented with regard to Bill and his syncretic cult. Namely, I see a lot of attempts to marginalize and purge certain sets of people and their ideas and to deflect from the core purpose of the Alt-Right - which is, as KMac so eloquently put it in his AMA, White Identity and interests.

Wouldn't it be worthwhile to ponder the consequences of co-option and dilution more seriously and give the name-calling a rest?

Blogger rcocean September 29, 2016 8:30 PM  

"There was never any depth or substance to it; there is more meat to a single chapter of Sam Huntington than there is in Buckley's entire oeuvre."

I sorta understand what you're saying. If you want philosophical, deep political insight, WFB wasn't going to give it to you.
Probably, the closest he came to that was "Up from Liberalism".

I don't want to defend WFB too much but he never claimed to be "full of substance and depth". He was product of his times and mostly interested in (1) stopping communism (2) stopping Socialism in the USA and (3) defending Christian/Catholic values.

I read Buckley in the 70s/80s and its obvious the fire went out after the collapse of the Berlin wall.

Blogger rcocean September 29, 2016 8:33 PM  

I think the real tragedy of the conservative movement isn't what Buckley did - or didn't do. Its that no one in the 80s or 90s - after WFB had been on the scene for almost 30-40 years, replaced him. Where were the "sons of Buckley" in the 80s or 90s? Its absurd that a whole movement was dominated by one man, for almost 40 years.

Blogger rcocean September 29, 2016 8:37 PM  

Last comment. I can remember reading that someone (Galbraith?) had told WFB that he should quit all his novel/column writing and TV and concentrate on writing ONE deep book about Conservatism/Politics - because that's the only thing that lasts. And WFB had agreed that was true, and that he would get around to doing that - one day.

Anonymous Discard September 29, 2016 9:53 PM  

87. rocean: The sons of Buckley? Buckley threw them all overboard and pronounced them anathema.

Anonymous Luke September 29, 2016 10:31 PM  

Back in about 1989, Buckley gave a talk at Auburn University. I attended. His top priority was hawking his idea that recent high school graduates should be forced to spend significant time "volunteering" in nursing homes for the aged on pain of not being allowed to attend college.

I managed to get the first question. I told him that his proposal was slavery, and should be resisted by liberty lovers. (Oh, the pained, passing-a-peach-pit scowl he gave.) Then, I asked him how, other than theism, his premises differed from Ayn Rand. He answered simply "fundamentally" and went on to the next questioner.

After the talk was over, he left in a closed limo, eschewing less formal talk with attendees. I lost what little respect I still had for the man after having read about how he purged conservatives for "badthink".

Anonymous Deplorable Psychedelic Cat Hair September 29, 2016 10:40 PM  

I knew next to nothing about the man before reading this post be on the fact that he did some time in CIA and was the supposed godfather of conservatism. Having said that, the man sounds like he...no, he was in absolute asshole in every sense of the word. I read the entire article by his son. Walking out on his son's graduation and leaving him to eat on his own? The thing with the boat? What his mom did to the dinner guests (she sounds like a real gem, too)?

I have never read any of his writings or seen any episodes of firing line and won't be doing so. Man sounds like a scum sucker. Having known some legends in CIA courtesy of grad school, I can say that Buckley's brief association with them too is a disgrace. *spits*

Anonymous FAILBOAT September 29, 2016 11:37 PM  

How many of the people crapping on Buckley would have cheered his infamous remark to Gore Vidal?

Blogger Dirk Manly September 30, 2016 4:03 AM  

You fail to understand... Narcissism is ALL about image. The reason Buckley responded to Gore Vidal's remark the way he did had NOTHING to do with principle and everything to do with "I can't let anyone, not even a known crazy man, call ME 'a crypto nazi'" .... even while he was doing essentially the same thing to the John Birch Society.

Blogger Shimshon September 30, 2016 5:40 AM  

He sounds like a monster. What kind of man treats his wife and children that way?

Blogger bosscauser September 30, 2016 5:49 AM  

I preferred Gore Vidal. He knew Bucko!
Though both were out of touch with human beings.

Let's go #Trump and hurry!

Blogger bosscauser September 30, 2016 5:50 AM  

I preferred Gore Vidal. He knew Bucko!
Though both were out of touch with human beings.

Let's go #Trump and hurry!

Blogger Marty Johnson September 30, 2016 11:24 AM  

The problem with the alt-right is that we (unfortunately) live in a republic and women and libfascist fags are allowed to vote. While I agree with much of what the alt-right believes, I'm more of what you punks call a cuck-servative, you will never have anywhere near a majority. If you want to actually enact any of your views into legislation you have to appeal to a broader base. We conservatives are a most likely ally, but you Cretins insist on attacking us, even when as now I support Trump, because he is better than Hillary. Might I suggest that you tone it down in your attacks against us? Or are your dicks so short you have to over-compensate?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 30, 2016 12:29 PM  

@97
Hello fellow (((Conservative))). Why do these alt-right Morons keep attacking us, in between sessions of gassing Kikes and molesting children. If those gayboys would just stop attacking us, maybe their pubic hair would grow in!

I don't understand why these stupid, sheep-shagging methhead crypto-nazis keep attacking us.

It's a mystery.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts