By Question Diversity (the pseudonym of the Countenance Blogmeister!)
I have written here several times very recently on this subject matter that the real meaning of "standing athwart history and yelling stop" and the raison d'etre of Bill Buckley's career was to purge soi disant conservatism of any and every element that may offend Jews, so that enough New York Jews would become conservative, and force the liberal Jews to tolerate conservatism, such that conservatism could get a fair hearing in the national media which New York Jews predominate, and therefore, since the national media have heavy sway over national public policy, conservatism could be a credible national governing ideology. IOW, Buckley identified the national media as the choke point for Federal government policy, and in turn identified New York Jews as the choke point for the national media, so Buckley in turn appointed himself as the choke point for conservatism.
If one happened to like the agenda of what was left of conservatism after Buckley's many purges, then it was a good thing. But overall, it was bad for the country.
However, that alone doesn't answer why Buckley also purged Jewish anti-war figures like Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. That in turn means my explanation above is valid, but incomplete. What it also means is that Buckley had a parallel and just-as-important motivation for his purges: Bouncing out of conservatism anyone who offended the military-industrial complex. As, even to this day, lamestream conservative media sources are dependent on either direct or indirect funding from defense contractors.
And we see how powerful the MIC is -- Everyone is supposed to be mad over this Ben Rhodes controversy, exposing how Obama lied to the diaper dandies that pass themselves off as the Washington press corps, in order to get the Iran deal done. I'm not mad, because I know that all of Obama's lies would not have mattered, because there were not 67 Senate votes to ratify any Iran deal Obama would have negotiated. It was only because of the Corker bill, which inverted the treaty ratification process, that it was “ratified” at all. And the only reason the Corker bill was passed, in spite of much red team bloviation that the Iran deal was so horrible, was because the MIC had visions of sugarplums dancing in their heads because they envisioned Tehran going on a $150 billion shopping spree after the deal unfroze their ’79 assets. And as far as lobbying presence goes, the MIC will eat AIPAC’s lunch eight days out of seven every week, if they happen to be opponents, and usually, they are not, except on this one matter. And that in turn solved another mystery for me – AIPAC isn't that powerful, if it didn't exist, American Federal politicians and most of the others would still be as pro-Israel as they are. But AIPAC and the MIC are usually on the same side of matters, MIC does all the heavy lifting, and carry whatever it is to victory, but AIPAC will take the credit. Like I said, we see who wields the real big stick in the rare instances when they're on opposing sides of the ledger.