National Review
reviews and complaints

I would strongly oppose the opinion that Mr Lowry somehow contributed to the old good National Review. Unfortunately, he discarded Bill Buckley's vision. When he replaced Buckley, he removed all anti-communist content from the magazine, being blind like most Conservatives to the fact that it was not the end. NR rejected even coverage of the most crucial book on Senator McCarthy written by a nestor of the Conservative movement Stan Evans. Mr. Lowry was an idiot who could not recognize the value of this book and a coward fearing controversy.

Yes, Mr. Lowry has been proud, egotistic, and arrogant.

One piece of evidence was the withdrawal of Whittaker Chambers' name from NR by The Chambers family. The reason for it was not only the badly failed choice of the winner (NR Institute Award) but NR's conceit. Indeed, the educational part of the NR mission, which was critically important for Buckley, was abandoned by Mr Lowry. It is not a secret that he lost subscribers, and NR became just a newsletter, losing its leading position in the Conservative movement.

But what is even worse is that NR resorted to lies and deceptions. It hides the fact subscribers' data is now being sent to some unknown firm (in some leaking hut) somewhere in The Philippines. Yes, your data, if you leave it for NR, is now being sold (?) there.

It is yet another sign of arrogance.

If you happen to ask for a refund, you will be waiting for weeks and get the same arrogant response. Yes, Mr. Lowry made himself rich, paying himself enormous salaries from the endowment preserved by Mr. Buckley for the Conservative Movement. But unfortunately, he killed old, good National Review. Yes, it fits semi-illiterate dolls like former Fox stars, but it completely fails the mission intended by Mr. Buckley, Chambers, and the brilliant leadership that prepared the intellectual climate for the collapse of Communism. Mr. Lowry prepared for a moral and intellectual disaster called MAGA. Reversal, a drastic shift motivated by Mr Lowry's HUGE EGO, resulted in this catastrophe. Mr. Lowry should refund National Review by returning most of the money he appropriated from Buckely Endowment, being fired, and the next person with understanding (if there is someone) being appointed.

I been reading National Review for a while now and I gotta say, it's a pretty good source for political news. They got some smart folks writing for them and they ain't afraid to speak their minds. I know some folks might not agree with everything they say, but that's what makes it interesting.

One thing I like about National Review is that they don't just focus on the big headlines. They dig deep into the issues and give you some real analysis. They ain't just regurgitating what everyone else is saying. They got their own take on things.

Now, I ain't gonna lie, sometimes their writing can be a little dense. They use some big words and fancy phrases that I gotta look up. But hey, that's just me. Maybe I ain't as smart as them National Review folks.

But overall, I think National Review is a solid source for political news. They ain't afraid to take a stand and they give you some real analysis. If you're looking for something more than just the same old talking points, give National Review a try.

So, I was trying to check out National Review's website and read one of their articles, but it didn't go too well. As soon as I started reading, ads started popping up all over the place. And let me tell you, these ads were not easy to close. I tried clicking the little "x" in the corner, but it just wouldn't go away. It was super frustrating and distracting, and I couldn't focus on the article at all.

Honestly, I was pretty disappointed. I had heard good things about National Review and was hoping to get some insightful commentary on current events. But with all these ads in the way, it was impossible to get anything out of it. I ended up just closing the tab and moving on to something else.

Overall, I don't think I'll be visiting National Review again anytime soon. It's just not worth the hassle of dealing with all those annoying ads. I'll stick to other news sources that don't bombard me with pop-ups every two seconds.

National Review Online is a website that has a lot of mixed feelings surrounding it. While it claims to be a place for open discussion and free speech, it seems that only certain voices are allowed to be heard. The discussion boards are filled with small-minded and vulgar individuals who seem to relish in throwing insults at those who disagree with them. These so-called "conservatives" are protected by moderators who censor any rebuttals in kind.

It's a shame that a website that claims to be a platform for conservative ideas is so quick to silence those who don't toe the line. It seems that NRO's version of conservatism is to be a good little victim and take whatever insults are thrown your way without fighting back. If you dare to speak out against the trolls, you risk being deleted.

As someone who values free speech, it's disheartening to see a website that claims to champion it practice such excessive speech suppression. If you're looking for a place to have open and honest discussions about conservative ideas, NRO may not be the place for you.

I'm a person who leans towards the right or the middle when it comes to political views, depending on the issue at hand. I recently came across the National Review website and was intrigued to see what they had to offer.

However, I must say that I found the setup of the site to be a bit confusing. It reminded me of the way left-wing fake news networks are set up, with a lot of deception and lack of transparency. For example, there was no clear information on how to create an account, and logging in only gave me a helper image that made it seem like I had a physical account number. While I have nothing to hide, I found it odd that there was no clear registration process or information on how to access the comment section. It felt like the site was trying to regulate the comments and control the perceived opinion, just like a fake news site would do.

That being said, the actual media and artwork on the site looked great. I did come across some articles that I agreed with in terms of opinion and motive. However, I couldn't help but feel like the site was conducting itself in a deceptive manner. It's not truly conservative if it's not an open forum, with no deception, and able to withstand open scrutiny.

For instance, I read an article about a judge ordering Trump not to release evidence in a classified documents case. While I agreed with the article's stance, I couldn't help but feel like the site was trying to push a certain narrative. The same goes for an article about former AG Barr slamming a defiant nine-year-old Trump. Again, I agreed with the article's opinion, but it felt like the site was trying to control the narrative.

Overall, I think the National Review website has some good content, but the lack of transparency and clear registration process left me feeling uneasy. I hope they can improve in these areas in the future.