Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 1, 2021 15:43:28 GMT -8
It’s not wrong to be influenced by money. But, good god, it is wrong for any supposedly conservative organization to take money from Google.
That said, I will take Jonah at his word that it didn’t effect what he wrote. I think he, David French, and many others ran off the rails into what I call “Decorum Conservatism” long ago.
Listen, I don’t like Donald Trump and think he’s a demagogue and a bum. But he was better than Biden by a long shot. But I have friends (sort of ex-friends at this point) who hate Trump. And I know they hate him simply because of matters of decorum.
Good conservatives, in the mind of the Goldberg types, are above the hoi polloi. They have intellectual disagreements with those on the Left, for sure. But real gentlemen don’t take it to the point of insults or causing bad feelings. And thus, by definition, they are political eunuchs, for to actually confront the Left in important ways is always now going to mean causing a shit-storm.
Granted, there is more going on as well. Many of these people simply soften their views in order to get face time on TV. They basically suck up to the mainstream media for the money.
It’s my contention that honor is almost exclusively a male trait. I think women are viciously utilitarian, and blindly emotional. But men have the ability to do the right thing even if it’s something that is not of immediate benefit to them. Call it intellectual honesty.
I think all men know how to be honorable. But being honorable isn’t often convenient. And usually there is something that is more immediately valuable to them than honor, so honor gets set aside. But I think in the back of their minds, as least, men still know what honor is.
I see these “Decorum Conservative” types as being without much honor or intellectual honesty. I’ll agree up and down all day with them that Donald Trump is a problematic character. But we know from history that any man of action (however imperfect) is going to ruffle feathers. And he’s never going to act with the deft, faultless precision that only exists in the minds of these Decorum Conservatives who are, by definition and inclination, unsuited to face the problems of the real world because of the aversion to real conflict.
And I think their own egos make them somewhat insufferable. I think at heart they believe they are men of such goodwill that good positions and policies fall out of their mouths like crap out of a goose’s ass: automatic and plentiful. But time after time they show themselves to be in a somewhat isolated intellectual sphere that is cut off from the real world. They are pristine and above it all. However, who act in the world (however imperfectly) are vulgar, especially if they make people on the Left angry.
I’ve seen this close up from the highest sources, including Michael Reagan. This “reach across the aisle” ideology is apparently addictive to many. They just seem to want to be liked. Few want to draw a line in the sand. And it is lines in the sand that we need, not kumbaya.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 1, 2021 17:27:10 GMT -8
You are more generous than I. Dr. Johnson said something to the effect that, "only a blockhead would write without being paid." While this may be true, I think it is probably more true to say that those who write for money are generally for sale to the highest bidder. Paladin's card said, "Have gun, will travel." Most journalist types should hand out cards saying something like, "Have pen, will lie." OK, today it should be "Have computer, will lie."
I believe very few people have the talent to make a decent living pushing pieces that they actually believe in 100%. Even fewer have the intellectual honesty.
I do not agree with Glenn Greenwald on much, but he is one of those people. Jonah Goldberg is not. You might remember a conversation we had back in 2013, at the beginning of your starting Stubborn Things. We agreed that Goldberg's and most of those like him who wrote for Conservative Inc., goal was to get a cushy TV gig or nice book deal. Whether or not they believed what they wrote was secondary.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 1, 2021 17:38:23 GMT -8
I think anyone associated with National Review is liable to corruption because to stay associated you have to keep yourself in a relatively tiny box these days. I don’t think everyone’s viewpoint is for sale to the highest bidder. But goodness knows that the right has its share of media whores.
I think many others fit that description, such as Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, etc. The only ones who give off the vibe of being genuinely decent people is VDH, Dennis Prager, David Horowitz (this guy really really hates Leftists and Islamist), Mark Levin, and probably a few others whose names don’t come to mind.
But what I learned from StubbornThings is that the right is full of talking heads, posers, and just people who love dispensing word salad. But as for doing anything substantive other than giving speeches and selling books? Those people are few and far between. Even Prager, at heart, is another facet of the discontent industry, although because he is otherwise very proactive in his life, I would just say his radio show and such help pay the bills. A guy who smuggles bibles into the Soviet Union is not a poser.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 1, 2021 19:45:57 GMT -8
The moment I found out that NRO was bought by "financial interests" I knew they were compromised. I stopped reading them long before most others. I occasionally read them until their cowardly desertion of Mark Steyn in the "Hockey-Stick" case. After that, they were dead to me.
I like Prager, although I have never seen him as some type of holy man doing everything out of the kindness of his heart. That said, he is a teacher and we need all the good teachers we can get. If he makes lots of money doing this and his other ventures, I see no problems.
I am probably closest to David Horowitz in my thoughts as to the left and how we need to fight them. Unmercifully and relentlessly.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Sept 2, 2021 5:51:12 GMT -8
I am probably closest to David Horowitz in my thoughts as to the left and how we need to fight them. Unmercifully and relentlessly. DH is a bright light in a land that is turning dark, altogether to quickly. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 2, 2021 7:40:46 GMT -8
That is so true. He is a living reminder of what a real teacher used to look like. It was about instilling facts and wisdom, not turning the school experience into Disneyland.
Even beyond the Leftist garbage in the curriculum, I believe there is equal harm in turning kids into snowflakes. My last trip to an elementary school (for my nephew’s basketball game) had me eye-rolling. About every wall was covered with some “We are the world” type of kumbaya poster. I thought “Jesus H. Christ, when do these Picassos actually do some real work?” I would have been impressed if the walls were filled with mathematical expositions or even maps that showed geographic knowledge. Nope, it was all fluffy Disneyland puff. Yes, there’s a time and place for finger-painting in Kindergarten. But arguably (with “safe spaces,” and all) this Zeitgeist is still in place in college. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 2, 2021 7:48:17 GMT -8
There’s another aspect of David Frenchism that I think is essential: These people will not face just how wicked their opposition is. In their circles, such “black and white” thinking is “divisive.” They think that if everyone was so gosh-darn nice and approachable as they are, the differences would dissolve.
This is mixed with their desire to be liked. I really doubt that in the case of David French that it’s a matter of money. He just seems really dedicated to the kumbaya version of conservatism whereby we will win hearts and minds by “reaching across the aisle.” This is the very vibe that led to spending 20 years in Afghanistan for worse-than-nothing. We won few hearts and minds in any useful way.
When men are turned into squishy women, that’s not good. By no means do we want psychopathic men. But we do need strong men who have in their utility belt the idea that some enemies have to be fought rather than just talked to.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 2, 2021 8:55:53 GMT -8
In a way, that's worse than being greedy. If he truly believes this nonsense, he is mentally unfit to lead anyone and should be kept very far from any publication and position of power in conservative circles. This is a world-wide problem. Chinese don't want girly boys |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 2, 2021 9:16:32 GMT -8
Is that really a war on capitalism? It seems to me, the Chinese have been yugely successfully in dabbling in capitalism and keeping it inside a box. This would seem instead to be a war on Progressivism. And I applaud them for that. Stem the rot before it takes hold. Give your men a testosterone test before they are allowed to vote — if anyone is actually allowed to vote in that country. If you can’t hit a low note, it’s off to an Iughur camps with you. The Muslims will know what to do with these “boys.” More and more, I find myself siding with: the Communist Chinese, Putin, and the Taliban. I mean, I don’t approve of the Taliban, generally speaking, but it will be a cold day in hell before they have Drag Queen Reading Hour in an Afghani school. A strange convergence is happening. I do not, of course, cheer the death of any U.S. soldier. But there is a part of me that wishes we had our own domestic form of the Taliban (without the beards or the Islamism) that could kick the ass of the Leftists and other “nation builders” out of the country.
Many parents are coming to realize that the best thing they can do for their children is to take away their phones. Again, I'm no friend of the Commies but the above is precisely what we need to do in America. This should, of course, be left in the power of the parents. But the parents having failed so badly in this regard, I can understand why any leader would wish to step in to prevent the rot.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 2, 2021 15:29:12 GMT -8
Speaking of our discussions regarding losing friends because of political differences, Glenn Greenwald puts things is the right perspective with this statement.
He is responding to a tweet by that scumbag "Chelsea Manning."
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 2, 2021 20:43:20 GMT -8
Good quote.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 21, 2021 21:05:17 GMT -8
I agree with Tucker, this is good news. Goldberg and Haynes resign from Fox News We have been calling out Goldberg's dishonesty for years. He and Hayes are a couple of neo-con globalist types in the pockets of Wall Street who never saw a war they didn't like. They were all in on America's small wars over the last 20 years and have learned nothing during that time period. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 28, 2021 22:28:28 GMT -8
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 29, 2022 13:18:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 29, 2022 13:54:12 GMT -8
Had you not written that, I would not have made it through the first three paragraphs. Perhaps I am wrong, but given the writer's "holier-than-thou" tone, I believe I can note a whiff of hypocrisy wafting between the lines. Let's hope he doesn't become another David French, Jonah Goldberg, Steven Hayes or Bill Kristol, all of whom, at one time in the past, claimed to be true conservatives.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 29, 2022 14:39:55 GMT -8
Yes. Although some of his prescriptions seemed sensible, his presentation was too intellectualized to be of much use. Like the Jonahs of the world, it’s easy to spin a theory. But I wonder if this same fellow would condemn any effort to push back if it actually angered any of the protected groups. Goldberg once wrote eloquently against fascism. But when it came to opposing it in any practical way, no one’s methods were ever pristine enough to meet with his approval. I would have felt more confident about this guy’s prescriptions if he had presented some specific examples. We are way past the point of reforming this nation by simply quietly at home being a good dad. We need “man up” far more than we need perfect gentlemen.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 30, 2022 8:27:44 GMT -8
I re-read the piece, Mr. Flu. I think your instinct is correct. Whenever someone says we need manliness but, oh, not of the "tough-guy" burly kind, you know there is something rotten in Denmark. I'll give you my definition of manliness: + No man stands so tall as when he stoops to help a child.+ Pushing back against the assumptions of feminism. + Pushing back against workplace indoctrination into "woke" culture. + Pushing back against racial stereotypes (especially the racist "white privilege" stuff). + Treating women with respect but not automatic and total deference. + Drawing a line in the sand between right and wrong and defending that line ("right and wrong" as generally, and biblical, defined) Here the writer gives away a lot: A good man is going to defend the innocent (man or woman, adult or child), including (especially) his own family. But feminism has taken things to such a bizarre extent that it is arguable that traditional chivalry might be inappropriate and even counterproductive. If women will not protect themselves against the clear foolishness of men pretending to be women and competing in their sports, should a man step in and oppose this? In a perfect world, yes. But the problem is trying to save these idiot women from themselves. At what point does a "real man" simply protect himself and allow the idiots to bare the consequences of their sins? The elephant in the living room for anyone attempting to talk about what it is to be a real man is feminism. And Davidson's article doesn't mention it once. It's not like there is an easy and obvious answer. But unless you address the root problems (feminism and its emasculating assumptions being top of the list), you come off as a fool talking to others about how to become a real man. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 30, 2022 9:23:10 GMT -8
Another thing about manliness. It's not about sticking your finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. Defending the good is going to come with some costs. And those costs are more than worth paying.
Real men don't pick fights just to be radical individualists. But they do keep in mind that what is right is often a minority opinion. Power tends to be the organizing principle in much of our society, not what is true or right. A real man understands this and acts despite the sometimes heavy odds and the immediate social ostracizing that will come by defying groupthink.
For every real man who is willing to take on the forces of deceit and corruption there are several dozen who will do little more than write about what a real man is.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 30, 2022 15:49:39 GMT -8
We are in a war and Davidson is the type of jerk who would prefer Ashley Wilkes to Rhett Butler.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 7, 2022 16:50:48 GMT -8
National Review appears to be doubling down on its desire to self immolate. Whatever one thinks about Trump, supporting the warmonger Liz Cheney and idiot Adam Kinzinger against the Republican Conference is nothing short of an admission that NR is not a conservative publication. Perhaps it can survive on the contributions it receives from the financial types who bought it from William F. Buckley. Even Andrew McCarthy sounds to have become unbalanced. We're for Cheney and Kinzinger |
|
