Posted on 12/13/2021 7:39:38 AM PST by Salman
The slow and often comical decline of Official Conservatism™ starting somewhere in the Bush years has offered many insights into what has gone wrong since the middle of the last century. It is as if the tide is slowing going out, revealing many things that had previously been hidden under the waterline. Or, as Warren Buffett would say it, the tide has gone out and we now see who was swimming naked.
An example of this phenomenon is a piece by New York Times columnist David Brooks in The Atlantic in which he bemoans the state of conservatism. This is becoming a staple of The Atlantic. Two weeks ago, they gave the sanctimonious poseur David French the chance to whine about the “new right’s strange and dangerous cult of toughness.”
In the case of Brooks, he is doing the dramatic-exit act. This is when someone who is about to be escorted out of the party declares she is leaving and makes a big scene on the way out the door. In the case of Brooks, he is stomping off long after everyone at the party forgot he was still there. The only people who think Brooks is right-wing are his imaginary friends he uses in his columns. His sandwich-poor high school dropout friend will be crushed by news of his departure.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at takimag.com ...
Wow! I can’t remember the last time I saw Viking Kitties thanks
We are currently living under an oligarchy. An oligarchy that refuses to identify itself or admit that it is running the show. The Constitution gave us this oligarchy. Would you prefer a leader who you knew, one whose head you knew the whereabouts of so that it could be guillotined when necessary? Or do you prefer the kabuki show that is currently driving our nation in a clown car over the cliff?
you did well.
https://archive.org/details/FriedmanMiltonRoseFreeToChooseAPersonalStatement
Ha ha, me too!
I have a friend, conservative in general, but listens to NPR during her drive.
...she was CONVINCED Kyle killed black people - wouldn’t believe otherwise.
You can smell the elitism on NPR. If you broadcast the most biased narrative in a calm, slow, monotone voice then people seem to believe that you’re a rational centrist adult. SMH.
David Brooks? FULL STOP.
This article is 100% deceitful, since it uses NON-CONSERVATIVES in order to attack conservatism.
When Mitt Romney called himself a "severe conservative", we as conservatives laughed our butts off. Taki's took him seriously and believed him.
Taki's apparently believes Jeb "Please Clap" Bush is a conservative. He also cites George Will. What an insult. It's so insulting.
What a bunch of losers. They're even dumber than the progressives are. That's why they've got all of about 30 readers. Why does anybody take this trash seriously?
Conservatism is the solution to the problem. That has not changed.
NPR is just the calm inner voice of the leftist monsters.
I have to disagree with a point you make: That “the Constitution gave us this oligarchy”.
An Oligarchy is a Rule by a Group of People. A Constitutional Republic is the Rule of Laws.
I agree we are living under an oligarchy. I agree they will not identify themselves.
But it was humans who broke our Constitutionally passed and agreed upon laws who “gave” us this oligarchy. Not the Constitution.
Our beloved and remarkable Constitution is, and has been for some time, on its way to being the equivalent of the Soviet Constitution. And it is is our former countrymen who have defiled and broken it.
I say former, because I do not look at them as my countrymen any longer. I have long viewed them as Domestic Enemies of the Constitution. And there are a lot of them on “our side” now.
Agreed. Yet somehow that's proof that conservatism is dying? That's what the article is peddling. It's fake news. Taki's wants to smear us with a guy we despise, David Brooks.
That doesn't work.
I was trying to remember her screen name. Thanks.
Hers was the opus of the century.
That was the best one yet.
I prefer to think of "toughness" as a positive thing, and more like what Jordan Peterson outlines in this part of an interview he had where he talks about how men should strive to be "dangerous", which totally befuddles the interviewer, but I know exactly what he means. (The Link below will take you right to the part of the interview where he discusses it with John Stossel, but the entire interview is magnificent)
That’s not even close to what Freedman advocated.
I’m no longer interested in RINO conceptions of conservatism.
Here is my ideology: I am in favor of what helps my friends and family survive and prosper.
Being involved in endless wars for the benefit of globalists is not on my list of things I favor. Neither is CRT, anti-white “diversity” measures, the LGBTQ agenda, and quite a few other things.
Call it radical right Trumpism, or whatever. I have no interest in “kinder and gentler” conservatives.
Indeed it was Biden, and he peed in the water.
The worst example of “toxic masculinity” is in the rap, hip-hop, and gang world, but the left skips over that and refers to ordinary men as expressing “toxic masculinity” in the form of things like “man-splaining” and “man-spreading,” recent inventions of the left. But the real toxic stuff gets a pass.
I heard him speak on two occasions and was lucky enough to have dinner with him twice. I was a grad student at the time and my advisor was a close friend with Friedman. On one of those occasions, my advisor, Friedmand, and three of their friends joined us for dinner. My advisor and I were the only ones at the table who were not Nobel Laureates. I was so intimidated I don’t think I said more that a dozen words the entire evening. BTW, Friedman’s philosophy is nowhere near what who_would_fardels_bear suggests.
The final neo-con found a new host.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.