Category Archives: Celebrity

Conservatism Or Celebrity Driven Cretinism?

Celebrity, Conservatism, Old Right, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Republicans

Were American conservatism alive and well in media and on the idiot’s lantern (the teli), Dr. Paul Gottfried (and not the next sexy girl or “girly-boy” with chipmunk voices and talking points) would be its voice:

“… What clearly differentiated the conservative movement of bygone years from what has taken its place was a willingness to express sharp internal disagreement and to defend conflicting positions with passion and high learning. This is not to say that the conservative movement tolerated all dissent. It featured one dogma that no member of the inner circle was allowed to dispute: anti-Communism and as a corollary, a vigorous struggle against the Soviets as the leading Communist adversary. But otherwise there was remarkably open debate, and those who participated in it received no conceivable earthly reward, such as lucrative book contracts, invitations to appear on Fox as an all-star or a column in the Washington Post. Being conservative back then was about standing one’s ground not only against the Left but also against other self-described conservatives; and the warrior took positions entirely out of principle.”

“Today conservative celebrities often seem obsessively concerned about positioning themselves in a way that allows them to advance their careers. This came to mind while I was looking at Jonah Goldberg’s Suicide of the West, a sprawling collection of mainstream political views for which the author picked the title of a very contentious book written by James Burnham, a giant of the post-World War II American Right. I doubt that there’s even a single page in Burnham’s book, first published in 1964, which would not enrage today’s thought police. Burnham spoke critically about human rights rhetoric and argued that the Civil Rights Revolution, which had only begun then, would lead to more, not less, racial discord. As I now read over Burnham’s views of an earlier era, it seems that I’m looking at something that arrived from a different planet.”

“Goldberg and Burnham grew up in very different cultures, which may help explain why Goldberg’s opinions often seem to have come out of left field. He defends government-enforced affirmative action for blacks, even while counterfactually depicting himself as a libertarian. Moreover, Goldberg “thinks” but never shows that accelerated immigration from Third World countries is helping to raise the living standards of American workers. But let me resist the impulse to be overly critical. Goldberg is trying to make it in a conservative movement that is entirely different from the one that Burnham helped shape.”

“In the 1960s there was no conservative media or massive donor base that rewarded conservative journalists with TV appearances and raised them to national celebrity. William F. Buckley was an exception to this rule, but I don’t remember any other self-proclaimed conservative whom one got to see very often on TV. The present conservative movement requires its stars to accept certain consensus positions that all nice people are supposed to hold, e.g., never speaking out against gay marriage or “moderate” feminism. Although the same stars hope to market themselves as “conservatives,” they also feel obliged to engage in virtue-signaling, for example, by attacking white racism and praising the civil rights revolution almost ritualistically. On November 27, Laura Ingraham spent a large part of her evening program on Fox gushing with joy over the forthcoming wedding of Prince Harry and actress Meghan Markle. When a black guest asked Laura if she noticed that Meghan was part black, she feigned offense that someone would even bring up that subject. Fox-Insider tried to make it appear that Laura bested her guest by exclaiming “Must we put our racial hangups on the happy couple?” Needless to say, the guest had figured out the real motive for Laura’s weird outburst of joy. …”

… READ THE REST. The complete column, “A Conservatism of Principle” by Paul Gottfried, is on American Thinker.

UPDATED (6/13): A New Kind Of Bi-Partisan Non-thinking

Celebrity, Conservatism, Democrats, Left-Liberalism, Political Philosophy

Wikipedia calls Candace Owens an “American conservative commentator, and activist.

I call Samantha Bee a smarmy, left-liberal—one among many—who purports to do comedy.

Yet the aforementioned Owens calls Bee a “liberal thinker.” (I believe that such a pronouncement was made on Martha MacCallum’s “The Story,” or on another of those interchangeable programs.)

The above is a new kind of non-thinking.

So is the self-explanatory Samantha-Bee contretemps below:

Bee came under fire for calling Ivanka Trump a cunt. “You know, Ivanka, that’s a beautiful photo of you and your child,” Bee said as the photo flashed onto the screen, “but let me just say, one mother to another: Do something about your dad’s immigration practices, you feckless cunt! He listens to you!”

The moment faced harsh criticism, both from the White House, which called her statement “vile and vicious,” and from some on the left, who argued that calling women “cunts” reduces them to their genitalia and is a slur that’s meant to teach women that their bodies are disgusting and shameful. (Bee also received praise from others on the left, who argued that cunt is just a word and that the real issue is Donald Trump’s immigration practices.) In the wake of the backlash, Bee tweeted an apology to both Ivanka Trump and her viewers, saying, “I crossed a line, and I deeply regret it.”

UPDATE (6/13):

ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE IS Chris Cuomo, part of CNN’s thought-police enforcement. Here he goes after Republican Corey Stewart, who’s for the working man, by… calling Stewart a white supremacist and a racist. Is that’s all the filthy libs have?

UPDATED: Thanks, POTUS, For Breaking-Up The Annual Correspondents’ Circle Jerk. AGAIN.

Celebrity, Donald Trump, Ethics, Journalism, Left-Liberalism, Media

Last year, the column, “Thanks, POTUS, For Breaking Up The Annual Correspondent’s Circle Jerk,” was featured on the Daily Caller. It’s as relevant as ever. Nothing has changed about the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner. This year, you can read it on IlanaMercer.com:

As a newly elected president, Donald Trump was quick to take one of Washington’s institutional pillars down a peg. By snubbing the 2017 annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner (WHCD), the president deflated what should have been more appropriately called the Sycophants’ Supper. Would that it was the last such supper. For now, the POTUS’s slap to this gathering of sycophants this past weekend will have to do.

Like nothing else, the annual Correspondents’ Dinner is a mark of a corrupt politics. It’s a sickening specter, where some of the most pretentious, worthless people in the country—in politics, journalism and entertainment—convene to revel in their ability to petition and curry favor with one another, usually to the detriment of the rest of us in Rome’s provinces.

Those gathered at the Annual Correspondents’ Dinner, or its Christmas party, are not the country’s natural aristocracy, but its authentic Idiocracy. No matter how poor their predictive powers, no matter how many times they get it wrong—in war and in peace—the presstitutes always find time for this orgy of self-praise …

… READ THE REST OF “Thanks, POTUS, For Breaking Up The Annual Correspondent’s Circle Jerk.

UPDATED:

“Knock it; you got to get that baby out of there.” “Comedian” #MichelleWolf on doing abortion “right.” Fine. You’re pro-choice. But must you rejoice in abortion? Pathetic female.
One smart quip in the filth spewed by Michelle Wolf at the White House Correspondents Dinner is about Rachel Maddow: “She’s the Peter Pan of news, but instead of never growing old, she never gets to the point.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJlWGO5XHPk

Bill Gates Advocates Higher Taxes, While Famoulsy Using His Charitable Foundation As A Tax Haven Of Sorts

Business, Celebrity, Taxation, Technology

What a so-and-so! Bill Gates, like Messrs. Buffett, Zuckerberg and Musk, shovel their “fortunes into a charitable foundation,” which “has the happy side-effect of reducing tax bills, too—meaning that billionaires’ schemes can leave poorer taxpayers to fill in the gaps in public spending.”—The Economist, “Billionaires and the Falcon Heavy.”

“He’s learned the art of virtue-signaling hypocrisy from his bridge buddy,” mocks investor Clifford Asness.

Microsoft founder and billionaire … Gates says he should pay more in taxes and that the government should require other superwealthy people like him to contribute “significantly higher” amounts.
“I need to pay higher taxes,” Gates, who is worth over $90 billion, said in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Sunday.
“I’ve paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else, but the government should require the people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes,” he said.

“Billionaire Bill Gates says he should pay ‘significantly higher’ taxes.”