Category Archives: Conservatism

Making America’s Kids Great Again

Conservatism, Critique, Ethics, Etiquette, Family, Gender

A change of pace for a change is “Making America’s Kids Great Again,” now on The Daily Caller. An excerpt:

… True-blue cultural traditionalism doesn’t deify kids. Deification of The Child is the hallmark of an infantile—perhaps even an immoral—society, because inverting the natural order will often result in great social ill.

“In America,” observed Oscar Wilde, “the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience.”

In China, on the other hand, they’re inclined to consider a youth-obsessed society such as ours a silly society. The standard inquiry, I am told, made by Taiwanese engineers about their American counterparts in hardware engineering is, “How many grey hairs and no-hairs are in the group?” Unlike their youth-worshiping American colleagues, these wise Confucians reason that the presence of “grey hairs and no-hairs” in the collaborating high-tech team bodes better for the project. …

… Read the rest. “Making America’s Kids Great Again” is now on The Daily Caller. Share and Like.

And consider this familiar vignette, by way of an example: Today at Costco (that place would be perfect if it banned women), a mother and her young son straddled a counter I wanted to access. I waited patiently, my cart parked out of the way to allow others easy access. But there Miss Mom stood, oblivious to every other shopper, focused on teaching her brat consumerism. When I used to take my little girl to the local supermarket in South Africa, I taught her awareness not of the products, although there was some of that (and a lot of calculating the change we were owned from a note). But mainly, my daughter learned civility, social skills. If an elderly lady dropped something, the little girl was to pick it up. She was not to yell her demands out loud, although we’d always have a treat. She was to learn to make way, allow others access, say “excuse me,” if she bumped somebody or wanted a person to give way, and generally show awareness of her social milieu. Today, moms impart nothing but that the kid is the center of the universe, there to satisfy his contrived curiosity, his insatiable wants; do his label reading and list making at deafening decibels; get in everybody’s way, and generally impose himself on other shoppers.

UPDATED (1/9): The Unbearable Banality Of Fox News (Tucker Carlson Excepted)

America, Conservatism, Intelligence, Media, Politics, Pop-Culture, Republicans

“Tocqueville in the 19th century, and Solzhenitsyn in the 20th, noted that conformity of thought is powerfully prevalent among Americans.” Thus, the possibility that a lonely voice telling an unwanted, original truth might be heard on Fox News is small.

With this in mind, I couldn’t resist bringing you the “mind-blowing” Fox headlines for December 22, 2016, the kind of insights that are off-the-charts brilliant (cynicism alert):

“Germany’s Refugee Policy Has Been a ‘Complete Disaster.'” [You don’t say!]

“Gutfeld Slams ‘Divisive, Alienating’ YouTuber Who Claimed Racism on Plane.” [Yawn.]

Meghan McCain, one of the dumbest women on TV: “‘I’m So Blown Away’ That Some Dems Want a 3rd Hillary Run.”

“‘Russia Didn’t Elect Trump, America Did'” [OMG!]

Prepare for the clincher: “‘Tolerance Is One-Sided’ on the Left.” [The truly brilliant Christopher Hitchens must be tossing in his grave. His brilliance has finally been bested.]

Mediocrity.

UPDATE (1/9):

NEW COLUMN: ‘It’s Murder-By-Muslim Immigrant, Stupid’

Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, Constitution, IMMIGRATION, Islam

“It’s Murder-By-Muslim Immigrant, Stupid” is the current column, now on Constitution.com. An excerpt:

Can we cut the cr-p, kids? Forgive my language, but, as Ecclesiastes teaches, there’s a time for everything. The time to cuss is now.

“Radical Islamic terrorism”: He has to be able to say it! This, preach conservative talking heads, is the acid test for electing the next American president.

Is this convoluted concept one you can even remember?

“Radical Islamic terrorism” is like the LGBTQ acronym, it’s a mouthful. It’s unmemorable, unintuitive and does not accurately describe the vile men and women who menace us in our American, English and European homelands.

“Radical Islamic terrorist” is, very plainly, wrong.

Language mediates behavior. In order to properly respond to these vipers among us who elect to kill us despite our kindness toward them, stateside, we do indeed need to properly describe them.

To be vested in linguistic accuracy is to be vested in the truth. The closer language cleaves to reality, the greater the likelihood that correct, and corrective, action will follow.

Certainly the term of choice must reflect reality, not ideology, Right or Left. Why so? If we don’t describe exactly who these killers are, we’ll be unable to eject them from our midst.

“ISIS” is not attacking us; certain Muslim immigrants are. The Islamic State simply inspires them the way progressive rock guitarist Yngwie Malmsteen might move me.

The more abstract the expert Idiocracy gets in defining our problems, the more removed will be their solutions—removed from solutions that are the legitimate purview of limited government. You and I will be forced to pay for their elaborate schemes.

So don’t be fooled.

ISIS and an abstract ideology called “radical Islamic terrorism”—a redundancy, if ever there was one, since Islam is radical—are not attacking us. Men and women upon whom we’ve conferred the right to live among us are.

These are individuals who are part of us, not part of ISIS. ISIS is happy they kill us. It’s pleased to continue providing inspiration, even training. But the ephemeral ISIS did not send them to kill us. We invited them here in the idiotic believe that they were like us.

These Muslim killers are Americans, Europeans and Englishmen. We’ve made them so. …

… Read the rest. “It’s Murder-By-Muslim Immigrant, Stupid” is now on Constitution.com.

“It’s Murder-By-Muslim Immigrant, Stupid” is on YouTube. Subscribe. This shy and retiring writer promises to get better at it..

‘Hillbilly Elegy’: Why Liberals & Faux Conservatives Converge About This Book

Conservatism, Donald Trump, Left-Liberalism, Political Correctness, Race

“Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis” is a culturally compliant account of poor, white America. Its thesis approaches not at all the one advanced (well in advance) in a chapter of “The Trump Revolution”: “Trump’s Invisible Poor Army’s Waiting On The Ropes.”

The politically proper utterances of its eloquent and smart author illustrate that you can write a national bestseller to the resounding approval of left-liberals, libertarians, neoconservatives and other excuse-for-conservatives provided your thesis allows a convergence over agreeable story lines.

This storytelling must sport major lacunae—mainly about the racial and ethnic dispossession of poor whites—to pass muster with all these factions. (Today, the author of “Hillbilly Elegy” could be heard relating to the MSNBC gendarme of PC how poor whites still had some white privilege to fall back on, when compared to poor blacks. Into The Cannibal’s Pot demonstrate that it is the EXACT opposite.)

When encountering the perennial nonsense of a self-styled conservative at The American Conservative, I’m reminded of how I miss the ornery but astute Lawrence Auster. The American Conservative was his self-imposed beat; he used to eviscerate its non-thinkers. Oh, I already said that in “Why I Miss Lawrence Auster, RIP,” where I noted how,

Brilliantly did the late Larry Auster dissect the demise of Russel Kirk’s conservatism at The American Conservative (TAC) magazine. Division of labor being part of a natural intellectual order that arises, Auster would have likely left it to me to point out the pimped intellectual principles this AC “writer” evinces in her meandering Mandela entry, in which “Madiba” is contrasted, in a manner, with George Washington. (Compare that AC crap with “Mandela Mum About Systematic Murder Of Whites.” You can’t!)
Auster was at his rhetorical best when deconstructing the “typically shapeless pieces”—or “weird and solipsistic” was another of his wonderful coinages—that this unthinking “conservative” crowd disgorged. About the American Conservative’s pipsqueak writers, Mr. Auster wrote with the studied contempt they deserve.

Here’s an Auster excerpt, which I hope will stay online. Writes the late Larry:

The founding editor of The American Conservative (known here as The Paleostinian Conservative), Scott McConnell, who has twice endorsed Obama for president yet continues to call himself a conservative, has written a typically weird and solipsistic article about me in which, among other things, he cluelessly calls me a European-style pagan fascist like Julius Evola and dismisses my work as a specimen of “radical right-wing disillusion with post-millennial America.” Because McConnell is a thoroughly emotion-driven, negative, and reactive personality, he sees me in the same light. He is incapable of grasping that I am someone who argues for standards based on truth and the good, and evaluates society according to those standards. That is not “disillusionment.” That is moral and intellectual judgment.
Also, Mencius Moldbug has a typically shapeless piece on me in which he pays me extravagant compliments which have precisely zero content. I defy anyone to say what Moldbug’s 2,600 word article means.
I’d like to write full responses to the two, but lack the energy right now. My purpose would not be to pursue the subject of myself, but to illustrate a “conservative” mindset and writing style that have become disturbingly dominant in certain quarters, as people of approximately conservative disposition have become so alienated from contemporary reality that they have given up on making sense of the world themselves, or on seeking a better and truer way. All they desire is to express their sense of superiority to the existing order of things, and they do this by spinning out whatever nonsense they feel like. And if they spin out the nonsense with enough verbal energy and pseudo-conceptual flair, they will find a devoted readership who feel that they share the writer’s superiority. It is very decadent.

Anyhow, the thesis of “Hillbilly Elegy” is sufficiently opaque and politically correct to  skirt the Big Lies and The real Truth.

In case anyone is listening to me, I would recommend a scholarly alternative, not so much for its perspective, but for the richness of the data: “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010,” by Charles Murray.