Category Archives: Pseudo-intellectualism

UPDATED (12/20): America: Aphorisms On Conformity

America, Critique, Culture, Economy, FRED REED, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Intellectualism, Pseudo-intellectualism, The Establishment

In discussion, Fred Reed, Barely a Blog columnist and writer extraordinaire, offers insight that explains my overall experience:

“America has always had a strong economic back and weak cultural mind, being anti-intellectual and given to envy and resentment of the smart and cultivated.”

De Tocqueville, Mencken and others made similar observations. “Certainly Tocqueville in the 19th century, and Solzhenitsyn in the 20th, noted that conformity of thought is powerfully prevalent among Americans,” as Clyde Wilson has observed.

“A glorious commonwealth of morons,” Mencken called America. “The American moron’s mind”—this “mob-man’s” mentality—is that of a “violent nationalist and patriot,” to whom ideas are a menace, and who would always opt “to keep his Ford, even at the cost of losing the Bill of Rights.”

These are all Mencken’s words, not mine. See: “H.L. Mencken: Misfit In 21st-Century America.”

UPDATED (12/20):  This Facebook reader has the right approach. Relax and enjoy The Difference. Don’t be an Enforcer.

* Image courtesy of Picture Quotes.

Dreary Vs. Dishy: Rod Dreher’s Still As Dull As Ever And … Jealous Of Eric Metaxas (Dah)

Celebrity, Conservatism, Critique, Europe, Globalism, Iraq, Juvenal Early's Archive, Neoconservatism, Paleoconservatism, Populism, Pseudo-intellectualism

By Juvenal Early

Some time back, I did a survey of some particularly ineffective (flaccid, ILANA might say) conservative voices. It’s time to provide an update on one of them: Crunchy superstar Rod Dreher, or Dreary, as I call him, a blogger who needs no introduction—unfortunately. Evidence that there is no justice on this side of the grave: Dreary has one of the most coveted platforms on the right, plus he has a publisher ready to print whatever 90,000 words he can throw together in any given year.

Dreary spent a few months in Budapest earlier this year, and I think he should move there permanently. Or to Paris, which also seems to hold a special place in his heart. No malice or disrespect intended toward either city, holy places of the West, I would say. But Europe does wonders for Dreary’s attitude—and his opinions. He’s actually good writing about Gothic cathedrals and haute cuisine. Europe is right in his wheelhouse.

Plus, a European posting would more or less preclude him from commenting on the local scene. In America, Dreary is the apotheosis of the craven, sniveling, virtue-signaling Conservatism Inc. (Con-Ink) apparatchik.  I think we’d all be a lot happier if we never again had to read his Never-Trumpisms; or his faint and hollow praise of the Founders; or his weaselly approbation of Confederate memorial removal. Or to never again have to see him expound on race and racism in America.

He was doing very well in the land of the Magyars, and near the end of his three-month stay he enthused over Tucker Carlson, who had taken his show to Budapest. Dreary commended Tucker for courage (true) for interviewing Orban and highlighting Hungary’s common sense immigration policy. It was as good as you can expect from the old Crunchy Con.

This was early August. Dreary posted at least one long article in TAC praising Tucker’s efforts. John Derbyshire—of VDARE and “The Talk” fame—praised Dreary’s article, in his own Orban piece. Dreary saw that story reposted in Unz, liked it, and tweeted it out to all his followers, with the message “Good piece by Derb.” Subsequently, he was called out by lite-libertarian Robbie Soave for commending the work of a racist. Dreary, at first disavowed all knowledge of VDARE, claiming that he didn’t know it was a white nationalist site (it’s not, btw). Then he deleted his original tweet.

It brought to mind other times when Dreary virtue-signaled about race. He doesn’t like being associated with anyone on a SPLC list. The trouble is that anyone to the right of Rich Lowry is likely on a SPLC list, and if a conservative wants to stay off the list, he’d better start off conceding about 90% of the playing field (argument) of any given issue to his left-wing opponent.

Back in 2017, Dreary threw a real hissy fit over Pat Buchanan’s post-Charlottesville column. Pugnacious Pat (God bless him) took issue with the Left for labeling enveryone connected with Unite the Right a white supremacist. By present day standards, Pat reminded us, all of the most historically-important Americans were white supremacists. Typical for Pat, he laid out the facts and left it to the reader to decide—although he wasn’t shy about sharing his own conclusions. In this case, the Founders were great men in spite of whatever we think they might have done, and the nation they gifted to their posterity was a generous offering indeed. Read the column and see what you think.

Poor Dreary couldn’t deal with the nuance of it all. His takeaway? “Buchanan is defending white supremacy, straight up.” When I saw that “straight up,” I couldn’t help being reminded of that cutting edge mediocrity Janeane Garofalo on Keith Olbermann’s late, unlamented MSNBC show. That’s not a bad role model for Dreary to emulate, come to think of it.

Dreary, of course, like the rest of the craven horde that is Con-Ink, was quick to point and splutter when it came to Charlottesville. Whereas, Buchanan gathers facts, analyzes, and decides based on firmly-held principles, Dreary is the type to see how the wind’s blowing, then jump on the bandwagon as close to the front as he can. Thus, you had a man of principle being smeared by a drone of the hive mind.

This, of course, was wrong on so many levels. Back in 2003, when Dreary was writing for pro-war National Review, Buchanan was putting his considerable reputation on the line to co-found the American Conservative, a magazine explicitly started to provide a home for anti-war right wingers (with the assiduous exclusion of Mercer, so even that attempt wasn’t an honest reflection of the reality on the right). One of Dreary’s associates at the time, David Frum, wrote a famous article in NR condemning the likes of Buchanan as “unpatriotic conservatives.”

Later, when the Iraq war was exposed for the deceitful quagmire it was, Dreary was able to slink his way over to TAC. By then, Buchanan had left (as had Moneybags Taki), but, let’s face it, there would’ve been no TAC without Pat. Thus, I think Rod Dreher is not only a mediocre dolt, but an ingrate too.

He’s also an ad hominem hit-and-run bandit.

In October, in a particularly egregious case of the pot calling the kettle black, Dreary called out a couple of fellow religious conservatives, John Zmirak and Eric Metaxas, as Beta males, when they backed Donald Trump’s call for a Boycott of the GOP in 2022, should they nominate a lot of RINOs and Never-Trumpers. The tack Dreary took was rather odd, sort of a variation on a theme I first took notice of in a classic Seinfeld episode, “The Outing.” Seinfeld fans will remember the repeated line from that show; “I’m not gay!!!….Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

Dreary took issue with a conversation between the two men on Metaxas’s radio show. Both voiced strident opinions about Never-Trump conservatives, like the truly awful David French. I have no problem with strongly-voiced opinion, especially those I agree with. I’m sure you don’t either, otherwise you wouldn’t be here. But Dreary didn’t think they had a right to attack French, because French had been a soldier (Ooooooooo!), “a manly thing to do.”

Of the Catholic Zmirak, Dreary—in his oft-confusing style, writes:

He is a short middle-aged man with a belly as big and as soft as a beanbag. Hey, I’m not short, but I’m only two years younger than Zmirak, and I have the same belly he does. We are men who make our living writing. Unless you’re Ernest Hemingway, Norman Mailer, … it’s not especially the occupation of badasses.”

Of the objectively handsome Metaxas (author, by the way, of the definitive Dietrich Bonhoeffer biography), Dreary writes:

“Eric is an expensively groomed dandy who lives on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. This is not a criticism; I like his style! But the idea that Eric Metaxas, of all people, was urging people to give their lives for Donald Trump, is risible.”

Notice what he did there? Dreary basically says, Zmirak is a fat-ass (not that there’s anything wrong with that), so he doesn’t have the right to attack manly-man David French. Metaxas is a fop (though Dreary aspires to that as well), so he should be proscribed from talking tough too.

Incidentally, that “dandy” unkind cut seems particularly misplaced with regard to the urbane Metaxas, who most 58-year-old men wouldn’t mind resembling. Could it be envy on the part of the bedraggled, shirt-out and wispy-goateed Dreary, he of the Mies van der Rohe spectacles? Eric dresses in the stylish manner that at one time was a requirement for grown-up American men, especially those who lived in New York.

In the Who/Whom Era in which we now live, Dreary’s only going to attack the people and ideas he doesn’t like (or can’t understand). If he likes who you are and what you’re peddling, you can conjure up the whiniest hissy-fit in the universe to proclaim it, and he’ll gladly blog it to all the minions who come to his trough for their daily quota of slop.

*******************************

This is “Juvenal Early’s” second piece for Barely A Blog. His first was “The Dissident Right Has An Idiocracy Problem.” He now has a BAB archive.

Once upon a time, the epistolary fluff ensconced at The American Conservative was detonated daily by the “pugnacious” Lawrence Auster. When Auster died, a void opened up. The “typically shapeless pieces” coming out of paleoconservative quarters, at once “weird and solipsistic”—Auster’s delicious descriptions—have escaped scrutiny. Going by the pen name “Juvenal Early,” a disillusioned former donor to Chronicles has stepped forward. I’m more than delighted to have launched and to continue to unleashing Juvenal.
Enjoy.
ilana

 

 

An Intramuscular Injection That Enters The Bloodstream

Argument, COVID-19, Free Speech, Healthcare, Journalism, Propaganda, Pseudo-intellectualism, Pseudoscience, Reason, Science

“Covid has separated the medical wheat from the chaff; the healers from the killers.”–ilana mercer

While at the outset of the vaccination campaign in 2020 it was unknown to what extent COVID vaccines entered the bloodstream, human data from 2021 reveal that the spike protein shows up within the circulation on the very day of the injection [15]. Similarly, animal studies submitted by Pfizer to the Japanese government [24] found that the vaccine appears in the circulation within 15 minutes of intramuscular injection, reaching maximum plasma concentration within just two hours. Very high levels have subsequently been recorded in the liver, the spleen, the adrenal glands, and the ovaries. Vaccine components have also been observed in the central nervous system (the brain and the spinal cord), albeit at lower concentrations. Such widespread distribution throughout the body via the bloodstream is a feat that the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not usually achieve.

The two papers referenced in the paragraph above, are linked below:

Circulating Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) proteins were measured in longitudinal plasma samples collected from 13 participants who received two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine. Eleven of 13 participants showed detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 protein as early as day 1 after first vaccine injection. Clearance of detectable SARS-CoV-2 protein correlated with production of immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin A (IgA).

https://archive.org/details/pfizer-confidential-translated

As it stands, there is a debate in the scientific community that’ll never be aired by airheads such as CNN’s Pamela Brown, aforementioned (here). Her ilk, petulant like a big baby—seek safety in unanimity. To that end, they extinguish debate. An open society would air the debate; the airhead gatekeepers refuse to countenance disagreement.

There is no question that the spike proteins from the COVID-19 vaccines leach into the bloodstream, something traditional vaccines do not. Immunologists like Byram Bridle  claim this is dodgy unstudied territory and harmful:

“In short, the conclusion is, we made a big mistake,” Bridle said. “We didn’t realize it until now. We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen. We never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin, and was a pathogenic protein. So, by vaccinating people, we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin. Some people, this gets into circulation, and when that happens in some people, they can cause damage, especially in the cardiovascular system. And I have many other legitimate questions about the long-term safety, therefore, of this vaccine.”

Dr. Robert W. Malone, the inventor of the mRNA technology platform, pictured on my post, is unhappy about its use. Need more reason to, at least, question more (were you allowed to so do)?

Galvanizing its fact-checkers, Reuters reports “no evidence that spike proteins from COVID-19 vaccines are toxic.” Other sources have spilled pixels in the same quest, see “Byram Bridle’s claim that COVID-19 vaccines are toxic fails to account for key differences between the spike protein produced during infection and vaccination, misrepresents studies.

In my opinion, and compared to other vaccines (I’ve recently taken the two Shingles shots; fabulous stuff), there is not nearly enough longitudinal data on the COVID vaccine’s safety. A few months of hurried research is not enough. And the fact that vaccine injuries are not openly discussed and quantified is not only a disgrace—it accounts for the current contempt for mainstream medicine.

Moreover, if you as a patient suspect that, should you react to the jab, you would be told categorically that your reaction, however severe, has nothing to do with the vaccine—this makes you less likely to get vaccinated. After all, you want medics to guarantee to treat a reaction seriously, not deny it is related to vaccination.

Correlation is not causation, but when healthy people suddenly erupt in a host of deadly reactions, after receiving the Covid vaccine, and are told to go home, it’s nothing—disgust settles in. You realize you are on your own. Healers have abandoned the Hippocratic Oath in favor of confirmation bias.

A shout-out to wonderful healers like Peter McCullough:

Peter McCullough On The Greatest Failure In American Medicine: COVID-19

Of interest:

Institutional Rot: Post-Vaccination Myopericarditis Could Be Linked To Fauci-Recommended, Rotten Injection Technique

UPDATED (9/7): Lara Logan, Tucker Carlson’s Kissinger, Discovers Occam’s Razor And Misapplies The Theory of Simple

America, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Neoconservatism, Politics, Pop-Culture, Pseudo-intellectualism, South-Africa

Were it possible to “lose face,” in this day-and-age, I’d say Fox New persona Tucker Carlson is embarrassing himself having crowned Lara Logan as his go-to Henry Kissinger on Afghanistan. That’s an indictment right there.

Carlson is also in thrall to Logan’s ersatz “philosophical” observations, treating this shamelessly confident woman as a Delphic oracle of sort.

You might have heard Logan claim recently and repetitively that everything in the world is very simple.  “Everything is simple,” she keeps intoning in her appearances on the nepotistic Fox News. Logan’s “simple” premise being that America is omnipotent. Whatever occurs under its watch is all planned.

Ridiculous and wrong, yet Tucker giggles in delight.

They want you to believe Afghanistan is complicated. Because if you complicate it, it is a tactic in information warfare called ‘ambiguity increasing.’ So now we’re talking about all the corruption and this and that… But at its heart, every single thing in the world… always comes down to one or two things …”

Ridiculous and wrong why? Primarily because Logan’s explanation for America’s defeat in Afghanistan is not even the simplest explanation, despite her claim that it is. The simplest explanation, based on as much information as possible, would be that the US was outsmarted and outmaneuvered, and that the mission was impossible in the first place. Here:

Unlike Lara Kissinger Logan of Fox News, who “thinks” America could have won a war that other superpowers have lost—the Chinese and the Iranians are hip to what just happened. This was “probably one of the best conceived and planned guerrilla campaigns ever,” says Mike Martin, a former British army officer in Helmand province, now at King’s College London. “The Taliban went into every district and flipped all the local militias by doing deals along tribal lines.”

It would appear that our new Roger Scruton of philosophy likely read up recently on Occam’s Razor, which is a broad principle—hardly a philosophy—and she is currently applying it to everything under the sun, with little evidence or geopolitical and historic understanding in support of her Theory of Simple.

Occam’s Razor via the Browser’s first-page search:

What is an example of Occam’s razor?
For example, if a doctor is examining a patient with a high fever and cough, they may settle on the simplest explanation: the patient has a cold. … Occam’s razor is a good rule of thumb if you remember that it depends on making fewer assumptions based on as much evidence as possible.

A nifty principle, and certainly not a philosophy—Occam’s razor was not meant to apply to everything in the world.

RELATED: “Lara Logan: ‘Conservative’ Media’s Latest Blond Ambition

IMPORTANT:

Platitudes are what media, liberal and con, offer about their own drab homogeneity. A fellow South African expat, the well-to-do Lara Logan has not used her influenceto expose the horrors unfolding in our homeland of South Africa. Had Logan done so in 2011, she’d have been authentically heroic.
It’s certainly too late for Logan, who’s been mum about the systematic murder of whites in the country of our birth, to be a hero to South Africans.

UPDATE (9/7): What do you know? The Economist did not ask foxette Lara Logan for her “analysis” of “why America failed in Afghanistan.” The august magazine asked Henry Kissinger, a statesman, for his analysis. Kissinger says what this writer said over a decade back in columns like these. Read:

To Pee Or Not To Pee is Not the Question”

‘JUST WAR’ FOR DUMMIES

Grunts, Get In Touch With Your Inner-Muslim

Afghanistan: A War Obama Can Call His Own

Excerpts from “Henry Kissinger on why America failed in Afghanistan” to follow.