I strongly suspect the future is decentralized content, with a layer of software above that aggregates it all for convenience. Substack is a version of this. Lots of individual blogs, albeit under one domain.
Imagine something like a modern RSS feed. You set up some independent blog using standard software like Wordpress. But consumers use an app that pulls the info into a central place on their phone. You get the best of both worlds. Easy, centralized access on an app, but the content is scattered everywhere.
Well, if Lennon says "Imagine" I guess it could be so! "Imagine you could pull everything int a central space..." It's great to imagine but I wouldn't count on the Internet as the means to do so. Now in yur genius idea, Spaceman, does the individual person "pull" the info, or does the software "aggregate" it? Who has agency is my question. (Why oh why do I bother writing this stuff?)
Thanks for articulating that so well. I remember when I read and listened to David Brooks and held him up as an example of a likable conservative. (That version of me's been gone awhile now.)
For a decade give or take I've been using 'hollow' or or gutted to describe 'establishment' authority in all their various outlets and institutions. Irrelevant too.
They don't know it, but their cow-towing, and virtue signaling obedience during Covid, rendered them all irrelevant. They bared themselves for who they are - puffed up, pumped up establishment tools who don't even carry basic common sense let a lone a sense of self-sovereignty. (Too few exceptions there).
They couldn't even recognize what was happening in front of them. And why would they? They are the most programmed and indoctrinated among us and are rewarded for keeping the illusion going with cushy jobs, big paychecks and having their faces on TV as 'experts'.
So deeply revealed as irrelevant - and really, 'irrelevant' will be one of the nicer adjectives applied to them as we move forward.
This was my red-pill too: "They don't know it, but their cow-towing, and virtue signaling obedience during Covid, rendered them all irrelevant. They bared themselves for who they are - puffed up, pumped up establishment tools who don't even carry basic common sense let a lone a sense of self-sovereignty. (Too few exceptions there)."
There is the same tendency - which is a sort of "entitlement" - to insult everybody. As said, this is a mark of entitlement. Otherwise I totally agree with everything the writer is saying. I only fear it falls into the same category of overly-smart bantering that substitutes for better more virtuous qualities. I think I like the Christian bloggers, who know what right and wrong are. That never goes out of style, b.t.w. (But I will go and check her newsletter out, I promise!)
"None of them has any idea of how real life is lived."
THIS is the truest statement of all. We have had to work, persevere, live without, and scrap our way into a pretty good life. If - at some point in your life - you haven't had to decide whether to spend the finals of a paycheck on gas or milk you have no idea what is going on.
God Bless, Elizabeth. You have really spanned the levels of life and we appreciate your roots.
"Mdm Jobs and Carlos Slim are paying for what can only be seen as propaganda"
True. And now that the propaganda isn't working anymore, you get these plaintive screeds from pathetic losers like Brooks, Dowd, Kristol, etal. Oftentimes I hear people on our side worry about how can we defeat these people who hold all levers of power. Well, just look at these people including Biden, McConnell, Schumer, Obama, Schwab, Gates and even their military leaders like Austin and Miley. They're all both dumb and cowardly. I have no doubt that we can overcome these scumbags. These types of opinion articles show that they are scared shitless of us. Keep fighting back. Keep not complying. And someday soon, it will be heads on pikes time!
As much as it pains me to admit, a revolution of the peasants alone isn't sufficient to improving the lot of the many. All successful revolutions, like the American Revolution had significant backing of money and powerful allies. Revolutions that lack those become Soviet Union's, Somalia's or the French Terror's.
This isn't to say we must compromise our values and ideals, our rights we are endowed with by our Creator. But that we must present ourselves, our ideals as a winning bet that just enough of those with money and power are willing to risk it all to back.
Brooks, Dowd, Kristol et al are not agents of change, nor will they ever be. But some of those who their vision of governance appeals to are who we will need to win over with a better vision. A vision they see benefit in for themselves, too.
That awareness is a hard pill to swallow. But it's the truth of uncomfortable reality to idealists.
No worries. We outnumber them by many and as long as we have brilliant writers like Elizabeth and ppl who still own a set of jahonies and willing to look into their eyes and say NO!
we will win. They count on us not knowing better .... dopes are they.
Who's better armed, American peasants or Iraqi and Afghani peasants...with IED's and munitions from previous military occupiers, regulars, former military regulars who stored military weapons, foreign arms suppliers, taught to carry automatic weapons around villages and kill outsiders since they were children, with all of the zealotry of fighting an occupying force? With less government electronic surveillance capabilities in remote villages than most all but the most isolated US areas?
Who's people are more hardened to fight, Iraqi and Afghani peasants who've faced hardship their entire lives? Or US peasants with all of the soft comforts, xBox warriors, rarely if ever wanted for anything that's been the difference between life and death?
Not trying to pour cold water on those who are willing to put it all on the line, veterans and LEO who still care about the America we were born and raised in, we must do what we must to rise to the moment God placed us here for. But I wouldn't be so boastful about how much harder we'd be to put down because of our 2A than the peasants from other places around the world that are better armed, better trained, and better motivated than the 10%-20% of Americans who might actually revolt. Gotta know thyself before one can know thy enemy. And most Americans in 2023 are soft. Pathetically soft. Even with 2A. By design.
Long term that's the winning bet. Short term, good guys are likely to take a nasty beating. God put us here, now, because he knows we have the stuff to rise above. But only if we included elevating God to his rightful place in our minds, hearts and souls. Only his divine intervention will make sure we never lose. We've not lost before because we held him in the highest places. Today most have made him an afterthought, a relic myth of times gone by. He doesn't like that. Our winning will be as much, more a product of arming ourselves with the Lord and following his commandments instead of the edicts and laws of man than any amount of explosive lead will win for us.
"All successful revolutions, like the American Revolution..."
Actually, even that was co-opted right out of the box. And, even worse, I suspect, but cannot prove yet, that it was not fough,t as we've all been taught, for the freedom of the masses.
To me, it shows pretty clear traits of being fought merely for the benefit of one ruling group over another. In other words, it was fought for the benefit of certain big money boys under such high sounding pretexts as liberty and justice for all. A sad thing is that the lies are so effective so often.
There's truth in those words. the very first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote in one of his early opinions, "The People Who Own the Country Ought to Govern It":
The Supreme Court, hegemony, and Its Consequences
Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality, December, 1987
And they are governing it as they see fit. The men and women in black robes are nothing more than high priests selected to enforce the will of those who own this country over the will of the majority of the people. Because the law is just words subject to the interpretation of rulers.
And in their Darth Vader voice they are saying, "We've altered the deal. Pray we don't alter it further."
The folloing is true, but it also applies to the press, in spades. In fact probably evrything is a mouthpiece and enforcer of the ruling classes' preferences. Goes for "skooling" too.
"The law as interpreted by the Supreme Court is important to an understanding of
social processes because it demands behavioral, if not attitudinal
and valuative, conformity. For Parsons, "[t]he focal point is that
the law of the state is binding in the sense that not only is compliance defined as 'obligatory' but coercive sanctions are also
threatened or applied in case of noncompliance." 6 It is clear that
American 7 value orientations in such areas as slavery, abortion, social welfare legislation, pornography, and civil rights wax and
Yep. Lots of good stuff in the paper. The author is most certainly a leftist, favors socialized medicine, holds many values that I don't share with him. This paper inspired me to look up his other papers, he has many on many subjects. But I'm still able to learn from him and find agreement where it is, a mutual understanding of the world and how it really operates, not as we were taught or wish it operated.
That's one of the finest comments I have ever read.
"But I'm still able to learn from him and find agreement where it is, a mutual understanding of the world and how it really operates, not as we were taught or wish it operated."
I do not understand why people want to believe that socialized medicine is some sort of panacea when, in reality, there is no such thing and besides, there's lots of evidence that socialism tends to degenerate into some form of fascism in any case, like the detestable system we're burdened with today in the USA which appears to be a hybrid of the worst aspects of capitalism, socialism and a chaotic conglamoration of other garbage. A system that's been utterly repugnant for numerous decades if not a couple of centuries.
Oooh, good one, and thanks for that. It certainly encapsulates the thinking, as near as I can tell, of those who imposed the constitution on the rest of us.
The thinking is on full display, though covered in pious platitudes, in the writings of the so called federalists.
I love the simple directness of this piece. No sophistry, or appeals to the “great thinkers”, or 50 cent vocabulary, just straightforward “you write crap, smothered in horseshit, buried in dung and pretend you have the answers”. I am so tired of “thinkers” using 1,000 words when 100 will suffice. Thank you.
"I am so tired of “thinkers” using 1,000 words when 100 will suffice. "
Yup. I have long tuned them out. And, since you mentioned 50 cent vocabulary, you can tell them to stuff it becasue they suffer from the old disease, "cacoethes scribendi,' an uncontrolable urge to write along with its cousin, "cacoethes loguandi", an uncotrollable urge to speak. Hehehe!
" learned with great regret your intention of retiring from Congress. it is the department of our government which least of all can afford to part with talents and integrity, of verbiage they could spare much, and I have serious apprehensions that the cacoethes loquendi, rendering it impossible for them to do the necessary legislativ[e] business of the nation, so much of it must of necessity be turned over to the Executive as sensibly to adulterate the genuine republicanism of our government.
Thomas Jefferson to Thomas B. Robertson, 7 November 1819
Agreed. Entirely. Not much more to add to that other than a) is true of most punditry regardless whether of "so-called-left" or "so-called-right" so why give any of them any more "face time" and b) be prepared, watch your six, contribute to...to what, to the Fall, better sooner than later? I just don't know.
Thanks, Elizabeth, every bit as good the second time!
Well, not a real Semite. Has his heritage from the line of Talmudic Judahistic, Pharisaic, Khazarian, Scythian, Babylonian Cabal converts, rebranded as AshkeNAZI today, hell bent on the ultimate victory laid out in the protocols of the elders of "zion". They're so close to achieving it they don't care who knows anymore.
TYVM for the repost, Elizabeth. I had indeed not read it before, and I'm glad I have.
"This is shameless bullshit. Warrior ethic my ass - without it Brooks and his parents and grandparents would still be laboring as heavily discriminated against Jewish peasants in Russia."
Astounding, savage honesty - which I cherish. Our culture needs more "tough love" writers like you. Reposting for more eyes-on.
Thank you, that was an inspiring piece. ‘It is you and your paymasters who have have gutted their towns and industries ‘ yes! I say to anyone who will listen, most ordinary people are really good and I will not have this shame for being human be tolerated. It is the ‘parasites’ that have gouged our world, our pockets and our souls, not us, we are all waking up really fast and it’s time to realise they are irrelevant.
I can't tell if I should feel bad, but I don't know who David Brooks is and I don't know where Westmount is. I'm sure that either makes him irrelevant or it makes me irrelevant. But I am able to quote from memory this one passage from Edmund Burke.
"When bad men combine the good must associate else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
There are bad people in the cia, the fbi, the nsa, and all of the other feral gooferment agencies. Which is why good people are associating. We have nothing, so we have nothing to lose.
You can feel both good and bad. You can feel bad that Brooks and his ilk exist and have been fouling the air (and everything else) for decades and you may feel good that he and the likes of him are being called out.
Remember when Brooks took the his friend ‘with only a high school degree’ to a sandwich shop and got absolutely shellacked? The Twitter replies were pure gold. You’re right about how he doesn’t pay for things... classic journalist pretends he needs to take an important call when the cheque arrives.
Oh these poor idiots. You almost feel sorry for them. When I was in newspapers, I thought the worst of the worst were the union hacks, negotiating their coffee breaks down to the minute. At least they were honest.
The only relevant question remaining: How long will we put up with these people stealing a free and prosperous future from our children?
Most Western leaders are childless. They have no idea that the most - the single most - important thing in the lives of most parents is what we are leaving to our children. Not money or property, but freedom and liberty, the opportunity for prosperity and to defend their way of life for their children when they become parents. That whole “…and our posterity” thing.
These are the things our bipartisan politicians and ruling elites are taking. Because we have no opposition party slowing them or suggesting they take pause, they will go too far.
Which returns us to the opening question: how long? And will we wait too long?
if that is all you want... that is very narrow, very limited. That's all you got? That is weird: this guy is so focused on "my children." That tells me it is a narrow person so----I would say: "how long before you look at your own limits?" This Substack writer or commenter posting that could use this time to get his own mind a little more open! Of course, if you want to plunge into battle I suppose it is a tough thing to hold your horses for a little while! But something for you to do before the final battle.
I hate to say it, but it's beyond 'late.' They've stolen the wealth of this nation. Both parties. A debt they've had absolutely no intention of repaying. Interest alone now at $1T a year. And no sign of any slowing of the absurd spending. We are toast in many departments and that is but one of them. Every nation has a life; a rise and a fall. We've lasted longer than most.
Populism is distinct from conservatism. Much of the latter seeks to conserve past privilege. The former seeks to roll back or entirely excise leftist bureaucratic privilege that predominates now. Both traditional views, left & right, are mostly about consolidating (often corrupt) power its side holds. Populism stands outside both, though its roots are in the market capitalism. But the correction of current globalist policies will require bureaucratic newthink to repair the current inside-out unravelling social domain. Corporations & foundations sure aren't up for it. So populism is the bright new thing promising much. Hopefully it delivers.
I am inclined to agree. Conservatism, for the most part, has always been lame. Libertarianism has always been a much more substantive and sensible alternative. The problem with it, though, is that it has generally not received much support, since the grifters will not pay for candidates who are not out to steal from taxpayers. This may be changing, though, as we see Millei becoming president in Argentina.
I'm inclined to disagree with Stephen Carter's take on conservatism and yours on libertarianism. Conservatism seeks to conserve the things we love--faith, family, community, country. There is no doubt that there are grifters who try to conserve their privilege, but that is true of any philosophy as we are all fallen creatures. Because we are fallen creatures, libertarianism always descends from liberty to license and anything goes because there are no guardrails. (See, gay marriage to transgender to polyamory to pedophilia, etc.) I am a conservative because there are traditions and parts of civilization worth conserving. It is difficult to build good traditions and things, and a lot easier to conserve them. Progressives destroy and build nothing. Libertarianism looks the other way, who am I to judge? It's the great sin of acedia.
Every political movement needs to have a philosophy as a foundation, whether progressive, conservative or libertarian. As a conservative in America, there is no political party that aligns with a conservative philosophy. Libertarians probably feel the same way.
Consent is not much of a guardrail. The majority of states--including that bastion of Marxism, California--passed laws upholding that marriage is between a man and a woman. As you pointed out, libertarians were against those laws. But five people in robes overturned those laws. I don’t recall libertarians arguing for upholding consent over that issue.
As conservatives argued, gay “marriage” was just one of many steps the progressives would take to set the stage for the approval of polyamory, bestiality (what goes on behind closed doors is nobody’s business!) and lowering the age of consent (there’s that hollow word again!) from 18 to 14 to whatever. It’s the apathy behind the libertarian philosophy that is so destructive of a moral and virtuous people. In my opinion, it’s worse than progressivism which clearly is against guardrails, whereas libertarianism hides behind phantom guardrails of consent.
I think that there's a big difference between conservatism as a philosophy and the conservative political movement. There is much to commend it as a philosophy.
There are guardrails within the libertarian philosophy. It is constrained by consent. So, let's look at the issues that you raised in this context. Yes, there is nothing to prevent consenting adults from gay marriage, though that should be a private matter, not something sanctioned by the state. After the gays got the state to require gay marriage, they went wild with their newfound political power to (again) use state power to promote such things as the transgender movement. Under libertarian philosophy, a minor would not be able to have sex change surgery or hormones. Pedophilia is also not allowed, because kids cannot consent to it. So you are blaming libertarianism for things that would not be considered permissible in a society which embraced libertarianism.
“Much of the latter [conservatism] seeks to conserve past privilege.”
Perhaps I misunderstand, but it seems that conservatism is tied up in a bigger bundle. It does conserve past privilege, and, yes, consolidates (often corrupt) power, but it also sought to conserve hard-fought gains, growth, innovation, and the best of heritage which is often tied within Christian heritage (shhhhh … and much/most of that tied with [gasp] whyte heritage).
The latter is like a North American party balloon being bobbed in the air, no one wishing to catch and claim. Who will claim and defend the gains, growth, innovation and heritage of our whyte and whyte-ish, European, largely Christian ancestors who sought new horizons and bravely forged this North American nation with ingenuity, creativity, tenacity, sweat and blood so that we enjoy unparalleled employment, transportation, communication, goods and services + + +. So attractive it drew millions to the shores seeking to forge a new life.
In all this do we suffer from a deplorable lack of gratitude?
Of course we have lived in a liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, sometimes populist stew. The good is that things actually worked quite well (until c19 blowup) despite the omnipresent graft, greed, and corruption of sinful men and women over the decades and centuries. Will populism rescue us? I hope so. It will be successful only as it remembers and defends the roots of this continent - what made us great. But, I fear it is too late. The doors have opened wide and the demographics shifted and focus lost. And, for too many, the new god is the Entitled Self.
Thanks for reprinting, Elizabeth. Lots of food for thought to join the already groaning table. Never a dull moment.
consider that a re-stack buddy! "Of course we have lived in a liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, sometimes populist stew. The good is that things actually worked quite well (until c19 blowup) despite the omnipresent graft, greed, and corruption of sinful men and women over the decades and centuries." (Just the one "copy" to here!)
"The good is that things actually worked quite well..." In a material sense, somewhat true, but on the other hand, look at the results, and how they were obtained.
"Populism is distinct from conservatism. Much of the latter seeks to conserve past privilege." If by "past privilege" you mean something like "the things prosperous, free societies are built upon", then you are correct.
My mother always told me that if I can't say something nice about someone then don't say anything at all. I rarely found much to say about people, including my own family, that was particularly "nice", so I shut up and spent my life pushing paper in cubicles. Where were you when I got out of college 55 years ago? We need to all "come out" and write like you do.
We are the media now. Regime propagandists like Brooks are irrelevant, but some are bringing their grifts to substack and calling for censorship.
I wrote an open letter to substack leadership to preserve free speech. Hope they keep supporting their stated values: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-make-substack-the-greatest-network
It will almost certainly not resist. It will for a while. But not forever.
I strongly suspect the future is decentralized content, with a layer of software above that aggregates it all for convenience. Substack is a version of this. Lots of individual blogs, albeit under one domain.
Imagine something like a modern RSS feed. You set up some independent blog using standard software like Wordpress. But consumers use an app that pulls the info into a central place on their phone. You get the best of both worlds. Easy, centralized access on an app, but the content is scattered everywhere.
Something like that could work.
Well, if Lennon says "Imagine" I guess it could be so! "Imagine you could pull everything int a central space..." It's great to imagine but I wouldn't count on the Internet as the means to do so. Now in yur genius idea, Spaceman, does the individual person "pull" the info, or does the software "aggregate" it? Who has agency is my question. (Why oh why do I bother writing this stuff?)
No idea. Why you ask?
Thanks for articulating that so well. I remember when I read and listened to David Brooks and held him up as an example of a likable conservative. (That version of me's been gone awhile now.)
For a decade give or take I've been using 'hollow' or or gutted to describe 'establishment' authority in all their various outlets and institutions. Irrelevant too.
They don't know it, but their cow-towing, and virtue signaling obedience during Covid, rendered them all irrelevant. They bared themselves for who they are - puffed up, pumped up establishment tools who don't even carry basic common sense let a lone a sense of self-sovereignty. (Too few exceptions there).
They couldn't even recognize what was happening in front of them. And why would they? They are the most programmed and indoctrinated among us and are rewarded for keeping the illusion going with cushy jobs, big paychecks and having their faces on TV as 'experts'.
So deeply revealed as irrelevant - and really, 'irrelevant' will be one of the nicer adjectives applied to them as we move forward.
Thanks - enjoyed that.
Excellent comment.
"They bared themselves for who they are..."
Funny how, as the masks went on, other masks came off.
So true!!
This was my red-pill too: "They don't know it, but their cow-towing, and virtue signaling obedience during Covid, rendered them all irrelevant. They bared themselves for who they are - puffed up, pumped up establishment tools who don't even carry basic common sense let a lone a sense of self-sovereignty. (Too few exceptions there)."
There is the same tendency - which is a sort of "entitlement" - to insult everybody. As said, this is a mark of entitlement. Otherwise I totally agree with everything the writer is saying. I only fear it falls into the same category of overly-smart bantering that substitutes for better more virtuous qualities. I think I like the Christian bloggers, who know what right and wrong are. That never goes out of style, b.t.w. (But I will go and check her newsletter out, I promise!)
"None of them has any idea of how real life is lived."
THIS is the truest statement of all. We have had to work, persevere, live without, and scrap our way into a pretty good life. If - at some point in your life - you haven't had to decide whether to spend the finals of a paycheck on gas or milk you have no idea what is going on.
God Bless, Elizabeth. You have really spanned the levels of life and we appreciate your roots.
"Mdm Jobs and Carlos Slim are paying for what can only be seen as propaganda"
True. And now that the propaganda isn't working anymore, you get these plaintive screeds from pathetic losers like Brooks, Dowd, Kristol, etal. Oftentimes I hear people on our side worry about how can we defeat these people who hold all levers of power. Well, just look at these people including Biden, McConnell, Schumer, Obama, Schwab, Gates and even their military leaders like Austin and Miley. They're all both dumb and cowardly. I have no doubt that we can overcome these scumbags. These types of opinion articles show that they are scared shitless of us. Keep fighting back. Keep not complying. And someday soon, it will be heads on pikes time!
As much as it pains me to admit, a revolution of the peasants alone isn't sufficient to improving the lot of the many. All successful revolutions, like the American Revolution had significant backing of money and powerful allies. Revolutions that lack those become Soviet Union's, Somalia's or the French Terror's.
This isn't to say we must compromise our values and ideals, our rights we are endowed with by our Creator. But that we must present ourselves, our ideals as a winning bet that just enough of those with money and power are willing to risk it all to back.
Brooks, Dowd, Kristol et al are not agents of change, nor will they ever be. But some of those who their vision of governance appeals to are who we will need to win over with a better vision. A vision they see benefit in for themselves, too.
That awareness is a hard pill to swallow. But it's the truth of uncomfortable reality to idealists.
No worries. We outnumber them by many and as long as we have brilliant writers like Elizabeth and ppl who still own a set of jahonies and willing to look into their eyes and say NO!
we will win. They count on us not knowing better .... dopes are they.
I like your thinking!
Don’t forget how well armed these current crop of peasants are, though. No pitchforks and shovels this time round.
Who's better armed, American peasants or Iraqi and Afghani peasants...with IED's and munitions from previous military occupiers, regulars, former military regulars who stored military weapons, foreign arms suppliers, taught to carry automatic weapons around villages and kill outsiders since they were children, with all of the zealotry of fighting an occupying force? With less government electronic surveillance capabilities in remote villages than most all but the most isolated US areas?
Who's people are more hardened to fight, Iraqi and Afghani peasants who've faced hardship their entire lives? Or US peasants with all of the soft comforts, xBox warriors, rarely if ever wanted for anything that's been the difference between life and death?
Not trying to pour cold water on those who are willing to put it all on the line, veterans and LEO who still care about the America we were born and raised in, we must do what we must to rise to the moment God placed us here for. But I wouldn't be so boastful about how much harder we'd be to put down because of our 2A than the peasants from other places around the world that are better armed, better trained, and better motivated than the 10%-20% of Americans who might actually revolt. Gotta know thyself before one can know thy enemy. And most Americans in 2023 are soft. Pathetically soft. Even with 2A. By design.
We'll get there bro. We may not be in top form initially but we'll get there. At the end of the day, we never lose.
Long term that's the winning bet. Short term, good guys are likely to take a nasty beating. God put us here, now, because he knows we have the stuff to rise above. But only if we included elevating God to his rightful place in our minds, hearts and souls. Only his divine intervention will make sure we never lose. We've not lost before because we held him in the highest places. Today most have made him an afterthought, a relic myth of times gone by. He doesn't like that. Our winning will be as much, more a product of arming ourselves with the Lord and following his commandments instead of the edicts and laws of man than any amount of explosive lead will win for us.
Amen
"All successful revolutions, like the American Revolution..."
Actually, even that was co-opted right out of the box. And, even worse, I suspect, but cannot prove yet, that it was not fough,t as we've all been taught, for the freedom of the masses.
To me, it shows pretty clear traits of being fought merely for the benefit of one ruling group over another. In other words, it was fought for the benefit of certain big money boys under such high sounding pretexts as liberty and justice for all. A sad thing is that the lies are so effective so often.
There's truth in those words. the very first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote in one of his early opinions, "The People Who Own the Country Ought to Govern It":
The Supreme Court, hegemony, and Its Consequences
Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality, December, 1987
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1371&context=lawineq
And they are governing it as they see fit. The men and women in black robes are nothing more than high priests selected to enforce the will of those who own this country over the will of the majority of the people. Because the law is just words subject to the interpretation of rulers.
And in their Darth Vader voice they are saying, "We've altered the deal. Pray we don't alter it further."
Omg...That paper is most interesting.
The folloing is true, but it also applies to the press, in spades. In fact probably evrything is a mouthpiece and enforcer of the ruling classes' preferences. Goes for "skooling" too.
"The law as interpreted by the Supreme Court is important to an understanding of
social processes because it demands behavioral, if not attitudinal
and valuative, conformity. For Parsons, "[t]he focal point is that
the law of the state is binding in the sense that not only is compliance defined as 'obligatory' but coercive sanctions are also
threatened or applied in case of noncompliance." 6 It is clear that
American 7 value orientations in such areas as slavery, abortion, social welfare legislation, pornography, and civil rights wax and
wane with Supreme Court decisions...
Yep. Lots of good stuff in the paper. The author is most certainly a leftist, favors socialized medicine, holds many values that I don't share with him. This paper inspired me to look up his other papers, he has many on many subjects. But I'm still able to learn from him and find agreement where it is, a mutual understanding of the world and how it really operates, not as we were taught or wish it operated.
That's one of the finest comments I have ever read.
"But I'm still able to learn from him and find agreement where it is, a mutual understanding of the world and how it really operates, not as we were taught or wish it operated."
I do not understand why people want to believe that socialized medicine is some sort of panacea when, in reality, there is no such thing and besides, there's lots of evidence that socialism tends to degenerate into some form of fascism in any case, like the detestable system we're burdened with today in the USA which appears to be a hybrid of the worst aspects of capitalism, socialism and a chaotic conglamoration of other garbage. A system that's been utterly repugnant for numerous decades if not a couple of centuries.
Oooh, good one, and thanks for that. It certainly encapsulates the thinking, as near as I can tell, of those who imposed the constitution on the rest of us.
The thinking is on full display, though covered in pious platitudes, in the writings of the so called federalists.
I love the simple directness of this piece. No sophistry, or appeals to the “great thinkers”, or 50 cent vocabulary, just straightforward “you write crap, smothered in horseshit, buried in dung and pretend you have the answers”. I am so tired of “thinkers” using 1,000 words when 100 will suffice. Thank you.
"I am so tired of “thinkers” using 1,000 words when 100 will suffice. "
Yup. I have long tuned them out. And, since you mentioned 50 cent vocabulary, you can tell them to stuff it becasue they suffer from the old disease, "cacoethes scribendi,' an uncontrolable urge to write along with its cousin, "cacoethes loguandi", an uncotrollable urge to speak. Hehehe!
" learned with great regret your intention of retiring from Congress. it is the department of our government which least of all can afford to part with talents and integrity, of verbiage they could spare much, and I have serious apprehensions that the cacoethes loquendi, rendering it impossible for them to do the necessary legislativ[e] business of the nation, so much of it must of necessity be turned over to the Executive as sensibly to adulterate the genuine republicanism of our government.
Thomas Jefferson to Thomas B. Robertson, 7 November 1819
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-15-02-0161
David Brooks is to conservatism what David French is to Christianity.
He's also to conservatism what Krugman is to economics.
Agreed. Entirely. Not much more to add to that other than a) is true of most punditry regardless whether of "so-called-left" or "so-called-right" so why give any of them any more "face time" and b) be prepared, watch your six, contribute to...to what, to the Fall, better sooner than later? I just don't know.
Thanks, Elizabeth, every bit as good the second time!
Wrote Brooks off 20 years back. Imposter. Never realized he was Jewish. Somewhat explains his sense of privilege. Evil bastard.
Well, not a real Semite. Has his heritage from the line of Talmudic Judahistic, Pharisaic, Khazarian, Scythian, Babylonian Cabal converts, rebranded as AshkeNAZI today, hell bent on the ultimate victory laid out in the protocols of the elders of "zion". They're so close to achieving it they don't care who knows anymore.
TYVM for the repost, Elizabeth. I had indeed not read it before, and I'm glad I have.
"This is shameless bullshit. Warrior ethic my ass - without it Brooks and his parents and grandparents would still be laboring as heavily discriminated against Jewish peasants in Russia."
Astounding, savage honesty - which I cherish. Our culture needs more "tough love" writers like you. Reposting for more eyes-on.
Thank you, that was an inspiring piece. ‘It is you and your paymasters who have have gutted their towns and industries ‘ yes! I say to anyone who will listen, most ordinary people are really good and I will not have this shame for being human be tolerated. It is the ‘parasites’ that have gouged our world, our pockets and our souls, not us, we are all waking up really fast and it’s time to realise they are irrelevant.
I can't tell if I should feel bad, but I don't know who David Brooks is and I don't know where Westmount is. I'm sure that either makes him irrelevant or it makes me irrelevant. But I am able to quote from memory this one passage from Edmund Burke.
"When bad men combine the good must associate else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
There are bad people in the cia, the fbi, the nsa, and all of the other feral gooferment agencies. Which is why good people are associating. We have nothing, so we have nothing to lose.
You can feel both good and bad. You can feel bad that Brooks and his ilk exist and have been fouling the air (and everything else) for decades and you may feel good that he and the likes of him are being called out.
Stunning piece.
OMIGOD! 😂😂😂😂😂 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏
Remember when Brooks took the his friend ‘with only a high school degree’ to a sandwich shop and got absolutely shellacked? The Twitter replies were pure gold. You’re right about how he doesn’t pay for things... classic journalist pretends he needs to take an important call when the cheque arrives.
Oh these poor idiots. You almost feel sorry for them. When I was in newspapers, I thought the worst of the worst were the union hacks, negotiating their coffee breaks down to the minute. At least they were honest.
so what; he is eccentric. This means nothing
Besides being eccentric, it shows him, inter alia, as a cheapskate and a laughable grifter, so it means something to some of us.
In fact, I'm still chuckling.
The only relevant question remaining: How long will we put up with these people stealing a free and prosperous future from our children?
Most Western leaders are childless. They have no idea that the most - the single most - important thing in the lives of most parents is what we are leaving to our children. Not money or property, but freedom and liberty, the opportunity for prosperity and to defend their way of life for their children when they become parents. That whole “…and our posterity” thing.
These are the things our bipartisan politicians and ruling elites are taking. Because we have no opposition party slowing them or suggesting they take pause, they will go too far.
Which returns us to the opening question: how long? And will we wait too long?
It’s getting late.
if that is all you want... that is very narrow, very limited. That's all you got? That is weird: this guy is so focused on "my children." That tells me it is a narrow person so----I would say: "how long before you look at your own limits?" This Substack writer or commenter posting that could use this time to get his own mind a little more open! Of course, if you want to plunge into battle I suppose it is a tough thing to hold your horses for a little while! But something for you to do before the final battle.
I hate to say it, but it's beyond 'late.' They've stolen the wealth of this nation. Both parties. A debt they've had absolutely no intention of repaying. Interest alone now at $1T a year. And no sign of any slowing of the absurd spending. We are toast in many departments and that is but one of them. Every nation has a life; a rise and a fall. We've lasted longer than most.
Hang in there Paul - took many years to steal the good - we do need faith and time to turn it. No black pills for me buddy
While we are at it , if you have not already, please also write off the insufferable Bret Stephens.
To keep it even simpler, write off everything from "corporate."
Populism is distinct from conservatism. Much of the latter seeks to conserve past privilege. The former seeks to roll back or entirely excise leftist bureaucratic privilege that predominates now. Both traditional views, left & right, are mostly about consolidating (often corrupt) power its side holds. Populism stands outside both, though its roots are in the market capitalism. But the correction of current globalist policies will require bureaucratic newthink to repair the current inside-out unravelling social domain. Corporations & foundations sure aren't up for it. So populism is the bright new thing promising much. Hopefully it delivers.
I am inclined to agree. Conservatism, for the most part, has always been lame. Libertarianism has always been a much more substantive and sensible alternative. The problem with it, though, is that it has generally not received much support, since the grifters will not pay for candidates who are not out to steal from taxpayers. This may be changing, though, as we see Millei becoming president in Argentina.
I'm inclined to disagree with Stephen Carter's take on conservatism and yours on libertarianism. Conservatism seeks to conserve the things we love--faith, family, community, country. There is no doubt that there are grifters who try to conserve their privilege, but that is true of any philosophy as we are all fallen creatures. Because we are fallen creatures, libertarianism always descends from liberty to license and anything goes because there are no guardrails. (See, gay marriage to transgender to polyamory to pedophilia, etc.) I am a conservative because there are traditions and parts of civilization worth conserving. It is difficult to build good traditions and things, and a lot easier to conserve them. Progressives destroy and build nothing. Libertarianism looks the other way, who am I to judge? It's the great sin of acedia.
Every political movement needs to have a philosophy as a foundation, whether progressive, conservative or libertarian. As a conservative in America, there is no political party that aligns with a conservative philosophy. Libertarians probably feel the same way.
Consent is not much of a guardrail. The majority of states--including that bastion of Marxism, California--passed laws upholding that marriage is between a man and a woman. As you pointed out, libertarians were against those laws. But five people in robes overturned those laws. I don’t recall libertarians arguing for upholding consent over that issue.
As conservatives argued, gay “marriage” was just one of many steps the progressives would take to set the stage for the approval of polyamory, bestiality (what goes on behind closed doors is nobody’s business!) and lowering the age of consent (there’s that hollow word again!) from 18 to 14 to whatever. It’s the apathy behind the libertarian philosophy that is so destructive of a moral and virtuous people. In my opinion, it’s worse than progressivism which clearly is against guardrails, whereas libertarianism hides behind phantom guardrails of consent.
I think that there's a big difference between conservatism as a philosophy and the conservative political movement. There is much to commend it as a philosophy.
There are guardrails within the libertarian philosophy. It is constrained by consent. So, let's look at the issues that you raised in this context. Yes, there is nothing to prevent consenting adults from gay marriage, though that should be a private matter, not something sanctioned by the state. After the gays got the state to require gay marriage, they went wild with their newfound political power to (again) use state power to promote such things as the transgender movement. Under libertarian philosophy, a minor would not be able to have sex change surgery or hormones. Pedophilia is also not allowed, because kids cannot consent to it. So you are blaming libertarianism for things that would not be considered permissible in a society which embraced libertarianism.
You are both correct. It depends on what type of conservatism one's referring to.
That being said, it's a word often abused and perverted by the usual suspects.
Beware of those twisting the language! ; )
Millei already proving himself to be just another lying politician. Wish I could offer a link for a bit of back up. We'll keep watching him.
“Much of the latter [conservatism] seeks to conserve past privilege.”
Perhaps I misunderstand, but it seems that conservatism is tied up in a bigger bundle. It does conserve past privilege, and, yes, consolidates (often corrupt) power, but it also sought to conserve hard-fought gains, growth, innovation, and the best of heritage which is often tied within Christian heritage (shhhhh … and much/most of that tied with [gasp] whyte heritage).
The latter is like a North American party balloon being bobbed in the air, no one wishing to catch and claim. Who will claim and defend the gains, growth, innovation and heritage of our whyte and whyte-ish, European, largely Christian ancestors who sought new horizons and bravely forged this North American nation with ingenuity, creativity, tenacity, sweat and blood so that we enjoy unparalleled employment, transportation, communication, goods and services + + +. So attractive it drew millions to the shores seeking to forge a new life.
In all this do we suffer from a deplorable lack of gratitude?
Of course we have lived in a liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, sometimes populist stew. The good is that things actually worked quite well (until c19 blowup) despite the omnipresent graft, greed, and corruption of sinful men and women over the decades and centuries. Will populism rescue us? I hope so. It will be successful only as it remembers and defends the roots of this continent - what made us great. But, I fear it is too late. The doors have opened wide and the demographics shifted and focus lost. And, for too many, the new god is the Entitled Self.
Thanks for reprinting, Elizabeth. Lots of food for thought to join the already groaning table. Never a dull moment.
I wish I could like this 100 more times!
consider that a re-stack buddy! "Of course we have lived in a liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, sometimes populist stew. The good is that things actually worked quite well (until c19 blowup) despite the omnipresent graft, greed, and corruption of sinful men and women over the decades and centuries." (Just the one "copy" to here!)
"The good is that things actually worked quite well..." In a material sense, somewhat true, but on the other hand, look at the results, and how they were obtained.
Vivek for VP
No. Do more research! No vp
"Populism is distinct from conservatism. Much of the latter seeks to conserve past privilege." If by "past privilege" you mean something like "the things prosperous, free societies are built upon", then you are correct.
My mother always told me that if I can't say something nice about someone then don't say anything at all. I rarely found much to say about people, including my own family, that was particularly "nice", so I shut up and spent my life pushing paper in cubicles. Where were you when I got out of college 55 years ago? We need to all "come out" and write like you do.
Good one!