Beyond Left and Right

The late great Eric Hohher observed that a mass movement can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. This is often misread, but what Hoffer had in mind was that the movement needs an enemy. It can live without a great cause, but it has to have an enemy. The struggle against evil allows the movement to create its own origin myth and justify its failures as sacrifices. It is why the Progressives have been so good at inventing new monsters to slay. Without monsters, they have no reason to exist.

The modern American Right, in contrast, was never good at inventing bogeymen, because it was always a Progressive heresy. By that I mean the Buckleyites eventually came to accept all the assumptions of the Progressives with regards to the human condition. The difference was they had a different devil to confront. Theirs was the Red Menace and the its Soviet sponsors. What kept movement conservatism moving was the fight against the commies, even when they ceded all the important philosophical turf to the Progressive.

An example to see this is the recent column by National Review editor Rich Lowry. National Review is the flagship publication of the American conservative movement. In theory, at least, they describe the boundaries of what is and what is not conservative, by defining the principles of modern conservatism.

President Barack Obama won’t explicitly say that Donald Trump is on the wrong side of history, but surely it is what he believes.

The president basically thinks anyone who gets in his way is transgressing the larger forces of history with a capital H. During the 2008 campaign, he declared that John McCain “is on the wrong side of history right now” (the “right now” was a generous touch — allowing for the possibility that McCain might get right with History at some future, undetermined date).

Obama has returned to this phrase and argument obsessively throughout his time in office. It is deeply embedded in his, and the larger progressive, mind — and indirectly contributed to the left’s catastrophic defeat on Nov. 8.

The notion that History takes sides ultimately traces back to the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel and borrows heavily from the (genuine and very hard-won) moral capital of the abolitionists and the civil rights movement. Obama is given to quoting Martin Luther King for the proposition that the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice. Whoever is deemed to be on “the wrong side of history” by progressives is always loosely associated with the opprobrium directed toward the Southern Fire-Eaters and the defenders of Jim Crow.

Now, Lowry is no one’s idea of a deep thinker so he can be forgiven for not seeing the the ridiculousness of the highlighted section. If Progressives have all this moral capital from their past fights over race, then they are by definition on the right side of history. How could it be otherwise? That’s the logical end point of Lowry’s assertion that the Left was on the side of angels in the great moral crusades of the last two centuries. It would be bizarre for Progressives not to use such a thing as a weapon. They see it as an obligation.

There’s something else there. Lowry goes out of his way to kowtow to the Left on the issue of race. What he is doing, even if he does not know it, is signally his submissiveness to his moral superiors. These are the words of the loser letting his betters know he is not going to be any trouble. Lowry is letting his alleged adversaries know that he agrees with them on the big issues and that there is no need to question his belief in orthodoxy.

The orthodoxy is the New Religion with its three pillars of egalitarianism, multiculturalism and anti-racism. The only real quibble the Official Right has with the people in charge is how to go about turning the New Religion into public policy. It is probably why they are obsessed with restarting the Cold War and waging a Crusade against the Muslims. Official Conservatism™ needs a devil. Otherwise, it becomes just another school of thought among Progressives.

There’s always been a problem with the New Religion and that is it clams run head long into objective reality. The sort of spiritual egalitarianism preached by the intellectual forebears of Progressives was perfectly sustainable as it was impossible to disprove. The modern version of it is hilariously absurd. Boys are not the same as girls. Nature does not bestow her gifts equally and this scales up to group differences. People tend to notice that the NBA is all black and the best lawyers have a precious metal in their name.

This is the central issue of our age. Our betters insist that all men are equal, full stop. Filling up Cologne with Arabs changes nothing about Cologne because people are the same everywhere and culture is a myth. Everyone else recognizes this to be dangerous nonsense. Thousands of generations of evolution have resulted in a planet full of people with different skills, culture and attitudes. Sweden is the way it is because it is full of Swedes, instead of Arabs.

The determination of our rulers to stamp out large parts of observable reality is what is eroding their legitimacy. This is why Official Conservatism™ has failed. It has no response to the ongoing crisis that is the inevitable result of the New Religion. It has become a mass movement afraid of offending anyone, therefore it is left with gooey platitudes about principles and its role in public life. It’s why it is difficult to tell the Right from the Left these days. They believe all the same stuff now.

The great fight that is shaping up is between one side that insists, despite all the evidence, that all humans are equal in every way. it is only the differences in culture that result in differences in people. For our purposes, economics is in the culture bucket. The other side says man is naturally hierarchical and that groups of humans have unique attributes suited for where they evolved over thousands of generations. This means that different people will have different cultures, different gifts and different liabilities. This is why people naturally self-segregate.

Observable reality is on the side of the latter.

64 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Doug
Doug
3 years ago

This strike a cord with anyone else? Sure reminds me of the reaction of the left after having been served a heaping steaming plate of irrelevancy on 11-8. It comes from psychopathfree.com : “Toxic people blatantly deny their own manipulative behavior and ignore evidence when confronted with it. They become dismissive and critical if you attempt to disprove their fabrications with facts. Instead of them actually addressing their inappropriate behavior, somehow it always becomes your fault for being sensitive and “crazy”. Toxic people condition you to believe that the problem isn’t the abuse itself, but instead your reactions to their… Read more »

Fuel Filter
Fuel Filter
Reply to  Doug
3 years ago

In other words this is known as “Gaslighting” a subset of that is known as “Kafkatrapping”. I’ll give just one example of each. Gaslighting is commonly known. There is even a Wikipedia entry for it. It manifests itself, for instance, in many divorce proceedings, especially among women where they turn around their own faults, sins and dirty deeds on the man (projection) and, instead, play the victim when she was the perpetrator. Kafkatrapping is regularly seen in AA where the denial of something is evidence of being guilty of that same thing (“See, your denial of being an alcoholic is… Read more »

King George III
King George III
3 years ago

I would argue that “Official Conservatism’s” problem is precisely that it is not a Progressive heresy. Allow me to explain, starting with Pharaseeism. Christianity began with the observation that Pharaseeism was a really awful, terrible religion with horrifying holiness spirals, among other very bad things. Christianity was thus a complete repudiation of Pharaseeism, so accordingly it was deliberately engineered to be well-inoculated against Pharaseeism and holiness spirals and all that, which is the reason Christianity survived more or less intact in many different environments for nearly two thousand years before completely giving way to Puritanism. Progressivism is Puritanism, which is… Read more »

Doug
Doug
Reply to  King George III
3 years ago

There isn’t anything to argue about George. The prog way is a total fail. Cultural Marxism got nothing to offer dirt people. Nada. Zilch. Zero. N.O.T.H.I.N.G. They never had nothing to offer but the worst of the human race. Read what this guy wrote here below, is there any question the human extinction movement has anything to offer beyond the fundamental principles and reasoned principles contained within his sublime thoughts?: ‘I discriminate.’ “The entire human race are neither my brothers nor kin. There is nothing noble about non-discrimination—concepts such as love, trust and brotherhood lose all meaning when discrimination is… Read more »

LetsPlay
LetsPlay
Member
Reply to  Doug
3 years ago

Obviously this clown confuses the notion of being intelligent and a discriminating person with the act of discrimination, that of belittling or demeaning another because of one characteristic or another. Remember the kid wearing glasses, or the fat kid, or the skinny kid, or the black kid. Heck, my Dad told me that when he was stationed at Ft. Bragg, N.C. where I was born, people thought we were blacks because they had never seen a “brown” person before. Imagine that. And this was in the early ’50’s and he was in the 82nd Airborne at the time. My point… Read more »

LetsPlay
LetsPlay
Member
Reply to  King George III
3 years ago

wow, now KGIII is a PhDiv in Apologetics and Religious History! Imagine that.

dad29
3 years ago

I think your last graf is an incomplete analysis; it appears (underline ‘appears’) that your comparison encompasses only–or largely–that which is material.

It is correct that “culture” is a major determinant of various peoples’ predilections. But “culture” is a direct derivative of “cult.” Thus, a flawed culture is a result of a flawed cult, not of material differences. Yes, NBA players are largely black. But that’s not “culture.” How they think and act on those thoughts IS ‘culture.”

JPW
JPW
3 years ago

Sorry to be a Spellcheck Wank – I think you meant Eric Hoffer in your 1st Paragraph.

L.Beau Macaroni
L.Beau Macaroni
Reply to  JPW
3 years ago

Not sorry enough – chain this man to an oar!

Severian
3 years ago

Heh. I seem to recall Francis Fukuyama proclaiming the End of History back in the early 1990s, based on similar reasoning — there’s no Left or Right anymore, as the basic assumptions of liberal democracy have defeated all others and are now shared by everyone. I guess restarting History just takes a hijacked airliner and a tower or two… The assumptions of liberal democracy are, in fact, fictions of affluence. Back in the 90s we were rich enough to pretend that equality is possible, and if we had to reconfigure all of society to get it, well, that’s just a… Read more »

Al from da Nort
Al from da Nort
Reply to  Severian
3 years ago

Re Fukuyama: As a pre/mid ’60’s student I discovered that there was a school of anthropology (one of many mutual contradictory schools) called Cultural Evolution. It was later anathemized as being too, you know, likely to leave the innocent student with the impression that some cultures might be, you know, more fit than others.

Interestingly enough Fukuyama’s magnum opus, The Origins of Political Order, walks right up to Cultural Evolution but refuses to recognize it though it stares him in the face. No doubt this is for fear of being banished.

Uncola
3 years ago

The stamping out of “large parts of observable reality” also precludes the checking of premises. And this, my friends, is how shit happens.

UKer
UKer
3 years ago

The ‘wrong side of history’ has always struck me as the possibly the most arrogant and stupid phrase ever. History cannot have a side: it is just what it is. I accept that one can interpret history from one side or the other so the assumption of interpretation isn’t quite as arrogant. You can look, say, at a world war and show that these were the causes and with it examine the elite making ill-informed decisions, or perhaps report it from the enemy PoV or show the event by focussing on the grunts who had to actually do the dirty… Read more »

Dutch
Dutch
Reply to  UKer
3 years ago

I don’t mind standing up for the “wrong side of history”. Villians always have more fun and are the most interesting characters in the play.

james wilson
james wilson
Reply to  UKer
3 years ago

Arrogant, stupid, and presumptous. Alex Tocqueville-Time does not arrest its course for nations any more than for men…When we think things are stationary, it is because we fail to see their movements.

LetsPlay
LetsPlay
Member
Reply to  UKer
3 years ago

In Obozo’s case it is just the manchilds way of saying “I’m right, you’re wrong,” “I win, you lose.” He is very smart don’t you know. He has a JD from Havvaaard on de Chas don’t you know!

Al from da Nort
Al from da Nort
Reply to  UKer
3 years ago

History having a side is yet another example of prog incoherence. If history has a side/direction, then it has a directing force/process. But if that process is materialistic like evolution or something else similar, then there is no intended direction, just the random results of competition among random variants. If that’s the case then there is no real progression in a moral sense.

OTOH, if history has an actual side/direction then something is directing it. Or, someONE. And who/what might that be_? Seriously, how can there be dialectic in pure materialism_?

Lulu
Lulu
3 years ago

I think even now Rich Lowry is being given more credit than he deserves. I see a large child in a man’s suit, braces just removed this week (but some sort of retainers in place back where they cannot be seen), allowed to sit at the grownups’ table and spouting gibberish posing as serious thought. His pal Jonah is stuck in the outhouse, prattling on about his ass and worse, intermixed with puerile sophistries. French and his wife (they are a matched pair, even though he’s the NR employee) are dreadful wannabes looking for something important to be. And on… Read more »

Toddy Cat
Toddy Cat
Reply to  Lulu
3 years ago

NR died when Buckley purged Brimelow, O’Sullivan, and Sailer, and replaced them with childish mediocrities like Lowry, Goldberg, and Lopez. Buckleyite conservatism had probably passed its sell-by date anyway, what with the end of the Cold War and all, but the purge ensured that it would die with hardly a pathetic whimper, as it is doing now. All neo-conning aside, these puerile children were simply not in the same intellectual league as Burnham, Meyer, Van Der Haag, Rusher, and the other founders of the magazine. Disagree with them as you might (and I often did), the founders of NR were… Read more »

Rurik
Member
3 years ago

There is a basic duality in everything, “Is”-“Isn’t”, ever since the Heavens was separated into Light and Dark. And we know who “We” are only in opposition to “Other”, “Not-We”. This has been the secret to Jewish success, and why they consider true acceptance and assimilation as great a threat as genocide. And it also explains why so many of the rest of us so often have anti-Jewish feelings.The difficulty is if you define your group so narrowly and exclusively that almost everyone else becomes Other. This has been the Jewish secret and problem for three thousand years. Analogous problems… Read more »

Jeffrey S.
3 years ago

Without even reading the rest of Lowry’s piece it is clear you are being unfair to him and not carefully framing his argument. As you should know, the classic conservative position has always been that men are equal before God (we are endowed by our Creator…) because the Christian position is that we are all God’s children loved infinitely by Him and worthy of basic human dignity as a result. That’s why slavery was a moral evil and why hatred of other races is also a moral wrong — although forcing equality on unequal ethnic/racial groups can be just as… Read more »

Karl Hungus
Karl Hungus
Reply to  Jeffrey S.
3 years ago

“Without even reading the rest of Lowry’s piece” hahahahaha

tell me, how do Lowry’s boy sized balls taste (now that you have given them a good tongue washing)?

Toddy Cat
Toddy Cat
Reply to  Karl Hungus
3 years ago

Slavery may or may not be a moral evil in all circumstances. While the Christian Church hedged the institution about with all sorts of caveats, it did not flat-out condemn it until the 19th century, which was a bit late if it is always and everywhere a moral evil. Also, Lowry was not just talking about slavery, he was talking about the “Civil Rights Revolution”, which was NOT about all men being God’s children – all Christians believe that – it was about getting rid of a basic right, the right of free association. It was this repudiation of a… Read more »

Toddy Cat
Toddy Cat
Reply to  Toddy Cat
3 years ago

By the way, lest anyone think that I am just blowing smoke about Christianity and slavery, here’s Cardinal Gerdil (1718 – 1802) on the institution; “Slavery is not to be understood as conferring on one man the same power over another that men have over cattle. Wherefore they erred who in former times refused to include slaves among persons; and believed that however barbarously the master treated his slave he did not violate any right of the slave. For slavery does not abolish the natural equality of men: hence by slavery one man is understood to become subject to the… Read more »

Jeffrey S.
Reply to  Toddy Cat
3 years ago

Aquinas famously made strong arguments that slavery was indeed against the natural law but that due to man’s fallen nature, slavery could be tolerated as part of the positive law (e.g. when enemies were captured after a war, they could be made slaves.) The church has a long history of developing doctrine (which grew out of the basic Gospel message) that eventually slavery had to be considered a moral evil. There is a reason that Saints as early as Patrick in Ireland are notable for fighting against the practice. Certainly, going out and capturing and/or enslaving your fellow man for… Read more »

Toddy Cat
Toddy Cat
Reply to  Jeffrey S.
3 years ago

You are certainly correct that, for most of Church history, slavery was considered… problematic,but it was not considered against the Natural Law for most of the last 2000 years. Aquinas certainly made the argument that you attribute to him, but most did not agree, and slavery as a moral evil was not Church doctrine at the time of the Civil War, which is the period under consideration. So we today can regard those who fought against slavery as fighting against a moral evil if we choose, but their contemporaries could not do so, since it was not regarded as such… Read more »

Jeffrey S.
Reply to  Toddy Cat
3 years ago

Thanks for the spirited debate — we do indeed share many of the same concerns and while I consider myself more of a traditional Christian conservative, I certainly don’t share many of the modern Republican party’s PC illusions about race or human sexuality. As for history, while I’m a Union man, any serious student of the Civil War should read Shelby Foote’s three volume masterpiece — if they do they will hopefully will come away with an appreciation for the many good men of the South (particularly Lee and Stonewall Jackson) and a sense of what a tragic event the… Read more »

Karl Hungus
Karl Hungus
Reply to  Toddy Cat
3 years ago

in Roman times, a person could sell themselves into slavery, which makes the moral issue very…complicated 🙂

Montefrío
Member
Reply to  Toddy Cat
3 years ago

Deep down in my reptilian brain, there’s a voice (I know, I know!) saying “I don’t want Rosa sitting in the back of the bus, I don’t want her on the bus at all! Let ’em manufacture their own guddam buses!”

Perhaps the presently popular amphibian will begin croaking out something similar and then won’t the “well-meaning” throw up their hands in dismay.

james wilson
james wilson
Reply to  Montefrío
3 years ago

Pardon me for chipping in at the corners, but the problem begins and ends with gratitude, or the lack of that virtue. The Left ruins people living on the margins by informing them all their faults are caused by others. People of any stripe who practice gratitude are easy to take.

Toddy Cat
Toddy Cat
Reply to  james wilson
3 years ago

There’s lots of truth to this. The people of Yemen used to say the “God only punishes ingrates” and they may have a point there, regardless of their other shortcomings.

Sam J.
Sam J.
Reply to  Montefrío
3 years ago

Uber is making this possible.

thor47
thor47
Reply to  Jeffrey S.
3 years ago

Exactly. Lowry is giving short shrift to the left’s view that they are on the right side of history. Doesn’t this sentence make that plain:

The political dangers of this point of view should be obvious:

And then he goes on to explain why. Writing doesn’t get any clearer.

teapartydoc
Member
3 years ago

Both sides are in agreement as to the Darwinistic aspect of things. The difference is the emphasis on divergent versus convergent evolution. One side insists that because divergent evolution happened in the past that future policy should reflect that reality, the other side sees a world that is getting smaller and where divergence may have taken place in the past but where convergence is the acting principle of continuity, and should determine policy. The main difference between these is that one is forward looking, whereas the other looks mainly to the past. These are value judgments. The difference between these… Read more »

Member
3 years ago

Official Conservatism has failed because – at the end of the day – Aldus Huxley has been proven right. Just substitute natural gifts for manufactured gifts, and you’re there. He acknowledges the hierarchy, and the role of the State in producing and maintaining that hierarchy. He acknowledges the pursuit of a perpetual state of happiness over a pursuit of life well lived. The 9 years war is their bogeyman, as his History (capital H), which they battle. And of course they have their saints (Ford). I have friends who think I’m crazy because I think legalizing weed in Colorado was… Read more »

L.Beau Macaroni
L.Beau Macaroni
Reply to  hokkoda
3 years ago

Hoffer’s True Believer, And now Huxley’s Brave New World. I’m really beginning to like this “Friday Book Club” thing that you’ve starting here, Zman.

teapartydoc
Member
Reply to  hokkoda
3 years ago

I dropped my subscription to NR over the pot issue. They basically switched on it because Richard Brookhiser got addicted to it on the pretext of his supposed Multiple sclerosis and then began berating anyone who thought otherwise as a heretic. When I attempted to drop the subscription, I discovered that I had paid for years in advance because of their deceptive marketing campaigns where they made you think your subscription was about to run out. At the time I was running two offices in two cities at a full time rate and had little time to keep track of… Read more »

notsothoreau
notsothoreau
Reply to  hokkoda
3 years ago

Sorry, but you are totally wrong about pot. It actually protects the lungs against cancer. I’ve personally seen that it stopped the leg tremors for a quadrapalegic vet, when commercial drugs didn’t help. And I’m in a group for folks with COPD that find that cannabis oil does seem to help them breathe better. Personally, I think they should have legalized pot but not allowed edibles. Do you really think our society is well served to throw people in jail for possession of pot?

Karl Hungus
Karl Hungus
Reply to  notsothoreau
3 years ago

I agree with your argument, but it is pointless to argue with old people. just try and make them comfortable, and keep them out of the way of harm.

Karl Hungus
Karl Hungus
Reply to  hokkoda
3 years ago

Sugar and other anti-nutrients are far far far more harmful than cannabis. As are prescription drugs. You are the a But Person; “I am for personal liberty, but…”.

Member
Reply to  Karl Hungus
3 years ago

No, they are not. Btw, I’m for personal liberty with the following liberty-enhancing requirements: – All lawsuits against pot growers, manufacturers, distributors, advertisers are banned particularly as it pertains to health-care related issues such as, but not limited to, lung disease and cancer. You may not sue tomorrow for health impacts created today. – All individuals who smoke pot must so-state on any health insurance form, and be charged accordingly. Let the actuarial tables decide. Full disclosure is required. Lying on healthcare forms grounds for immediate cancellation of policy. – State and federal governments may not collect taxes on pot… Read more »

Karl Hungus
Karl Hungus
Reply to  hokkoda
3 years ago

“I’m for personal liberty with the following … requirements” <= self negating sentence.

the fact that you are so worked up over something so inconsequential as cannabis, marks you as an unserious person.

you have absolutely no idea how the "war" on drugs was used to destroy liberty after liberty, with the added bonus of doing nothing to stop or reduce the use of drugs!

Member
Reply to  Karl Hungus
3 years ago

Why do you oppose my simple solution to alleged claims of “individual liberty”. Seems to me that pot smokers want to have their pot, but are unwilling to live with the consequences unless Society bails them out.

People who pick and choose like that are unserious.

Lorenzo
Lorenzo
Reply to  hokkoda
3 years ago

Where does it stop? We could get into discussions about whether, for example, people injured while skiing should pick up the bill for treating their injuries, given that they should live with the consequences of risks they voluntarily take in recreation.

It gets messy.

Member
Reply to  Lorenzo
3 years ago

God forbid people live with their choices instead of socializing all risk. I blew out my knee skiing when I was on active duty. A guy that worked for me years later was retired military. When we were talking about it, he asked how much disability I got each month. I didn’t know that I could do that, particularly since I had knee surgery in an Air Force hospital. I never even crossed my mind to pimp the system like that. I’ll never forget what he said, “Oh, everybody does it. I have a 15% disability for x, and I… Read more »

Montefrío
Member
Reply to  hokkoda
3 years ago


Smoked it off and on infrequently for decades, beginning in 1962 and ending in February of this year. Your list seems very reasonable to me, although I’d apply it to alcohol as well.

james wilson
james wilson
Reply to  Montefrío
3 years ago

A person is a 1905 man, or he is not. Ain’t no buts.

Toddy Cat
Toddy Cat
Reply to  james wilson
3 years ago

Personally, I think that pot is worse than alcohol by several degrees of magnitude, but I don’t have strong feelings about it. If the price of repealing Hart Cellar and protecting the Second Amendment is legalizing pot, Hell, sell the stuff at Wal-Mart, for all I care. Most of our current drug laws were created under Woodrow Wilson, our very worst President (despite his rather sensible views on race), and anything institute under that control freak lunatic deserves scrutiny, at the very least.

Member
Reply to  Montefrío
3 years ago

I have no problem with that. People always seem to want freedom, but not the personal responsibility and basic morality that it requires.

Member
Reply to  hokkoda
3 years ago

My wife came home from work on Tuesday, and told me about the new mom who freaked out in the clinic when her baby started manifesting withdrawal symptoms. She wasn’t freaked out that her underweight baby was very sick. She was freaked out because the law requires my wife to report it. If people are allowed to hide behind cancer patients and PTSD soldiers to advance the drug into the mainstream, I can point out that increased access to the drug is going to come with some severe downsides. In addition to the mother being a disaster, she now has… Read more »

teapartydoc
Member
Reply to  hokkoda
3 years ago

I practiced medicine for over thirty years and retired this year, so it’s not like I’m out of date. 1. I think medical licensing should be abolished. The monopoly it has created is the reason it is not affordable. This also means that prescription rights should be abolished. That people should be able to purchase whatever the market makes available to them. Including pot. 2. In my statement above I never said anything about this because making pot legal by itself doesn’t have any effect whatsoever on the monopoly. In fact doing so without abolishing occupational licensing makes the situation… Read more »

Member
Reply to  teapartydoc
3 years ago

The problem is that the anecdotes are one sided. The “legalize” side always tromps out a bunch of sick vets and cancer patients to hide behind. That probably wasn’t your intent, but it was true to form for weed advocates. In our zeal to live in the now, consequences be damned, world, people are flat out ignoring things like the long term consequences of tar in the lungs and babies being born with addictions. That is never discussed. We just get the same old “beer is no worse”, “sugar is worse” kinds of baloney. We can do better, and there’s… Read more »

notsothoreau
notsothoreau
Reply to  hokkoda
3 years ago

How many years do we need to study this stuff? You are giving the old hard line, “make it illegal and throw people in jail for having a seed” argument. There’s no evidence of tar in the lungs from the most recent studies. I’ll say it again. Society decided that these issues are not enough to criminalize tobacco or alcohol. Both of the substances have a lot more evidence of causing disease than pot. When do you intend to drive up the costs of drinking? What do you intend to do with the folks that aren’t willing to put up… Read more »

notsothoreau
notsothoreau
Reply to  teapartydoc
3 years ago

No, addiction is the friend that drank from the time he was 13, right up until he had an aneurysm in his stomach and almost bled out. He was able to live out the rest of his life drinking near beer. I’ve known too many people to quit using pot, including myself, with no side effects. It’s habitual, not addiction. I’ve known a lot of folks that couldn’t quit smoking and some that died of lung cancer. Yet they are still sold in stores. We are talking about whether or not we should jail people for the use of these… Read more »

teapartydoc
Member
Reply to  notsothoreau
3 years ago

People quit alcohol all the time.

notsothoreau
notsothoreau
Reply to  hokkoda
3 years ago

Just to let you know, since you don’t seem to have any personal experience with medicinal marijuana, it doesn’t get you high like old school pot. It’s designed for pain relief. I had some of the stuff the quadraplegic grew. You couldn’t really take more than a hit or two of it. It was stupifying and unpleasant as far as I was concerned. We have had years and years to study the effects of pot. If the things you are talking about were true, it would have been used in all the arguments to keep the stuff illegal. And yes,… Read more »

teapartydoc
Member
Reply to  notsothoreau
3 years ago

There’s medicinal and “medicinal”, Granny Clampett.

Christopher S. Johns
Christopher S. Johns
3 years ago

There is, I think, something telling and distinctive regarding the choice of devils as regards the Buckleyites and the Progressives, and the implications and ramifications that arise out of that choice. The Buckleyite devil – godless communism – was a threat whose locus was external to the United States. Yes, there were bad Americans, like the Rosenbergs, who must be guarded against, but America itself did not give rise to the evil that must be combated. During their heydey, the Buckleyites could thus conceive of an essentially good America engaged in a struggle with a foreign adversary. The most enduring… Read more »

LetsPlay
LetsPlay
Member
3 years ago

Zman, I’m not sure we read the same article. Firstly, Lowry wrote the article for Politico as a contributing editor, although he is an editor at National Review. I was trying to find the article at National Review and couldn’t. I didn’t want to give Politico any clicks if I could avoid it. But they, NR, didn’t have it archived. So back to Politico to read. What “I” read was kind of a post-election piece on why progressives lost the election and the hubris that led to their downfall. His take on “their” view of HISTORY was interesting and they… Read more »

Fuel Filter
Fuel Filter
3 years ago

Here is an  absolutely glorious and devastating  takedown of the Beltway Right and National Review, most especially those cucked pricks Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowrey. You guys have got to read this: http://takimag.com/article/nr_is_not_relevant_james_miller/print#axzz4PjNJm4EH They are more than irrelevant. They are the enemies burrowed deep inside out body politic.  (BTW, I don’t agree with the author’s take on the John Birch Society. Their core message was prescient: against Statism and Globalism. If Buckley had taken up even 1/4 of their positions [especially on the U.N. and the actuality of the Commie influence in our government]  we would not be in the mess… Read more »

Al from da Nort
Al from da Nort
Reply to  Fuel Filter
3 years ago

Fuel Filter; I’m with you on abominating the rainbow mafia* and its malignant takeover of our ‘so called’ elite and the cultural damage it is doing. Hollywood is a big reason why many moslems despise us, believe that Allah is giving us into their hands, so then are ok making common cause with the progs. My take (in retrospect) was that NR was attracted to the apparent philosophical consistency of Libertarianism once the unifying (and very real) threat of international communism removed itself from the Overton Window (but not from reality, witness BLM) with the collapse of the USSR. The… Read more »

Sam J.
Sam J.
3 years ago

The Democratic party was the party of slavery in 1861 and they’re the party of slavery now. The rich control all the money and import things from abroad while they get us peasants to do the holding down of the slaves. Just like slavery in the South they pay the slaves just enough to live off of. They tax us to make sure their slaves stay in place and periodically they import more to keep wages down Some Democrats think it’s all about racism, blah, blah, blah but it’s really about money. The SJW are idiots. They don’t have a… Read more »

Jay Dee
Member
3 years ago

While the orthodoxy of the New Religion may be its three pillars of egalitarianism, multiculturalism and anti-racism, it’s practice is that some people are more eqaul than others, all cultures are equal except white and/or Christian and finally, only white and/or male and/or Christians can commit acts of racism. Supporters truly believe that they are or will become the ruling elite. It is indeed a perverted form of religion that allows no fact to oppose their faith.