Category: Facebook Posts

Five Years Ago on Facebook: On David Brooks on Trump

TRUST DAVID BROOKS?
David Brooks is right to emphasize the importance of social trust for human flourishing. But how trustworthy in his judgments is someone who spews stuff like this:
Donald Trump is in the process of shredding every norm of decent behavior and wrecking every institution he touches. Unable to behave responsibly, unable to protect himself from COVID-19, unable to even tell the country the truth about his own medical condition, he undermines the basic credibility of the government and arouses the suspicion that every word and act that surrounds him is a lie and a fraud. Finally, he threatens to undermine the legitimacy of our democracy in November and incite a vicious national conflagration that would leave us a charred and shattered nation.
I then commented:
I cannot take Brooks and his political projection seriously. He seems to have degenerated badly. But he always was a pseudo-conservative, a member of the yap-and-scribble bow-tie brigade, along with Bill Kristol, George Will, Mona Charen, Max Boot, and the rest. These types love to write and talk, but when it comes time to act and support a man who has already done so much in the face of vicious opposition to implement conservative policies, they clutch their pearls, straighten their ties, and chicken out. I get the distinct impression that their main political goal is to remain among the respectable so as to preserve their privileges, perquisites, and invitations to the high-toned soirees of the bien-pensant. They seem to fear nothing more than becoming persona non grata in the manner of Alan Dershowitz. Accepting something like political dhimmitude, Brooks and the cruise-ship conservative cohort are content to play the lap-dog role assigned to them by the Left, talk quietly about taxes and such, and allow the Left’s culturally Marxist juggernaut to roll on.
Brooks goes on about norms. But he will give either his direct or indirect support to a party that is hell-bent on destroying the norms and institutions of the Republic. The Left has become brazen about what they stand for: packing the Supreme Court, ending the filibuster, eliminating the Electoral College, removing the Second Amendment to the Constitution, tolerating and expanding ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions, eliding the distinction between citizen and non-citizen — and I am just warming up.
Like Rod Dreher, Brooks apparently believes that civility and good manners trump every other consideration: better that race-delusional Marxist thugs destroy our cities than that an alpha male punch back against the chaos and defend the American Way. Trump is boorish, but there is nothing radical about him unlike the Orwellian ‘moderate’ Joe Biden who is a driverless vehicle or rudderless vessel soon to be piloted by Kamala Harris and the squadristi to hard-Left destinations.
Addendum.  If Brooks is concerned about norms, he ought to consider the nullification of federal law in places like Portland, Oregon.  See Victor Davis Hanson, Reactionary, Neo-Confederate Portland.

Mamdani and the Elimination of Misdemeanor Enforcement in NYC

I'm back on the rant at Facebook.  Latest:

Madman Mamdani, the Islamo-Commie, wants to eliminate misdemeanor enforcement in NYC. Why not? It worked so well in California:
This incident could happen at any Walgreens in San Francisco: A man strolls into the store walks over to the hair display, grabs an armful of shampoo bottles, and simply walks out the door. He felt no need to rush, had no fear, and didn't bother looking back.
Instead of actually doing something, people stood by and recorded the scene on their phones, shaking their heads; they knew nothing would happen, as he'd simply disappear into the crowd. There's no point in calling the police; they wouldn't come, store clerks wouldn't bother, and the DA wouldn't prosecute.
In California, petty thefts valued at less than $950 are typically not worth the paperwork involved.
It's this future that mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is dangling in front of New York City.
Article here.

Why Mix Politics with Philosophy?

I have been asked why I intersperse political entries with narrowly philosophical ones.  But in every case the question was put to me by someone who tilts leftward.  If my politics were leftist, would anyone complain?  Probably not.  Academe and academic philosophy are dominated by leftists, and to these types it seems entirely natural that one should be a bien-pensant  lefty.  Well, I'm here to prove otherwise.  Shocking as it will  seem to some, leftist views are entirely optional, and a bad option at that. The hard left in its now-dominant 'woke' incarnation is inimical to just about everything worth preserving. There is of course  a broad spectrum of leftist position, not all equally anti-civilizational, and some not at all anti-civilizational. Some good things can be said about some leftists of yesteryear.  

I could of course post my political thoughts to a separate site.  Now a while back I did effect such a segregation, sending my political rants and ruminations to my Facebook page. But given that philosophy attracts more leftists than conservatives, it is good for them to be exposed to views  that they do not encounter within the enclaves they inhabit.  Or are contemporary liberals precisely illiberal in their close-minded-ness to opposing views?  One gets that impression. We  conservatives are the 'new liberals.' We conservatives are classically liberal in that we support free speech and open inquiry. You say you want an example? Consider Newsmax. It is a conservative outlet that regularly allows leftists such as Ellis Henican and Barney Frank to have their say. No so with the leftist outlets: they do not allow political adversaries to have their say.

Posting the political to a separate weblog would also violate my 'theory' of blogging.  My blog is micro to my life's macro.  It mirrors my life in all its facets as a sort of coincidentia oppositorum of this situated thinker's existence.

Why did I leave Facebook? The mendacious FB admins went on a phishing expedition: they wanted me to reveal my smartphone number. I refused. In any case FB is not a serious venue in the main and the comments I received on carefully crafted posts were  mostly crap. My most valued interlocutors refused to follow me over there. FB is a place for narcissists to post selfies  and pictures of what they had for lunch. Am I being fair? Fair enough.

Why Am I So Happy?

From my Facebook page, three years ago, pre-COVID-19, pre-Biden, before things really got bad. But I am still happy. For some of us happiness is a basal state, bred-in-the-bone, affected somewhat by external circumstances, but not by much.
 
………………………………
 
My beloved country looks to be going the way of the Roman empire: overextended abroad and collapsing within under the weight of its own decadence. We can't agree about much of anything anymore and are arguing bitterly about things we ought not be arguing about. The future looks grim. Civil war may be in the offing. Idiots and overgrown children now occupy positions of power in our government. The Speaker of the House regularly spouts nonsense. Deep State operatives deploy fascist techniques against harmless citizens to intimidate and spread fear. People who should know better apologize for speaking the truth. Journalism is pretty much dead and lies are rampant. Delusional race-baiters who retail incoherence are celebrated by white 'liberals' in the pages of once respectable publications. Bootless neocons with no skin in the game advocate spreading 'democracy' among benighted tribalists regardless of the expenditure of American blood and treasure. The rights that are every American's birthright are under assault. Roughly half of our fellow citizens are reasonably viewed as domestic enemies. And the litany continues.
 
So why am I so happy?
 
When I was 20 I wrote into my journal, "Philosophy, the joy of my youth and the consolation of my old age." I was prescient, but not prescient enough. Philosophy has proven to be not only the consolation but also the joy of my old age, and a greater joy than ever.
 
The owl of Minerva spreads its wings at dusk, and this owl is reaping a rich harvest as the shadows grow long and the end of the trail comes into view.
 
It helps if you can look beyond this life and see it as a passing scene, real enough as far as it goes, and certainly no dream, but a scene of no final reality or importance.
 
And so I pity the poor secularist who has nothing beyond this hopeless world.

I Walk the Line

Over at Facebook. The line between saying what needs to be said and being de-platformed. I don't much cotton to book burners and their latter-day equivalents. Free speech and open inquiry! Not for their own sakes, but in pursuit of the truth. Not 'my truth' or 'your truth,' but the truth.

Political Observations

The short statements below are from my Facebook page.  It is important to explain to the open-minded and politically uncommitted, in a pithy and non-polemical way, what American conservatives stand for.  The American conservative, as I use the term, is neither a throne-and-altar neo-reactionary, nor is he an alt-Right tribalist. His conservatism takes on board the best of classical liberalism. You could call him a paleo-liberal. And of course he is far from the yap-and-scribble, do-nothing 'cruise ship' pseudo-conservatives who are willing to accept political dhimmitude so long as their perquisites and privileges and invitations to the tonier Beltway salons remain intact.  
 
My 'voice' over at Facebook is usually polemical, unlike the shorts below. I tread the razor's edge between saying what needs to be said about incendiary topics and getting de-platformed.  Polemical discourse, including invective, mockery, and the rest are justified by the fact we are engaged in a war with the destructive Left over the soul of America.  You are welcome to join me, but just be sure to read the pinned post at the top of the page.
 
THE FIRST OBLIGATION OF GOVERNMENT
 
The main obligation of a government is to protect and serve the citizens of the country of which it is the government. It is a further question whether it has obligations to protect and benefit the citizens of other countries. That is debatable. But if it does, those obligations are trumped by the main obligation just mentioned. I should think that a great nation such as the USA does well to engage in purely humanitarian efforts such as famine relief. Such efforts are arguably supererogatory and not obligatory.
 
NATIONALISM AND 'FAMILIALISM'
 
America First is as sound an idea as that each family has the right to prefer its interests over the interests of other families. If my wife becomes ill, then my obligation is to care for her and expend such financial resources as are necessary to see to her welfare. If this means reducing my charitable contributions to the local food bank, then so be it. Whatever obligations I have to help others 'ripple out' from myself as center, losing claim to my attention the farther out they go, much like the amplitude of waves caused by a rock's falling into a pond diminishes the farther from the point of impact. Spouse and/or children first, then other family members, then old friends, then new friends, then neighbors, and so on.
 
The details are reasonably disputable, but not the general principle. The general principle is that we are justified in looking to our own first.
 
ENLIGHTENED NATIONALISM
 
AMERICA FIRST does not mean that that the USA ought to be first over other countries, dominating them. It means that every country has the right to prefer itself and its own interests over the interests of other countries. We say 'America first' because we are Americans; the Czechs say or ought to say 'Czech Republic first.' The general principle is that every country has a right to grant preference to itself and its interests over the interests of other countries while respecting their interests and right to self-determination. America First is but an instance of the general principle. The principle, then, is Country First.
 
ENLIGHTENED NATIONALISM AND CHAUVINISM
 
America First has nothing to do with chauvinism which could be characterized as a blind and intemperate patriotism, a belligerent and unjustified belief in the superiority of one's own country. America First expresses an enlightened nationalism which is obviously compatible with a sober recognition of national failings. Germany has a rather sordid history; but Germany First is compatible with a recognition of the wrong turn that great nation took during a well-known twelve-year period (1933-1945) in her history.
 
 
NATIONALISM, NATIVISM, ISOLATIONISM
 
An enlightened nationalism is distinct from nativism inasmuch as the former does not rule out immigration. By definition, an immigrant is not a native; but an enlightened American nationalism accepts immigrants who accept American values, which of course are not the values of the Left or of political Islam.
 
An enlightened nationalism is not isolationist. What it eschews is a fruitless meddling and over-eager interventionism. It does not rule out certain necessary interventions when they are in our interests and in the interests of our allies.
 
So America First is not to be confused with chauvinism or nativism or isolationism.

Back on the Rant

During Lent I was, in a manner of speaking, hors de combat, but of my own free will. But now the happy warrior is back in the Facebook trenches doing battle with our political enemies. No leftists need apply.  Fruitful discussion is possible only on the common ground of shared attitudes, values, presuppositions, and principles. That common ground no longer exists inasmuch as the Democrat Party is now an outlet of hard leftism to such an extent that our political opponents are now political enemies.

I am afraid Carl Schmitt is right: in the political sphere the defining opposition is that of Freund und Feind, friend and enemy.

Facebook

That's where the MavPhil political punch-back is these days until such time as I am de-platformed for my quotidian violation of 'community standards.'

I will consider your 'friend' request if I can see from your page that you have the Right stuff.

Today’s Facebook Shorts

The comment threads are healthy but you have to go the Land of Zuck to read them.
 
HOW MANY WHITE SUPREMACISTS DO YOU KNOW?
 
I don't know any. A white supremacist is someone who denies that whites and non-whites are equal in respect of rights (life, liberty, property, etc.) and are therefore legitimately enslaved or otherwise made subservient to whites for the benefit of whites. If you have a different definition of 'white supremacist,' please tell me what it is and how many of them you know.
 
CASHLESSNESS AND SOFT TOTALITARIANISM
 
Some restaurants no longer accept cash payments. Reason? Health concerns. A route to soft totalitarianism. Exaggerate some health threat. Inspire fear in a gullible populace of highly suggestible conformists. Ban cash in the name of public health. Result? Everyone making payments leaves a paper trail. People can be monitored as to where they go, where they shop, what they eat and drink., what they read. Too many visits to Joe's Real BBQ for paleolithic vittles and your social credit score goes down. You get the picture . Alarmist?
 
BV Comment 1:  Cede control of health care delivery to the gov't and they can tell you how to live, what to eat, drink, ride. Ride a motorcycle? Dangerous activity! Gov't has a reason to ban them if they are picking up the tab for health care.
 
BV Comment 2: Are we a gullible populace of highly suggestible conformists? Well, look at all the people walking around in the open air wearing masks. Or people driving alone in their cars wearing masks. Etc. Where is the independence of mind? Are we Americans or obedient Germans?
 
JOEY B.: OUT OF TOUCH AND BEING USED
 
Joe Biden has been spending too much time with his record player if he thinks that Critical Race Theory is merely a plea that we be sensitive to the feelings of people of other races. I am being charitable, perhaps excessively so. I am suggesting that he is an old man out of touch with current events.
 

Facebook

That's where the MavPhil political punch-back is these days until such time as I am de-platformed for my quotidian violation of 'community standards.' I will consider your 'friend' request if I can see from your page that you have the Right stuff.

Is the Left Out for Power Alone?

The following is a sample of (some of) what I post at my Facebook page.  I swore off Facebook for July, but I have been back in the groove since 1 August doing my humble bit to beat back the forces of darkness.  They have sicced their censor bots on me, so I have to be careful how I say things lest I get de-platformed.  My obscurity affords me some cover.  Obscurity has its uses and compensations.  The value of fame, on the other hand, may be gauged by the quality of those who confer it.

…………………….

Tucker Carlson and many other conservatives say that leftists are out for power alone, but it is not true. I grant, of course, that leftists love power and will do anything to gain it and maintain it. But why do they want it? They want it in order to implement their agenda which they believe will be good for them and their clients. It is for the sake of the agenda — the things to be done — that leftists want power.

With their hands on the levers of power, the Democrats can keep the borders open, empty the prisons, defund the police, confiscate firearms, do away with the filibuster, give felons the right to vote while in prison, outlaw home schooling, alter curricula to promote the 'progressive' worldview (by among other things injecting 1619 project fabrications into said curricula), infiltrate and ultimately destroy the institutions of civil society, erase history by the destruction of monuments, remove every vestige of Christinaity from the public square, pass 'hate speech' laws to squelch dissent, and so on into the abyss.