Wait... so if we don’t buy into the Ukraine narrative, by this writer’s logic, then we are nothing but Russian shills? I know gender is binary, but thinking definitely is NOT. You can hate Russia (and everything it stands for) and still acknowledge that Ukraine is a deeply corrupt country (where corrupt US politicians launder their money and make shady deals to get their sons on the boards of energy companies) not worth getting into World War III over.
Yup. This article is long on invective and short on receipts. For example, the two tenets that are supposedly at the core of "New Right ideology" are entirely unsourced. It's like saying that the Biden administration is secretly run by a cabal of hard-core socialists: One might be able to make a tendentious argument in that direction, relying heavily on cherry- and nut-picking, but Martínez doesn't even try to make such an argument.
The only thing is that, by their actions, one can safely assume that the Biden administration is run by hard-core socialists; or at the very least outright lunatics and fools.
I agree with this. “Claims, without evidence, that Biden’s admin is heavily influenced by Socialist shills” doesn’t apply anymore because there is enough evidence in his actions.
Here's a claim in the article that I've simplified for you. Feel free to disprove it: <<The new right is more likely to blame US behavior for Putin's behavior, and in so doing reflects the America-centric worldview of Chomskian leftists.>>
"In another striking parallel with the New Right, the Berkeley hippie thought that every political event that happened anywhere in Latin America or the global South, from Chile to Nicaragua, was a masterfully executed CIA plot for which an American administration (probably Reagan) was directly responsible. The thought that events unfolding in Chile (or Ukraine, for that matter) might reflect another society's complex inner workings in which the U.S. was but one factor never even occurred. This is the supreme narcissism of the American activist class, left or right, thinking the entire world is downstream of domestic U.S. politics."
I don't think you consume much conservative media. I watch Tucker Carlsen every night and listen to Ben Shapiro podcasts every morning. If you think either blames America's deep evils as the cause for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or that American has historically been a negative force in the world, you haven't been paying attention at all. Both reject the leftist woke idea that America is this horrible place that lacks the moral high ground on authoritarian regimes. Conservatives are capable of dialectical thinking however where different competing ideas can both be true. This seems to go beyond the mental capacity of modern liberals.
Both of these facts can be true at once: Putin is an evil dictator and responsible for the unprovoked attack on Ukraine, and Ukraine is a corrupt country of no major significance to American interest. If you can't see that then you clearly don't watch or listen to either program. Tucker would question why we are involved or care at all. Ben would say our current level of involvement is fine but getting into a shooting war with Russia is of no benefit to us. Interestingly I think Tucker Carlsen would have opposed the Vietnam War but not for the leftist reasoning that America is a nefarious force rather that it doesn't serve our interest.
I am more of Ben Shapiro's way of thinking, simply letting Putin have Ukraine is bad for a wide variety of reasons. But providing arms should be the extent of our involvement. This is happening in Europe in the backyard of all the major European powers. If any soldiers or pilots are going to be sent to war and die for the Ukrainian cause they should be European ones. This idea that liberals have, who rarely serve in the Military or Law Enforcement, that USA should send soldiers to die in any war waged by a dictator is ridiculous.
Shapiro has an entire podcast kind of dedicated to dispelling the notion that Putin leads a Christian Nation. It was 2 weeks ago on a monday. Putin's history of marketing Russia's supposed resurgent Christian Nationalism is discussed there. He's also been addressing the "new right" in that podcast and others though he never uses that term. Shapiro has consistently taken the Neocon approach to national defense in his podcast and in articles. The central premise of his work is that a militarily weak US invites bad actors to fill the vaccuum. I assure you Carlson/Owens and Shaprio do not see eye to eye on this subject. Although Shapiro never argues for escalation in Ukraine he did argue that the US should have never left Afghanistan, and that we should be a massive force in Iraq, and that we have a right to take out Iranian leadership. He is a dyed in the wool Neocon like Norman Podhoretz.
Shapiro is not Carlson and he's challenged Carlson on this issue and many others over the years. Read Commentary and NRO for many more like Shapiro calling out Carlson and Owens. speaking of owes, Shapiro is not calling her out but he is not sharing her tweets at all. Not on Ukraine. Anyone who really follows Shapiro knows he is a devout Neocon. Neocons are generally not interventionists when it comes to Ukraine however. This has been the great irony on full display recently. I assure you most of my time is spent reading and listening to conservatives
I don't think Martinez is saying anyone opposed to sending US troops is Chomskian. The poison infecting the "new right" is much more pervasive in that no one in that faction believes the US has any legitimate moral authority to intervene. BTW the DW website commentariate is almost entirely consumed by Mearsheimer narrative, and I assure you Shapiro forcefully rejects that and has since the onset. He has never given oxygen to the Nato encroachment narrative.
Try reading the text of the Nov 10 Joint Memorandum. Not only is it recklessly provocative but in slow-walking weapons to Ukraine, the senile imbecile and his bunch of nitwits made it likely that Russia would invade and that Ukraine would lack sufficient defensive weapons. Oh and the paragraph in the memo about the sanctity of Ukraine's borders and its right to police them for drugs and human smuggling is beyond hilarious, given the Biden-created chaos at our own border.
AKA *disproving a negative* or *misplaced burden of proof fallacy*.
Not sure how that is relevant to the argument that a very specific group of conservatives, called in this essay "the new right' now aligns with Chomsky when it comes to causality and world events. Care to address what I posted instead of fishing for a fallacy? Try to imagine the question isn't about you then answer.
The Biden administration isn't run by a cadre of hard care socialists? Gosh, you could have fooled me. By their actions we shall know them. If you walk like a duck, quack like a duck, maybe you are a duck. I agree with you. Cherry picking indeed.
No, Naomi, I am not saying Biden’s admin is not run by socialists. In fact, I am making the opposite argument. I agree with Bruce’s point that there is enough evidence in Mr. Biden’s actions that his administration is run by Socialists. I’m arguing that saying “there is no evidence” is a lie.
Doh !! You’re the second person to complement a reply of mine with humor that went right over my head! 😂 I’m new to this substack thing and clearly need to lighten the heck up. I apologize for the hostility. I’m so used to being on the defensive in social media comments.
I'm as conservative as they come. Rush Limbaugh was too liberal for me.
I don't recognize myself at all in the ways Weiss characterizes the New Right, and I don't know anyone who does:
1. The United States is incapable of doing good in the world, and historically has been a force for evil worldwide.
2. Everything that happens in the world is the direct result or responsibility of the United States.
I look back at our war in Afghanistan, and see a war that would never end. And all the blood and treasure wasted trying to win an unwinnable war- a war that, when faced with defeat, the enemy melts away and blends in with the population.
There was good reason to go in there after 9/11 - to deprive Osama Bin Laden of a staging ground for more attacks on the US. AFAIC, we should have gone in, smashed up the furniture, hunted down OBL and Mullah Omar, killed them, and then left. With a warning that anyone allowing a repeat would be treated the same way.
There was no good reason to stay there for twenty years. And to continue to stay in perpetuity.
The US IS a force for good in the world. But anyone who thinks other peoples around the world are just like us and want the same things we want is naive. Example: The US was successful in causing Iraq to have democratic elections. But that didn't lead to a lasting peace among the people of that country.
They needed to collect on annual contracts, 20 of them.
Honestly ever hear of the Green Zone?
Elites College kids partying in Saddam’s palaces , cashing in, living it up, guarded by American soldiers staring silently in shame.
They fly first class, we died in the sand.
(Yes, we, although clearly I’m not dead).
The Green Zone kids are middle aged now, need a war - why how else to pay for their kids college!
Best part is we got these stupid Uke’s to do the fighting this time !
- DC is a bit nervous about using our military, perhaps they sense something? Being put on Hold Jan 6 may have tempered their enthusiasm for using our own troops.
Just funnel the contracts to the Poles, Uke’s, etc.
As usual 10-20% will come back to “the Big Guy”, his crackhead son, all the little guys.
Yep. It seems that for the last 20-30 years international political decisions have lacked the direction that would be provided by really and truly asking and answering Carlson's favorite questions: Why do we want to do this? What is in it for us?
As I have read more on this general topic over the last couple of years, I have developed a great fear of Karma. What the US leaders, both government and industry, have done to large swaths of the undeveloped world is demoralizing.
It seems the decision criteria is "can we or can't we" instead of "should we or shouldn't we".
Another issue is our essentially mercenary army composed of those who can’t afford an exorbitantly priced college education. They can do the fighting while the pols kids police transphobia in college dorms. I recently heard the miniscule number of our leaders who have served in the military. That of course influences whether you are willing to enter wars. In Vietnam, the draft was key to widespread dissent.
It's Bill Maher's "l can't prove it but I know it's true." It's a thought provoking piece, with a few well aimed shots at the hypocrites on both sides.
Your comment is bereft of facts. You have not gainsaid even one of Martinez’s points and you obviously weren’t watching Carlson and Bannon when the war began.
I was watching Tucker when the war began. I never miss any of his shows. Tucker has been repeatedly maligned in the media. He is not pro-Putin. He questions all the agitation to get us into a war with Russia via Ukraine. Nothing wrong with asking why, is there?
I wonder if there are personality types that flow to either party? Certainly the way of thinking, and the ability to analyze and draw conclusions is different between conservatives and liberals. Jordan Peterson needs to explore this. He may have and I somehow missed it. Candace Owens did an interview with Dr. Malone that was incredible for a number of reasons. One of the topics they covered with a concept of mass societal hypnosis caused by intense fear. Dr. Malone mentioned it before and the media came crashing down on him. Another way of describing this phenomenon is mass formation psychosis. A lot of Leftists are like young children in their thinking. It's superficial with little to no understanding of history or consequences. It's as though cause and effect have ceased to exist. They can't defend their ideas and have thought so little of why they believe as they do that they become extremely defensive when questioned. Their worldview is so precarious that they can't accept any new or different information or perspectives. It is as close as a mental health dysfunction as I have seen for if they are challenged even mildly they go into complete melt down mode and get hysterical to the point of being homicidal. Scary times we live in. Someone needs to do a study on the background and history of this generation of snowflakes? Did they grow up in day care? Are they mostly from affluent homes? Did they have a lot of time with their parents? Did they go to church? Did they join Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts? Did they attend private schools? Did they watch a lot of television and spend inordinate amounts of time on video games? Do they read books? Have they read any of the classics? How good are their reading and writing skills? Can they adequately express themselves in writing? So many questions.
I know people on both sides--with similar upbringings. I'm no expert, but what I've observed is that Democrats/Leftists seem to be motivated by "herd mentality" or "groupthink" in addition to "confirmation bias"--with a focus on specific but unproven grievances. I once had a Democrat friend pronounce that "all Republicans are racist". I then asked her, "Do you think I'm a racist?" She replied "No, not you, but others..." I then asked her about specific people we knew that were Republicans, none of whom she believed to be "racist". At that point, she shrugged her shoulders and said "Well--you know what I mean!" In other words, she consumed all of the Democrat propaganda, specifically designed to form a belief system that "all Republicans or conservatives are .............!" I have seen this played out over that last 20 years and believe that the Democrat Party and their cohorts in the media continually perpetrate these myths. When the question of whether gay marriage should be "legalized" (which it already was contractually and legally)--that was the perfect wedge issue for further damnation of Republicans and/or Christians--if they had specific definitions of what constitutes marriage under the eyes of God. But the problem was that no argument about gay marriage was allowed to be considered respectfully. I actually know some gay couples that didn't support gay "marriage", even though they are in a legal partnership with all the same rights are "marriage". Some didn't care, except for the slippery slope of legislating "support" of things of which become "law" that individuals may not support, hence, we got the wedding-cake bakers run out of business. The same can be applied to the pro-life v. abortion rights where the government forces those who are opposed to abortion to fund it through their taxes. Most people are not overtly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc., but The Left/Democrats have painted a very exaggerated black and white view of anyone who isn't in lockstep-and those who aren't in lockstep are labeled 'Republicans". I know Democrats who work tirelessly to undermine the Republican Party in any way they can because they actually believe ALL Republicans are evil--besides the "reasonable" ones they know. So back to your comment--it is in fact a mass societal hypnosis of the Left/Democrats. I believe it originates in academia, the media--using traditional slightly subliminal ADVERTISING tactics and dishonest politicians--and takes hold of those who need to be part of the herd with a kind of religious fervor. They want to bring meaning to their lives (and yes, many are rich kids who have never struggled a day in their lives and have created no business or made a payroll), but just as many are eager to take no responsibility for the state of their lives--and Democrat propaganda gives them a scapegoat on which to blame their personal problems.
Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt wrote an entire book, "The Righteous Mind," on the topic of how personality and cultural forces influence people to be either more liberal or more conservative. He views this dichotomy from an evolutionary lens. And, of course Jordan Peterson is onto it. In fact, Haidt and Peterson have a truly outstanding conversation about this topic which you can listen to/watch here:
He says out loud that he is in no way pro Putin. Every night. But I bet this author is perfectly ok with the unelected men of Twitter etc deciding what Americans get to know.
Yes, heterodox in every way. He rails against Kevin McCarthy and Lindsey Graham (almost) as much as AOC or Pelosi. That's why I love watching. And Tulsi Gabbard, Michael Tracy, Glenn Greenwald are often there to support that heterodox position.
Yeah it's a stupid binary. I was hoping for more concrete examples of people on the right supporting Putin, but unfortunately he didn't have them. I think this is just an example of both sidesism that Jon Stewart decried for instance; the left is so terrible these days and they get railed upon a lot, deservedly so. But a lot of writers think they can establish themselves as above the fray and not a partisan by making sure that they criticize both sides. Sometimes that seems forced, like this, since the right is not doing nearly as much harm these days.
Kane at CFP, the most successful conservative news and opinion aggregator by a factor of 4, Darren Beattie of Revolver News and Raheem Kassam have all been wildly cheering for Russia.
Tucker Carlson said “no one cares” if Russia invades Ukraine and he had as his frequent guest Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who ridiculously claimed that Russia had legitimate reasons to fear Ukraine.
Jessie Watters, on the other hand, got advice from General Keith Kellogg. Watters has been right throughout. Compare the military experience of Macgregor and Kellogg and decide which on is likely to be more credible.
I'd be interested to see a quote from Carlson where he said "no one cares" if Russia invades Ukraine. And I watched MacGregor and he did not say what you said. He made it very clear that Putin had stated time and again that NATO in Ukraine would be seen as a provocation. If you know Russian history this is not an unusual position to take.
Ukraine aligned or part of NATO, with NATO FORCES in their border is a legitimate security concern for Russia. You can claim it is not but Putin has been stating it is for years
I was there in the 60's shutting down my college for an entire day to protest the war in Vietnam. I remember the 60's and the hippies and leftists very well. I have now been immersed in conservatism for the last 25 years. The author knows next to nothing about today's conservative movement, altho his depiction of the 60's radicals is not inaccurate. We conservatives rage at the ineptness of the Biden woke admin who has practically invited Putin into the Ukraine due to their lack of knowledge of human nature and human history. Abandoning Afghanistan, destroying our energy independence and not having a realistic approach to Putin and Nato gave Putin a clear pathway into the Ukraine. Now they are risking WWIII, and the US has a military based on woke ideology. Of course we should be angry at Biden for putting us in this crisis. Of course Putin is a monster and the Ukrainians are suffering horribly. But we are even more aware that here in the US our constitution and rights are being destroyed by a woke totalitarianism. When many of us are fully aware we are living under the Stasi, and we know that the totalitarians at home are marching forward and burying any resistance with impunity, where in the world do we get the presumptuousness to fight for freedom in the Ukraine?
Great post. I think Putin and Xi saw the incompetence of Biden but also saw that him and his allies went after their political opponents with a vitriol they never had for enemies of America. Even now they are only so firmly anti Russia because since 2016 they have been running a political operation tying Republicans to Russia.
I LOVE Russia. Love the literature and tortured history. I hate Putin. Both Russia and Ukraine are corrupt. There is no American interest in Ukraine except for peace ASAP
Well, I think that the reading of these comments proves everything that Martinez points out. Martinez was actually on the ground. Not like all you armchair Tucker Carlson wantabees. I would suggest all the New Right, Putin Puppets here that are bashing Common Sense, talk to anyone from Ukraine, talk to anyone that understands the languages, or spend time crying and hugging Ukrainians as they see their families being killed and country being destroyed.
Okay, so you don't like the US--so let a blood thirsty murderer invade another country and kill innocent men, women, and children. Have you no humanity?
Not a question at all of whether I "like" the US. I'm just puzzled by the left's ability to pivot so quickly on what was (just a few years ago!) incorrigibly corrupt Ukraine. Obviously this pivot was greased by two simple facts: First, Putin's invasion conveniently confirmed all the "Russia Russia Russia" hysteria of the last 5 years. Second, it made Ukraine the object of worldwide sympathy rather than the locus of the Biden administration's corrupt family history. How many Americans know about the Azov regiment?
The Azov Battalion are Ukrainian forces. Zelensky is the president of Ukraine. There is a lot of material available. It is very interesting. I am not familiar with the Wagner Group.
Zelenskyy was elected in April 2019. Did you think that America was more corrupt under Obama and Biden but less corrupt under Trump? I did. Why can’t you apply the same reasoning to Ukraine?
Humanity? Tell that the millions of aborted babies. The loony left wants abortion on demand, no questions asked up to and even after birth, and you want to lecture us on humanity?
Being on the ground gives him no better insight into the beliefs of the right. Nobody on the right of consequence is cheering on Putin, they're just saying to be cautious about the potential for nuclear war.
Well I think the interest is in preventing countries from bring conquered by force and reestablishing our deterrence. Which I think we lost with the debacle in Afghanistan and by having a president who isn't competent or lucid.
No we did not, it was entirely different. Afghanistan was based on the 911 attack. And Iraq was admittedly misguided, but the rationale was defensive, not to try and make them a part of the United States.
You are out of your mind. I love America and hate the people who are actively trying to destroy it. I do not want to go to war with Russia although that would lead to less “hugging and crying” as everyone would be incinerated.
The people criticizing Martinez obviously didn’t watch Carlson and War Room prior to and in the early stages. Carlson admitted on March 8 that he was wrong. Beattie of Revolver News and Kane of CFP are still supporting Russia.
Okay, so you don't like the US--so let a blood thirsty murderer invade another country and kill innocent men, women, and children. Have you no humanity?
He's saying where is the compassion for our country. Baltimore has a higher murder rate than the northern triangle countries. The homeless camps in big cities can be measured in 5 figures. It is possible to care about more than one thing. But it seems you personally can only care about Ukraine.
Ah my bad. I get what you're saying now. 😄 Sorry, sometimes it is hard to read sarcasm...especially in a day and age where people say the most insane things, unironically. 😂👍🏻
You’re exactly right, Liz. You probably read it already, but I published this linked piece criticizing the Ukrainian government while also stating that Putin’s actions are inexcusable, yet I still received emails calling me a Putin supporter:
Yup, if you're not for heading into a war with Russia over Ukraine you are a Putin fanboy. A stupid take that libs have turned into a Republican cudgel, as they do with anything and everything. Very poor opinion piece from Mr. Martinez, who is in the "club" of "open-minded" liberals on twitter and substack now.
Your last line pretty much confirms the writer's passage:
'...Trumpian in its isolationist America First attitude..'
Ukraine isn't worth fighting for, I get it. That's your point. But is it worth sending arms to? Isn't it worth doing that much at least? Ukraine is probably everything you say it is, ie - 'corrupt' and where politicians launder their money. But of course, using that metric, wouldn't Great Britain be as corrupt? With Russian oligarch billions residing in London? Do we not defend them? Yes we will.
A country doesn't have to be good or bad to be considered strategically important - and Ukraine, bordering four NATO countries, being invaded by Russia (the very nation NATO was formed to be the opponent of if attacked) - isn't important to the security of Europe? Of course it is. That's why we're there, along with twenty nine other democracies.
Where is the money supposed to come from? At what point do we realize that there has to be a limit to the amount of money we can print? We are on the road to ruin.
Your point is a valid one. But compared to the close to two trillion dollars spent on the Iraq war and its follies, I think our investment in Ukraine's defence is prudent, cost effective and more important in the long run. A worthwhile and justifiable expense.
Ok, replace “waste” with “spend” Is that more to your liking? We don’t have the money. And how is it that the media keeps telling us that Russia is performing so poorly in its war against Ukraine yet Russia at the same time poses such a grave threat to all of Europe? How can Russia be so weak (against Ukraine) yet so strong ( a grave threat to all of Europe) at the same time?
Lee, I understand your passion to take out the monster Putin - by itself it is admirable.
It is very unfair of you to write that those of us who do not prioritize this as highly as you do have no humanity. It has everything to do with how one perceives the criticality of what has happened to the US. I have been studying the left since I was on it 50 years ago. I consider the current iteration the most dangerous because it has learned the lessons that Aldous Huxley wrote about in "Brave New World." They no longer have to use the brute coercion of Stalin, Mao and Castro. They have the technology to make most of us happy slaves. And for those who resist this more sophisticated coercion, they will resort to whatever is needed to get rid of them. But one will never see this perspective unless one is able to see past the entire propaganda infrastructure of the woke Tyrants. This is no longer easy. Possibly start by reading and listening to Victor Davis Hanson and Thomas Sowell. And stay safe.
I wasn't either. All I did was compare the corruption Liz cites as a reason to not defend Ukraine. Corruption of the same kind exists in London as well. I didn't say a word about the state of Ukraine's democracy.
Why are you able to distinguish between America under Trump and America under Obama or Biden but apparently unable to distinguish Ukraine under Zelenskyy (since only April 2019) and Ukraine under his predecessors?
Is Ukraine any more corrupt than America? Was Ukraine‘s election as fraught with overwhelming fraud as America’s 2020 election?
Is there any evidence of Zelenskyy being corrupt? I think that if he was corrupt he would’ve taken the money and run rather than put his life on the line for his country.
Terence, I am of the opinion that Zelensky is corrupt and authoritarian because of the actions he has taken. For example, the detaining of opposition leaders and the nationalization of media outlets. I think there is also enough evidence in recent history to show the deep corruption of Ukraine. The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop being at the top of that list. As for more evidence of Zelensky’s corruption you can also look to who funded his election campaign: a certain Igor Kolomoisky who was under FBI investigation for a slew of financial crimes.
Is your opinion supported by any facts? Hunter Biden resigned from Burisma the same month that Zelenskyy was elected (April 2019). Zelenskyy ran on a reform platform and got 78% of the vote. Ukrainians obviously support him and are willing to fight for their independence from Russia.
In his famous conversation with Trump, it was Zelenskyy who raised the issue of corruption in Ukraine.
I don’t don’t understand how you can even say this. Zelenskyy has banned opposition political parties in Ukraine. None of those parties expressed support for the Russian invasion. One of them holds 40some seats in parliament. Elected by the people. In Ukraine it’s illegal to disagree with Zelenskyy. And that’s just the most recent news. And you ask if there’s evidence of his corruption. Unbelievable
Yeah, talk about presenting false dichotomies?! What garbage. I guess we can thank Bari for giving a platform to a range of voices, but that's about it.
I assure you Bari is 100% in agreement with Martinez and she helps write these essays as well. It isn't a false dichotomy since Martinez literally made up name to call a faction of the right that sounds like Chomsky. The right has many factions and always had. The divide between Paleo-Cons and Neo-Cons goes way back, much further than the latest Trumpian flair up. Study the term "Straussian" for example.
Thanks, good insights. First of all, I don’t subscribe to the “right-left” false binary either, so of course the “right having many factions” doesn’t mean anything to me either. But of course I recognize that it these categories have a great deal of meaning to many others.
As re Bari agreeing/collaborating with Martinez, that doesn’t sway me either. Pre-Trump, I doubt I would have paid much attention to Bari (not meant to be offensive, just stating a fact). What I find compelling is her conviction and courage to say FU to the post-2016 leftist cult that has become dominant in our institutions.
Lefty writers like Martinez always mistake snark for wit, and the people that consume that dreck always assume they have the sophistication of Dorothy Parker, laughing oh-so-knowingly at an inside joke that is nowhere to be found
It’s all shit: the writer has no idea what he’s talking about, and the readers are ignorant rubes who understand almost nothing of the real world. Why do you think popular entertainment is so excruciatingly vacant? No one is home— just disembodied voices baying at their unhappy demons…
Are you insinuating that I am agreeing with the opinions of the original piece by the comment I made? Because I sure as hell do not agree with what he is saying.
He makes no argument to support the headline. The only argument I was able to somewhat decipher is that to criticize Ukraine is to support Russia -- which is precisely the opinion I am criticizing!
🤦♀️ I’m so sorry. You’re sarcasm went right over my head. I’m used to Facebook hostility where every “compliment” is just passive aggressiveness. So sorry for the confusion!! 🤝
It never ceases to surprise how some writers can take their own skewed, cynical view of the world then use it as a foundation for skewed arguments leading to skewed conclusions - conclusions without any proof other than self reference. Typical in this little missive: "The New Right - Trumpian in its isolationist America First attitude and deeply cynical about the country’s ability to act competently in the world." I don't know anybody remotely like that. The only Trump supporters I know supported his economic policies, which were reaping tremendous benefit for the Average, Middle-Class American, appreciated his restraint vis à vis spilling American blood to fulfill non-serving politicians such as the Clintons, Cheneys and Romneys lust for foreign adventuring (hardly "isolationist"), and his willingness to stay out of fights that did not involve American interests. They (we) appreciated our being energy-independent and the benefits thereof; compare those days to now, when the entire nation's economy is being whipsawed on a daily basis by the craziest progressive ideologues in the Democrat party while Titular President Asterisk begs our enemies for a few crumbs of oil.
No, Sir, you are dead wrong about America. This is a fine, good Nation filled with good people who simply have been asleep at the switch and have allowed their homeland to be taken over by elected fools - the Nancy Pelosis, the Chuck Schumers, the Sandy Occasional-Cortexes, and little unelected dictators like Herr Fauci. This is the greatest nation that has ever existed, and it deserves to be saved from these fools and predators. Can it be done? I don't know, but we must try.
Trump's actions were the most impressive of any President I've witnessed in my 65 years. Unfortunately that came with a pompous blowhard style that the left feasted on. He was the opposite of Obama who was all style and no substance, but the left loves them some style.
I’m not sure what Mr. Martinez’s political persuasion is but it sure sounds like he’s bored with our newfound “isolationism”. I mean we’ve been out of Afghanistan almost 6 months now. Maybe he’s simply an aging neocon going through a midlife crisis who yearns for the good old chest thumping days of the “old right”. Whatever he is, he doesn’t lack grandiosity. Nevertheless, if he and his neocon pals are dead set on interventionism, my advice would be to start small. Maybe an island in our hemisphere, like Cuba! Hell, he and Victoria Nuland could even save air fare. All they need is a couple of boats, a few AKs and an imbecilic president’s blessing and they can go create an egalitarian utopia. Just don’t tell those Berkeley hippies.
Thanks. My med school mate's dad used to say, "Man is basically evil; you don't have to try to be bad but you have to try to be good." I love this country so very much. I'm trying.
Your friend's father was correct. We have to actively work at it to be good people. If people were naturally good we would not need the Ten Commandments. We would not need a Constitution and a body of laws to govern ourselves. In fact, as civility breaks down we need more laws, not fewer. When people distance themselves from God and religion and place themselves and their desires at the center of their universe eventually they will commit any atrocity and be able to rationalize it. "G.K. Chesterton's most famous quotation is, "When a man stops believing in God, he doesn't believe in nothing, he believes in anything."
If by "evil" you mean vicious, self-absorbed killer apes then I mostly agree, but there have been arguments from an evolutionary standpoint that attempt to reason that some degree of altruism has had a positive selectivity. Evolutionarily, it makes perfect sense that we evolved the traits of tribal isolationism, aggression, and warfare having some of which I am not opposed to. So, yes, I believe we have a constant struggle to be objective, fair and rational that our instincts are opposite to. When I went through college and med school in the 70s the teachers seemed mostly committed to these virtues, but now increasingly the woke, crazy, irrational, ludicrous, CRT standpoints seen in institutions of "higher learning" is downright depressing and alarming. Med school examples below:
I ran into some of that in the 'seventies, too. The class before mine was about 10% female. Ours was right at 50%. Bang. One year. The professors, many of whom were accustomed to the typical male-dominated atmosphere had some adjustment problems - to say the least. Add to that the soy-boy superacademics in my class, and it was a problem.
My first taste (distaste) of this nonsense was when Dr. Brown, a kindly elderly pathologist with the requisite long white coat and bowtie, was giving a lecture on breast pathology. We had 86 people in our class and all took the same classes at the same time; this class in the small auditorium, which had a two-story slide screen. He began the section by projecting a slide of a complete breast specimen that had been sliced open bivalve-fashion and said, "This is how we pathologists usually see the breast. It's sort of an ugly thing, don't you agree? Now THIS is what we are really talking about - a part of live, breathing patient."
At that point he projected on the two-story slide screen the side view of a bare-chested and rather perky Playboy model. "Beautiful," he said. Then he went on to the next slide. Case closed. I thought.
Most of the women in my class were cool and appreciative of his point; some of the (later aptly-named) FemiNazis and the beta men who were constantly trying to curry favor with them filed a formal complaint against the old gentleman. He was baffled. Just baffled. I've never felt sorrier for anyone, and I've had no patience with that stuff since then.
I remember an incident in a former place of work at the VA where a patient was talking to the secretary about some subject where he said to her that some person was "black hearted." It happened that an African American nurse's aid was rubber necking into the conversation from her room and was offended by the reference. She reported it and wanted the patient banned from the clinic. It went completely up the administrative chain and the patient got moved to a different clinic as the result of what they called a "microaggression" which was the first time I had ever heard of the term. Considering the context of the comment and that fact that the offended person was actually listening in and not part of the actual conversation struck me as incomprehensible how thin skinned people have become.
And as a hospital administrator from the 80s until 2013, that bolus of female practitioners changed the hospital practice significantly. The expectation was that (and the males moved this way too) the income levels would stay the same, but the 60+ hours work weeks and free call were not to be tolerated.
I went to SIU-SOM Carbonale late mid 70s and can completely see exactly in my mind what you describe. It's just mind-blowing to me how overly sensitive everyone has become. Here is a post I made to the commentor of an article published by the Atlantic called "The Coddling of the American Mind." I think it summarizes my thinking on the issue of "microaggressions."
Evidence to my point above. People get pissed off more than "anxious" over what others say. The coddled" then respond in an aggressive attack of their own by claiming to be righteously offended and "triggered". You appear to have been "triggered" by Mr Anderson, but at least you didn't try to use that excuse and instead attempted to engage in debate as any rational person should to something that someone may say that they disagree with.
The PTSD stuff is most of the time except, I believe, in a diminshingly small percentage, a smoke screen for their anger. And as others have rightly pointed out the correct therapy for PTSD other than SSRIs is exposure therapy, and as such the "triggered" person should actually say "thank you" to the (LOL) microaggressor. Yes maybe in a fleeting moment we should consider their protest to be PTSD related, but then I want to hear an explanation from them and not their threat.
As you say the offended have every right to object to what someone says but they don't have the right to muzzle them even if this warped justice system thinks so.
Yes, I think "coddling" is an unfortunate term in this discussion and more appropriately the phrase "giving in to" or "surrendering to" is more to the point. Perhaps even "enabling" should be considered since if they really are experiencing some sort of actual legitimate psychological reaction to an actual PTSD event then it might be best to suggest that they seek professional help from a Psychiatrist or therapist for their issues and not just bend to their demands."
--------
"Again you're misreading a post. I never said that you "aggressively attacked" anyone. I merely said that you appeared have been triggered in an emotional sense which I think is rather obvious. You also admit it being a "pet peeve". I think it interesting that you want to claim it impossible to "aggressively attack" using only words, yet you want to argue on the side of those persons who seem to feel "attacked" by someone's words even if they are of the mildest form. I am referring to those people the discussion is referring to as "coddled" as engaging in an "aggressive attack."
You really seem to have a problem with understanding posts including Mr Anderson as above. You accuse my use of "muzzling" in a egocentric (perhaps even narcissistic?) manner as if I'm referring to you, which I am again not. Again, I am referring to those thin skinned persons who want to shut down conversation.
Finally, and I really don't like one-upsmanship but don't accuse others as not understand PTSD treatment. I'm not suggesting that people go around purposely "triggering" others
just to inflict "therapy" on them. Perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek I said that the triggered person with PTSD thank their source of discomfort, knowing that isn't appropriate outside of a therapist's office. I do stand by my observation that to obsequiously cow tow to overly sensitive individuals is in fact enabling their infantile view of the how the world should work. I, in fact, am a Psychiatrist and treat Veteran PTSD all the time so you can lay off the insinuation that I'm a layman. I don't know what your qualifications are and neither do I really care.
I agree whole heartedly with "the request is that people be considerate of others and respect their well being fairly" but you really should look at your own "microaggressions" if you will. By saying this, you wish to accuse me of being aggressive, then so be it. I am not the one with a particular problem with them, and if I become miffed at something you said then I'm fine with that too."
Yeah, I voted for Trump the first time around because the only other option was Clinton. I voted for him the second around because the only other option was Biden. Both decisions seemed like no-brainers to me.
I was a two time Obama voter. Voted Dr. Jill Stein (I know she was a whack job) in 2016.
I went for Trump because I let go of my hate and recognized he was not the monster the press dreamed he was and Biden was a drooling old man. What was worse, his running mate was even worse.
Well, at least it wasn’t the usual disguised attacks on anything that isn’t explicitly Hard Left, masquerading as even-handedness. No, Mr. Martinez just lets his Alt-Left freak flag fly.
I had a little sympathy when he got cancelled at Apple for seemingly nothing, but I guess he really IS an asshole!
I think this is an important point in “liberals” have no concept how “conservatives” think but “conservatives” know how “liberals” think.
There was an intriguing study about 5-6 years back (Dr. Jonathan Haidt) which showed conservatives could predict moral questions toward liberals but liberals had no concept how conservatives would respond.
I think this is because liberals tend to be younger than conservatives. Conservatives lived through those 'high intelligence/low wisdom' years, so they can identify with them, but appreciate why they're wrong. Conservatives don't get as angry and intolerant as the liberals, because we've experienced that stage and understand that it's a phase of intellectual growth. But, Hollywood, most media, and white elitists are the exception.
Bari, I rarely comment, but please keep the bar high for Common Sense. This article is hopeless - as many have pointed out. No hard examples, lots of grand claims/sensationalism.
Sorry but the only vacuum I see is between Mr. Martinez's ears. Tucker Carlson does not sound like a Berkeley leftist. Nor does he bash America. What he does do is expose the fatuous lies of the New York Times and the leftist foreign policy elites for whom the Times shills. Sorry but even the odious Victoria Nuland admitted to Congress that there were US funded bio labs in Ukraine that held dangerous materials. Yes, the very same Nuland whose meddling in Ukraine led directly to the severing of the Crimea - a crime for which Obama did zilch. Is there a coincidence between Nuland being back in government and Ukraine's troubles? You tell me. And no, Ukraine is not a "fighting for our democracy" as the leftist media shrieks. And Zelensky is not the second coming of George Washington. He presides over a corrupt country and has jailed and silenced his opposition. He is, however, fighting bravely for Ukraine. His country, not ours.
Bari - we subscribe to your blog to read honest discourse. Not the same sort of lies that led you to abandon your former employer. You're way better than this. Martinez is a fool and a liar.
I concur wholeheartedly. I was a free subscriber for some time and just recently switched to paid subscriber. As someone who is not a leftist at all, I was hoping for more intelligent discourse, especially presented by authors with whom I share little in common, politically. Most of the articles on the substack provide that forum save for this and a few others. The only other article that I can think of that was as clearly partisan and lacking of substance was the Peter Savodnik piece.
Same! I was free and enjoyed it so I paid. Well, I pulled that the other day. Lol It has been ridiculous after ridiculous lately. What a disappointment. I'll continue to just read free when my month is up.
Wholeheartedly agree. I'm concerned Bari is pulled in so many directions that when she gets wind of a trusted colleague who's just back from the front lines, she wanted him to run with it. While there should be very little editorial control, when you have guest writers, they ought to meet your Common Sense expectations.
Here we go again - obviously this guy has never watched tucker yet gets his info from cnn edited clips - we should ignore Biden and his disgusting son’s connections to Ukraine -these articles are getting old - I prefer the old liberal to this new poison we call liberals today!
Good post, but remember that Hunter Biden's laptop isn't about his addiction and depravity. It shows, instead, that the President of the United States is deeply corrupted and conflicted. If we had a real Congress and not a bunch of geriatric vomit lickers, he would be both impeached and put on trial for corruption and possibly treason.
Yes there is a growing group of conservatives questioning the US ability to be the world policeman. One of the reasons is concern for our growing financial limitations (which no one seems to acknowledge). The other is a growing realization that while our efforts maybe well intentioned we don’t always get it right and we are slow to recognize that we some times do more harm than good. Good intentions are not enough, that’s a solid conservative position.
Unlike the Berkeley left who embrace counter movements like Cuba or Venezuela the right is not embracing other cultures or political systems, it is merely recognizing the hubris of believing everyone wants or should be like us and that it’s in our power to make it happen. That’s not anti American it is certainly protectionism.
I don’t know where I personally come out in this as it relates to Ukraine. I am sympathetic to the underdog and believe they are serving the world by exposing Putins considerable limitations. The debate as to how involved we should be is needed and healthy. I suggest Tucker is more like Rogan debating Covid policies than Angela Davis wanting to burn it down. The authors argument linking the two as America haters is weak.
This is exactly what I was thinking as I read the article. Neither Martinez nor Savodnik (last week) sound like they know any conservatives. Both have relied on weirdly concocted caricatures of the supposed Right to argue for a middle ground. Perhaps Bari needs to find someone who comes from the Right to write about it more accurately.
I read through this article with the hope it would make a point that resonated, as Common Sense articles typically do for me even when I disagree with an author. But I got to the end without feeling it strike a single chord of truth or sense—the first CS article to feel like a total waste of time, and I’ve been a subscriber since the beginning.
I just hope she doesn’t bring David French on board to “represent” the right. His odious writing is smug and mostly wrong (which is the worst combination in the world)
someone here refers to him as Pastor French, which I think does a great job of communicating French's combination of foul hyprocrisy and smarmy cowardice...
Thank you! I too don’t know where I stand on this issue and was hoping for intelligent, thought provoking discourse here. I’m disappointed.
The fact is labels like left and right don’t apply any more. We’re seeing a shift. How will that play out? It’s a fascinating time to explore these shifts!
I am pro civil liberties, freedom of speech, equality of opportunity, and at my core I am against war, unless absolutely necessary . I think we need to have healthy debate about this conflict and what we should do or not do. What I’m seeing is people on the “right” questioning the situation while people on the “left” yell at them for questioning, while not providing answers about what to do. For example, does the author think we should send troops? Weapons? Invade Russia itself? Will he take up arms and risk his life over there?
Who knows? He just thinks tucker Carlson is stupid I guess.
There is an intense effort to discredit FOX and specifically, Tucker Carlson.
He is too effective at exposing the hypocrisy in politics, government and society. He usually exposes the wacky left but he also goes after the loony right at times too. He just roasted a Republican Congresswoman who is push policies tat could get us into a hot fight with Russia.
The establishment (Rs and Ds) and their media allies will do anything to take-down Tucker. Anything. He is a serious threat to their ability to control the population. As the election nears - you will see wild attempts to silence him. Maybe Christine Blassey-Ford will step forward and accuse him of rape 40 years ago - like they did with Kavanaugh. Anything is possible. Just wait. It's gonna get uglier.
You have to love Candace Owen's response to a NYT writer asking her if she stood by her comments about accusing the Ukraine of being a corrupt country. She responded by tweeting links to five recent NYT articles (all pre war) talking about how corrupt the Ukraine is.
And did you notice that Nellie Bowles took dig at Candace Owens on this very issue a couple of Fridays ago in the TGIF column? I can't help but think that too many within Common Sense are running so many things that they aren't fully vetting before printing. Candace doesn't talk out of her ass, and neither does Carlson. They are actually thinkers.
Bari, Are you sharing this because you believe what is written here? I’m actually sorry this article is in my email. For the first time ever I have regrets for following you and I highly respect your Common Sense opinions. I listen to your podcasts…repeatedly. Your guests are usually smart, thoughtful and passionate. I’ll admit, the consistent drumbeat of hate for Trump supporters is sometimes deafening. This writer, however, raised the volume and for completely unnecessary reasons. NEWS FLASH: The majority of “the new right” is primarily made up from the same grand ole’ party. Only now people like this writer view its every word through a filter so clouded with hatred, the basic picture is hidden from view. Me thinks Antonio can’t see the forest for the trees. You’re better than this.
Bari may not hold the same opinion as some of us. She is, after all, liberal Left too. One thing that I have found grating when listening to her on an interview is her patent dislike of Donald Trump. She finds the man so detestable that she is unable to rationally analyze and appreciate what he and his administration did while in office, and often against massive headwinds from lawsuits, deliberate slow motion agencies, and media propaganda. She is an intelligent woman but has blinders on.
Then she should be publishing smart articles. The main problem I have with this is that it is vapid, devoid of any substance save for “right bad, left good”
Martinez is flexing for American exceptionalism and bemoaning that the New Right has joined hands with leftists in embracing isolationism and a war against neoliberalism. He is in fact championing the old neo-con right/conservatives, not dismissing the right wing entirely.
But what is "left" what is "right"? There is a massive shift happening, and those labels don't mean anything anymore, which is why we have newer labels like neoliberalism, neo-con, "old neo-con right", "new right", "trumpers", etc. Remember the tea party? The labels don't tell us what's in the package anymore. They're unimportant, IMO.
What is important is what is happening in the world right now. I would like some articles that explain WHAT IS HAPPENING over there, WHY IT HAPPENED, and ideas about WHAT WE SHOULD DO. The author says he was over there, so why doesn't he write about that? Did he see an opportunity for America to help in ways that wouldn't start WW III? Insight from someone who was there would be invaluable right now, but instead we get this "boo Tucker Carlson" high school bullshit. It's beyond frustrating to keep reading the same ole, same ole from a different angle.
We have an opportunity now to transcend all the old shit that wasn't working, that was dividing us and preventing us from uniting for a better future, and it feels to me like some people want to keep those divides in place, maybe move the fences a little bit. I'm not here for that.
It's not only one article. Bari Weiss has been correctly pointing this out for a long time, since the Russians used WMDs in Syria at the very least. All the leftists and new right fringe were flexing for Assad, denying nerve gasses were ever used by Russia/Assad, attacking the white helmets etc. It has been clear as day to those of us who study this stuff intensely that the right horse shoes with the left. Easily noticeable following Tulsi Gabbard cultists. When Weiss challenged Rogan on Russian/Iranian/Assad/Gabbard propaganda both left wingers and right wing isolationsists flipped out. Gabbard's positions and her loyal following vis a vis Israel, Venezuela and Cuba are equally revealing.
Perhaps if you start creating horseshoes in your mind to explain the nuances of various political perspectives that you dislike you should drop the binary model entirely.
“All the leftists and new right fringe were flexing for Assad, denying nerve gasses were ever used by Russia/Assad, attacking the white helmets etc.”
“It has been clear as day to those of us who study this stuff intensely that the right horse shoes with the left.”
“When Weiss challenged Rogan on Russian/Iranian/Assad/Gabbard propaganda both left wingers and right wing isolationsists flipped out. Gabbard's positions and her loyal following vis a vis Israel, Venezuela and Cuba are equally revealing.”
"fringe" is a qualifier that means not the right, but a faction of the right that is extremely small.
likewise "Isolationists" is a qualifier denoting a faction or subgroup defined by their ideology.
Those were examples of how groups within the left and right, not monoliths, can horseshoe. It was also specific to a demographic listening to Bari Weiss on Rogan. #NotAll. #Neverall.
Agree with a lot of this article, but you lost me at “supposed biolabs”. This was confirmed under oath:
On Tuesday, the US government’s Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland testified before a Senate Foreign Relation Committee hearing on Ukraine in Washington, DC, and said that the United States was working with Ukraine to prevent invading Russian forces from seizing biological research material. The State Department also stated that it was concerned that Russian forces are trying to gain control of biological research facilities within Ukraine. The committee was set to examine Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the worldwide response.
At the hearing, State Department official Victoria Nuland was asked whether Ukraine has bioweapons. “Ukraine has biological research facilities, which in fact we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to gain control of”, she stated to the US lawmakers on March 8. “We are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach”, she added.
George Orwell should get a Nobel prize for alerting the world to the risk of "Big Brother" authoritative societies.
Never thought I'd ever say this - but we are living it now. The establishment is Big Brother and newspeak is pushed forward every day. Also, rewriting our history (1619 project is a perfect example). Step out of line (say or do the wrong thing that threatens the establishment) and you are punished. Kids their parents into authorities for perceived political crimes (like that guy who went to the Capital on Jan 6 - His own son called the FBI.)
Did it occur to you that if Martinez lied so egregiously about the bio labs, that most of what he said was a lie? Was there an actual quote by Carlson? How about Carlson being one of the few news shows to air Nuland's admission to Congress about the bio labs in Ukraine?
So true. I watch Tucker pretty regularly but not always so I was hoping to see a quote or some hard evidence of what all the "Putin loving" Tucker talk was about. Zip zero nada.
Antonio, I care about America’s borders more than Ukraine’s borders. Unfortunately the powers that be in America right now don’t give a shit about our borders. But they’re willing to send our money, weapons, and citizens to protect Ukraine’s border. That’s pretty fucked up, and that’s why Tucker Carlson wants people to question what we’re doing with this issue.
They scream racist so everyone focuses on that - rather than the way they have sold US manufacturing to China and exported US jobs while importing people who work for $1 per day and giving them Medicaid (free healthcare), free education, free food, welfare (about $400 per month per kid in NYC), free phone etc.
They scream about wealth disparity - as they re-create the socio-economics of a third-world country. They scream loudest about the crimes they, themselves commit.
US standard of living will drop over the next 20 years - except for the ruling class. We may as well just use the term "ruling class" and face reality. The establishment politicos and their buddies in business and media are the ruling class in America.
There is a reason for shift Americans appetite for war.
- Country is facing several major internal crisis that need immediate attention -> student debt, fentanyl, southern border, falling inner cities, health of the nation is worst it had ever been
- US is heading for destroying it self financially through endless engagement abroad. Take for example Afghanistan, it costed $2 trillion, and it crashed and burned in two weeks. For that money every inch of USA couls have been covered with high speed internet and every single American could have healthcare.
- US is running unsustainable deficts without any investment, US infrastructure is crumbling, I live in China (but I am not Chinese), I am flabbergasted how bad is US infrastructure compared to China, literal third world country.
- looming social security crisis
And thise are issues that I as non American know with top of my head. With all this said, should US really fbe focusing and sending billions abroad while neglecting problems at home?
Yes. You said it. The Democrats and the Left need a distraction now. Historically the country has united when there is a war, and most wartime presidents get re-elected (with the exception of Lyndon Johnson). COVID is about over so change the subject. What better way than to get the USA into a shooting war with Russia and continually terrify us with the possibility of a nuclear attack.
If they want war, there has to be a statute enacted that at least one member of every family from the Senate and Congress enlist immediately. Also other branches of government as well as relevant lobbyists.
This is a far too simplistic assessment of what seems to me to be only a few people who actually have little in common. If you are going to paint Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon with the same brush, you need a new brush. Speaking of Carlson -- people listen to him because he's pretty much the only person on television who presents a daily, pithy, sarcastic assessment of the news. Like Johnny Carson's opening monologue long ago, it's a "must listen" to many. That doesn't mean they all agree with their TV messiah, it means they just want to hear the perspective of someone who looks at a photo of white Congressmen and women in kente cloth masks (useless against an airborne virus) and $700 suits kneeling with raised Black Power fists and sees the ridiculousness of the scene, or who reacts to a candidate for the Supreme Court who's asked to define "woman" and says she's not a biologist by saying, not "what a clever riposte to a savage attack!" but, "give me a break, lady!"
It seems to me that few know how to respond to the Russian attack against Ukraine. Russia is not and cannot be "the good guy" here. And Ukraine, though well known for its political corruption and no pristine example of democracy -- IS the victim of a massive attack. Our political class really seems to have fallen for the globalist utopian dream that if we only discourage everyone from being patriotic (because that might lead to nationalism) and make sure all countries are dependent on each other for trade and goods, only the "bad, uneducated, poor countries" will ever attack each other again. Only people who don't understand human nature could ever believe such a fairy tale. But because they DID believe it, they have no idea what to do now. There is no good guy., and we don't know where we fit (if at all). There's a lot more going on, but that's a big part of what we're seeing.
This is the typical strawman argument of the left. They claim we believe something that we don’t and then argue against THAT instead of the position we ACTUALLY hold. It’s YOUR warlike ideas and fabricated casus belli that are the indefensible ones. Before you ascribe to me a mindless position on Russia begin by defending your 20 year wars in the sovereign nations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Wait... so if we don’t buy into the Ukraine narrative, by this writer’s logic, then we are nothing but Russian shills? I know gender is binary, but thinking definitely is NOT. You can hate Russia (and everything it stands for) and still acknowledge that Ukraine is a deeply corrupt country (where corrupt US politicians launder their money and make shady deals to get their sons on the boards of energy companies) not worth getting into World War III over.
Yup. This article is long on invective and short on receipts. For example, the two tenets that are supposedly at the core of "New Right ideology" are entirely unsourced. It's like saying that the Biden administration is secretly run by a cabal of hard-core socialists: One might be able to make a tendentious argument in that direction, relying heavily on cherry- and nut-picking, but Martínez doesn't even try to make such an argument.
(Edited to fix auto-mis-corrections.)
The only thing is that, by their actions, one can safely assume that the Biden administration is run by hard-core socialists; or at the very least outright lunatics and fools.
I agree with this. “Claims, without evidence, that Biden’s admin is heavily influenced by Socialist shills” doesn’t apply anymore because there is enough evidence in his actions.
Here's a claim in the article that I've simplified for you. Feel free to disprove it: <<The new right is more likely to blame US behavior for Putin's behavior, and in so doing reflects the America-centric worldview of Chomskian leftists.>>
"In another striking parallel with the New Right, the Berkeley hippie thought that every political event that happened anywhere in Latin America or the global South, from Chile to Nicaragua, was a masterfully executed CIA plot for which an American administration (probably Reagan) was directly responsible. The thought that events unfolding in Chile (or Ukraine, for that matter) might reflect another society's complex inner workings in which the U.S. was but one factor never even occurred. This is the supreme narcissism of the American activist class, left or right, thinking the entire world is downstream of domestic U.S. politics."
I don't think you consume much conservative media. I watch Tucker Carlsen every night and listen to Ben Shapiro podcasts every morning. If you think either blames America's deep evils as the cause for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or that American has historically been a negative force in the world, you haven't been paying attention at all. Both reject the leftist woke idea that America is this horrible place that lacks the moral high ground on authoritarian regimes. Conservatives are capable of dialectical thinking however where different competing ideas can both be true. This seems to go beyond the mental capacity of modern liberals.
Both of these facts can be true at once: Putin is an evil dictator and responsible for the unprovoked attack on Ukraine, and Ukraine is a corrupt country of no major significance to American interest. If you can't see that then you clearly don't watch or listen to either program. Tucker would question why we are involved or care at all. Ben would say our current level of involvement is fine but getting into a shooting war with Russia is of no benefit to us. Interestingly I think Tucker Carlsen would have opposed the Vietnam War but not for the leftist reasoning that America is a nefarious force rather that it doesn't serve our interest.
I am more of Ben Shapiro's way of thinking, simply letting Putin have Ukraine is bad for a wide variety of reasons. But providing arms should be the extent of our involvement. This is happening in Europe in the backyard of all the major European powers. If any soldiers or pilots are going to be sent to war and die for the Ukrainian cause they should be European ones. This idea that liberals have, who rarely serve in the Military or Law Enforcement, that USA should send soldiers to die in any war waged by a dictator is ridiculous.
Shapiro has an entire podcast kind of dedicated to dispelling the notion that Putin leads a Christian Nation. It was 2 weeks ago on a monday. Putin's history of marketing Russia's supposed resurgent Christian Nationalism is discussed there. He's also been addressing the "new right" in that podcast and others though he never uses that term. Shapiro has consistently taken the Neocon approach to national defense in his podcast and in articles. The central premise of his work is that a militarily weak US invites bad actors to fill the vaccuum. I assure you Carlson/Owens and Shaprio do not see eye to eye on this subject. Although Shapiro never argues for escalation in Ukraine he did argue that the US should have never left Afghanistan, and that we should be a massive force in Iraq, and that we have a right to take out Iranian leadership. He is a dyed in the wool Neocon like Norman Podhoretz.
Shapiro is not Carlson and he's challenged Carlson on this issue and many others over the years. Read Commentary and NRO for many more like Shapiro calling out Carlson and Owens. speaking of owes, Shapiro is not calling her out but he is not sharing her tweets at all. Not on Ukraine. Anyone who really follows Shapiro knows he is a devout Neocon. Neocons are generally not interventionists when it comes to Ukraine however. This has been the great irony on full display recently. I assure you most of my time is spent reading and listening to conservatives
I don't think Martinez is saying anyone opposed to sending US troops is Chomskian. The poison infecting the "new right" is much more pervasive in that no one in that faction believes the US has any legitimate moral authority to intervene. BTW the DW website commentariate is almost entirely consumed by Mearsheimer narrative, and I assure you Shapiro forcefully rejects that and has since the onset. He has never given oxygen to the Nato encroachment narrative.
Try reading the text of the Nov 10 Joint Memorandum. Not only is it recklessly provocative but in slow-walking weapons to Ukraine, the senile imbecile and his bunch of nitwits made it likely that Russia would invade and that Ukraine would lack sufficient defensive weapons. Oh and the paragraph in the memo about the sanctity of Ukraine's borders and its right to police them for drugs and human smuggling is beyond hilarious, given the Biden-created chaos at our own border.
Yeah, when they say "we couldn't stop it," the response should be, "then get out and let's find someone who can."
I've always loved this rhetorical tactic: "You're a racist! Prove it's not true!"
AKA *disproving a negative* or *misplaced burden of proof fallacy*.
Not sure how that is relevant to the argument that a very specific group of conservatives, called in this essay "the new right' now aligns with Chomsky when it comes to causality and world events. Care to address what I posted instead of fishing for a fallacy? Try to imagine the question isn't about you then answer.
Its not run by anyone but the apparatus, Biden has lost control.
The Department of State and the CIA are your government, such as it is…
The Biden administration isn't run by a cadre of hard care socialists? Gosh, you could have fooled me. By their actions we shall know them. If you walk like a duck, quack like a duck, maybe you are a duck. I agree with you. Cherry picking indeed.
No, Naomi, I am not saying Biden’s admin is not run by socialists. In fact, I am making the opposite argument. I agree with Bruce’s point that there is enough evidence in Mr. Biden’s actions that his administration is run by Socialists. I’m arguing that saying “there is no evidence” is a lie.
Yes, I agree with you. I was making an attempt at humor in my reply and apparently I fell way short of the mark. I am right there with you.
Doh !! You’re the second person to complement a reply of mine with humor that went right over my head! 😂 I’m new to this substack thing and clearly need to lighten the heck up. I apologize for the hostility. I’m so used to being on the defensive in social media comments.
You have replied to many of my postings. You and I are on the same wavelength.
Sociopaths.
Not Socialists.
“Reformists”. Perhaps “destroyers” is a better term?? “Underminers”
Not reformers but wreckers
Well sorta sacrifice- socialize costs, privatize rewards.
Socialize misery, privatize la dolce vita (the sweet life).
I'm as conservative as they come. Rush Limbaugh was too liberal for me.
I don't recognize myself at all in the ways Weiss characterizes the New Right, and I don't know anyone who does:
1. The United States is incapable of doing good in the world, and historically has been a force for evil worldwide.
2. Everything that happens in the world is the direct result or responsibility of the United States.
I look back at our war in Afghanistan, and see a war that would never end. And all the blood and treasure wasted trying to win an unwinnable war- a war that, when faced with defeat, the enemy melts away and blends in with the population.
There was good reason to go in there after 9/11 - to deprive Osama Bin Laden of a staging ground for more attacks on the US. AFAIC, we should have gone in, smashed up the furniture, hunted down OBL and Mullah Omar, killed them, and then left. With a warning that anyone allowing a repeat would be treated the same way.
There was no good reason to stay there for twenty years. And to continue to stay in perpetuity.
The US IS a force for good in the world. But anyone who thinks other peoples around the world are just like us and want the same things we want is naive. Example: The US was successful in causing Iraq to have democratic elections. But that didn't lead to a lasting peace among the people of that country.
They needed to collect on annual contracts, 20 of them.
Honestly ever hear of the Green Zone?
Elites College kids partying in Saddam’s palaces , cashing in, living it up, guarded by American soldiers staring silently in shame.
They fly first class, we died in the sand.
(Yes, we, although clearly I’m not dead).
The Green Zone kids are middle aged now, need a war - why how else to pay for their kids college!
Best part is we got these stupid Uke’s to do the fighting this time !
- DC is a bit nervous about using our military, perhaps they sense something? Being put on Hold Jan 6 may have tempered their enthusiasm for using our own troops.
Just funnel the contracts to the Poles, Uke’s, etc.
As usual 10-20% will come back to “the Big Guy”, his crackhead son, all the little guys.
Yep. It seems that for the last 20-30 years international political decisions have lacked the direction that would be provided by really and truly asking and answering Carlson's favorite questions: Why do we want to do this? What is in it for us?
As I have read more on this general topic over the last couple of years, I have developed a great fear of Karma. What the US leaders, both government and industry, have done to large swaths of the undeveloped world is demoralizing.
It seems the decision criteria is "can we or can't we" instead of "should we or shouldn't we".
Another issue is our essentially mercenary army composed of those who can’t afford an exorbitantly priced college education. They can do the fighting while the pols kids police transphobia in college dorms. I recently heard the miniscule number of our leaders who have served in the military. That of course influences whether you are willing to enter wars. In Vietnam, the draft was key to widespread dissent.
It's Bill Maher's "l can't prove it but I know it's true." It's a thought provoking piece, with a few well aimed shots at the hypocrites on both sides.
Outside the realm of faith to say I don't have proof but I know it is true is to not know.
The sophistry is strong in this author.
Michael P
Your comment is bereft of facts. You have not gainsaid even one of Martinez’s points and you obviously weren’t watching Carlson and Bannon when the war began.
I was watching Tucker when the war began. I never miss any of his shows. Tucker has been repeatedly maligned in the media. He is not pro-Putin. He questions all the agitation to get us into a war with Russia via Ukraine. Nothing wrong with asking why, is there?
Today's Democrats are sheep and have been brainwashed to never ask "Why?" of their political leaders.
I wonder if there are personality types that flow to either party? Certainly the way of thinking, and the ability to analyze and draw conclusions is different between conservatives and liberals. Jordan Peterson needs to explore this. He may have and I somehow missed it. Candace Owens did an interview with Dr. Malone that was incredible for a number of reasons. One of the topics they covered with a concept of mass societal hypnosis caused by intense fear. Dr. Malone mentioned it before and the media came crashing down on him. Another way of describing this phenomenon is mass formation psychosis. A lot of Leftists are like young children in their thinking. It's superficial with little to no understanding of history or consequences. It's as though cause and effect have ceased to exist. They can't defend their ideas and have thought so little of why they believe as they do that they become extremely defensive when questioned. Their worldview is so precarious that they can't accept any new or different information or perspectives. It is as close as a mental health dysfunction as I have seen for if they are challenged even mildly they go into complete melt down mode and get hysterical to the point of being homicidal. Scary times we live in. Someone needs to do a study on the background and history of this generation of snowflakes? Did they grow up in day care? Are they mostly from affluent homes? Did they have a lot of time with their parents? Did they go to church? Did they join Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts? Did they attend private schools? Did they watch a lot of television and spend inordinate amounts of time on video games? Do they read books? Have they read any of the classics? How good are their reading and writing skills? Can they adequately express themselves in writing? So many questions.
I know people on both sides--with similar upbringings. I'm no expert, but what I've observed is that Democrats/Leftists seem to be motivated by "herd mentality" or "groupthink" in addition to "confirmation bias"--with a focus on specific but unproven grievances. I once had a Democrat friend pronounce that "all Republicans are racist". I then asked her, "Do you think I'm a racist?" She replied "No, not you, but others..." I then asked her about specific people we knew that were Republicans, none of whom she believed to be "racist". At that point, she shrugged her shoulders and said "Well--you know what I mean!" In other words, she consumed all of the Democrat propaganda, specifically designed to form a belief system that "all Republicans or conservatives are .............!" I have seen this played out over that last 20 years and believe that the Democrat Party and their cohorts in the media continually perpetrate these myths. When the question of whether gay marriage should be "legalized" (which it already was contractually and legally)--that was the perfect wedge issue for further damnation of Republicans and/or Christians--if they had specific definitions of what constitutes marriage under the eyes of God. But the problem was that no argument about gay marriage was allowed to be considered respectfully. I actually know some gay couples that didn't support gay "marriage", even though they are in a legal partnership with all the same rights are "marriage". Some didn't care, except for the slippery slope of legislating "support" of things of which become "law" that individuals may not support, hence, we got the wedding-cake bakers run out of business. The same can be applied to the pro-life v. abortion rights where the government forces those who are opposed to abortion to fund it through their taxes. Most people are not overtly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc., but The Left/Democrats have painted a very exaggerated black and white view of anyone who isn't in lockstep-and those who aren't in lockstep are labeled 'Republicans". I know Democrats who work tirelessly to undermine the Republican Party in any way they can because they actually believe ALL Republicans are evil--besides the "reasonable" ones they know. So back to your comment--it is in fact a mass societal hypnosis of the Left/Democrats. I believe it originates in academia, the media--using traditional slightly subliminal ADVERTISING tactics and dishonest politicians--and takes hold of those who need to be part of the herd with a kind of religious fervor. They want to bring meaning to their lives (and yes, many are rich kids who have never struggled a day in their lives and have created no business or made a payroll), but just as many are eager to take no responsibility for the state of their lives--and Democrat propaganda gives them a scapegoat on which to blame their personal problems.
Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt wrote an entire book, "The Righteous Mind," on the topic of how personality and cultural forces influence people to be either more liberal or more conservative. He views this dichotomy from an evolutionary lens. And, of course Jordan Peterson is onto it. In fact, Haidt and Peterson have a truly outstanding conversation about this topic which you can listen to/watch here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IBegL_V6AA
I believe there is: relationship based ethics dominate the left while principle based ethics dominate the right.
He says out loud that he is in no way pro Putin. Every night. But I bet this author is perfectly ok with the unelected men of Twitter etc deciding what Americans get to know.
Yes, heterodox in every way. He rails against Kevin McCarthy and Lindsey Graham (almost) as much as AOC or Pelosi. That's why I love watching. And Tulsi Gabbard, Michael Tracy, Glenn Greenwald are often there to support that heterodox position.
Yeah it's a stupid binary. I was hoping for more concrete examples of people on the right supporting Putin, but unfortunately he didn't have them. I think this is just an example of both sidesism that Jon Stewart decried for instance; the left is so terrible these days and they get railed upon a lot, deservedly so. But a lot of writers think they can establish themselves as above the fray and not a partisan by making sure that they criticize both sides. Sometimes that seems forced, like this, since the right is not doing nearly as much harm these days.
That’s the reason I clicked on the headline! I wanted to see an actual argument presented before me with some merit. Sadly this was not one.
This is the lamest article I’ve seen on Common Sense.
I think it’s the best.
Me too. Reading the comments, I'm somewhat relieved that it wasn't my comprehension skills.
SAME!
Same here. I was sincerely interested in Martinez’s argument, but didn’t find one anywhere in his post.
Same
Me too. And it in NO way delivered. Guess that's why it was so short. He had nothing to say.
Liz
One can’t assess an argument if one’s mind is closed. The news is bad for conservatives so you aren’t listening.
Please cut and paste this point and evidence you found that I missed. Not being sarcastic. I truly do not see what you are referring to.
So, you saw a point to the article? Maybe explain it to me, as I didn't.
Ben
Kane at CFP, the most successful conservative news and opinion aggregator by a factor of 4, Darren Beattie of Revolver News and Raheem Kassam have all been wildly cheering for Russia.
Link to an example of this? I saw Beattie saying not to buy into war fever. That's a far cry from cheering for Russia.
Far far cry. Is this another example like if you don't cheer for what Lia Thompson is doing in women's sports then you are anti trans?
Visit his site.
Bullshit. You are a liar
Yep, I'm curious too. Something they specifically said supporting Russia or Putin, not just questioning Ukrainian policy.
Tucker Carlson said “no one cares” if Russia invades Ukraine and he had as his frequent guest Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who ridiculously claimed that Russia had legitimate reasons to fear Ukraine.
Jessie Watters, on the other hand, got advice from General Keith Kellogg. Watters has been right throughout. Compare the military experience of Macgregor and Kellogg and decide which on is likely to be more credible.
I'd be interested to see a quote from Carlson where he said "no one cares" if Russia invades Ukraine. And I watched MacGregor and he did not say what you said. He made it very clear that Putin had stated time and again that NATO in Ukraine would be seen as a provocation. If you know Russian history this is not an unusual position to take.
Ukraine aligned or part of NATO, with NATO FORCES in their border is a legitimate security concern for Russia. You can claim it is not but Putin has been stating it is for years
NATO is purely defensive. No NATO country has attacked or threatened to attack Russia. Fear of NATO was an obvious pretext.
Terence...guest Macgregor states "Russia had legitimate reasons to fear Ukraine" and you're thinking -"Ridiculously".
Seems that not only Does Russia have those fears, but that win or lose, Russia will not come out ahead...legit
A bottle of whiskey or a box of cereal 🤣
I was there in the 60's shutting down my college for an entire day to protest the war in Vietnam. I remember the 60's and the hippies and leftists very well. I have now been immersed in conservatism for the last 25 years. The author knows next to nothing about today's conservative movement, altho his depiction of the 60's radicals is not inaccurate. We conservatives rage at the ineptness of the Biden woke admin who has practically invited Putin into the Ukraine due to their lack of knowledge of human nature and human history. Abandoning Afghanistan, destroying our energy independence and not having a realistic approach to Putin and Nato gave Putin a clear pathway into the Ukraine. Now they are risking WWIII, and the US has a military based on woke ideology. Of course we should be angry at Biden for putting us in this crisis. Of course Putin is a monster and the Ukrainians are suffering horribly. But we are even more aware that here in the US our constitution and rights are being destroyed by a woke totalitarianism. When many of us are fully aware we are living under the Stasi, and we know that the totalitarians at home are marching forward and burying any resistance with impunity, where in the world do we get the presumptuousness to fight for freedom in the Ukraine?
Great post. I think Putin and Xi saw the incompetence of Biden but also saw that him and his allies went after their political opponents with a vitriol they never had for enemies of America. Even now they are only so firmly anti Russia because since 2016 they have been running a political operation tying Republicans to Russia.
This is exactly right
Our problems and enemies are here.
I LOVE Russia. Love the literature and tortured history. I hate Putin. Both Russia and Ukraine are corrupt. There is no American interest in Ukraine except for peace ASAP
Well, I think that the reading of these comments proves everything that Martinez points out. Martinez was actually on the ground. Not like all you armchair Tucker Carlson wantabees. I would suggest all the New Right, Putin Puppets here that are bashing Common Sense, talk to anyone from Ukraine, talk to anyone that understands the languages, or spend time crying and hugging Ukrainians as they see their families being killed and country being destroyed.
Okay, so you don't like the US--so let a blood thirsty murderer invade another country and kill innocent men, women, and children. Have you no humanity?
Not a question at all of whether I "like" the US. I'm just puzzled by the left's ability to pivot so quickly on what was (just a few years ago!) incorrigibly corrupt Ukraine. Obviously this pivot was greased by two simple facts: First, Putin's invasion conveniently confirmed all the "Russia Russia Russia" hysteria of the last 5 years. Second, it made Ukraine the object of worldwide sympathy rather than the locus of the Biden administration's corrupt family history. How many Americans know about the Azov regiment?
I know about the Azov's. And Ukraine hero Stepan Bandera. And more. Murky, no? Too bad the simpleton will not do their research.
What is the connection between the Azov battalion and Zelenskyy. Are you are aware of the Wagner Group and their connection to Putin?
The Azov Battalion are Ukrainian forces. Zelensky is the president of Ukraine. There is a lot of material available. It is very interesting. I am not familiar with the Wagner Group.
You hit the nail on the head.
Zelenskyy was elected in April 2019. Did you think that America was more corrupt under Obama and Biden but less corrupt under Trump? I did. Why can’t you apply the same reasoning to Ukraine?
You forgot the main greasing of the change: Putin is a blood thirsty killer. It looks like even the loony left has more humanity than you.
Humanity? Tell that the millions of aborted babies. The loony left wants abortion on demand, no questions asked up to and even after birth, and you want to lecture us on humanity?
Being on the ground gives him no better insight into the beliefs of the right. Nobody on the right of consequence is cheering on Putin, they're just saying to be cautious about the potential for nuclear war.
Yep. The only American interest is for this to end peacefully ASAP
Well I think the interest is in preventing countries from bring conquered by force and reestablishing our deterrence. Which I think we lost with the debacle in Afghanistan and by having a president who isn't competent or lucid.
We “conquered” two countries by force recently, or have you forgotten already? Or is it okay when we do it but wrong when others do it?
No we did not, it was entirely different. Afghanistan was based on the 911 attack. And Iraq was admittedly misguided, but the rationale was defensive, not to try and make them a part of the United States.
No. It is in America’s interest that Russia be defeated.
At what cost? How would you measure “victory”? What country has the most surviving citizens?
Interesting that you think Carlson, Bannon, Kane and Beattie are of no consequence. You are uninformed.
You are out of your mind. I love America and hate the people who are actively trying to destroy it. I do not want to go to war with Russia although that would lead to less “hugging and crying” as everyone would be incinerated.
Yeah I'm immune to emotional appeals to destructive decisions. Must be long covid.
Are you immune to new information? Visit CFP and Revolver News and see for yourself.
Art how do you feel about our southern border situation. If you watch Fox you must know that the Cartel is now actively firing on our border agents.
Pearl clutching on steroids. Nothing more.
You obviously supported deposing the bloodthirsty tyrant Saddam Hussein, right? Out of humanity.
Stupidly, yes. Not so much humanity and more my teenage video game knowledge and naivety. Trying not to repeat the mistakes of my youth.
I am talking about Putin being a blood thirsty killer. Period. You failed to divert the conversation.
I'm not diverting, I'm pointing out that exactly your simplistic moral posturing got us into a catastrophic war *within recent memory.*
Humm....I got us into this war. Your poor Putin had nothing to do with it!
Don't take this personally but you're not intellectually mature enough to take part in this conversation.
I thought you didn't care?
The people criticizing Martinez obviously didn’t watch Carlson and War Room prior to and in the early stages. Carlson admitted on March 8 that he was wrong. Beattie of Revolver News and Kane of CFP are still supporting Russia.
Strongly agree!! Our problems and enemies are here
Yes, you DON'T CARE. Thank you for that clarification. So why are wasting everyone time by responding--if you DON"T CARE.
Art simply always has the worst takes. Don't mind him. Maybe it is Bari, pushing engagement in the chat by saying the most ridiculous things. 😂
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Well you have again proven Martinez's point.
Okay, so you don't like the US--so let a blood thirsty murderer invade another country and kill innocent men, women, and children. Have you no humanity?
He's saying where is the compassion for our country. Baltimore has a higher murder rate than the northern triangle countries. The homeless camps in big cities can be measured in 5 figures. It is possible to care about more than one thing. But it seems you personally can only care about Ukraine.
"Leftists love humanity, but hate humans."
Martinez had a point?
Lol! The drama.
Putin killing people and destroying a country is laughable?
No, you are.
I say we send all members of congress to Ukraine and let the Navy Seals lead the legislative branch.
Yikes. I was with you till the white supremacists nonsense.
Ah my bad. I get what you're saying now. 😄 Sorry, sometimes it is hard to read sarcasm...especially in a day and age where people say the most insane things, unironically. 😂👍🏻
You’re exactly right, Liz. You probably read it already, but I published this linked piece criticizing the Ukrainian government while also stating that Putin’s actions are inexcusable, yet I still received emails calling me a Putin supporter:
https://jeffcuttler.substack.com/p/stay-out-of-ukraine?s=w
Agreed - again - NUANCE IN VIEWPOINT PEOPLE... it's not an "if...then" situation.
Yup, if you're not for heading into a war with Russia over Ukraine you are a Putin fanboy. A stupid take that libs have turned into a Republican cudgel, as they do with anything and everything. Very poor opinion piece from Mr. Martinez, who is in the "club" of "open-minded" liberals on twitter and substack now.
The author is being intellectually dishonest, at best, and unbelievably naive at worst.
Probably a lot of both.
Your last line pretty much confirms the writer's passage:
'...Trumpian in its isolationist America First attitude..'
Ukraine isn't worth fighting for, I get it. That's your point. But is it worth sending arms to? Isn't it worth doing that much at least? Ukraine is probably everything you say it is, ie - 'corrupt' and where politicians launder their money. But of course, using that metric, wouldn't Great Britain be as corrupt? With Russian oligarch billions residing in London? Do we not defend them? Yes we will.
A country doesn't have to be good or bad to be considered strategically important - and Ukraine, bordering four NATO countries, being invaded by Russia (the very nation NATO was formed to be the opponent of if attacked) - isn't important to the security of Europe? Of course it is. That's why we're there, along with twenty nine other democracies.
Where is the money supposed to come from? At what point do we realize that there has to be a limit to the amount of money we can print? We are on the road to ruin.
Your point is a valid one. But compared to the close to two trillion dollars spent on the Iraq war and its follies, I think our investment in Ukraine's defence is prudent, cost effective and more important in the long run. A worthwhile and justifiable expense.
So by your logic, 2 trillion, or whatever amount, was wasted in Iraq therefore it makes sense to waste more
Notice I didn't use the word 'waste.' You did. I just said that comparing the two expenditures - Ukraine looks like the better deal.
Ok, replace “waste” with “spend” Is that more to your liking? We don’t have the money. And how is it that the media keeps telling us that Russia is performing so poorly in its war against Ukraine yet Russia at the same time poses such a grave threat to all of Europe? How can Russia be so weak (against Ukraine) yet so strong ( a grave threat to all of Europe) at the same time?
Lee, I understand your passion to take out the monster Putin - by itself it is admirable.
It is very unfair of you to write that those of us who do not prioritize this as highly as you do have no humanity. It has everything to do with how one perceives the criticality of what has happened to the US. I have been studying the left since I was on it 50 years ago. I consider the current iteration the most dangerous because it has learned the lessons that Aldous Huxley wrote about in "Brave New World." They no longer have to use the brute coercion of Stalin, Mao and Castro. They have the technology to make most of us happy slaves. And for those who resist this more sophisticated coercion, they will resort to whatever is needed to get rid of them. But one will never see this perspective unless one is able to see past the entire propaganda infrastructure of the woke Tyrants. This is no longer easy. Possibly start by reading and listening to Victor Davis Hanson and Thomas Sowell. And stay safe.
I wasn’t aware that was he British government in London had banned opposition parties.
I wasn't either. All I did was compare the corruption Liz cites as a reason to not defend Ukraine. Corruption of the same kind exists in London as well. I didn't say a word about the state of Ukraine's democracy.
When attempting to disprove a horse shoe between the new right and redistributionist leftists, it is best to quote the rallying cry of Jacobins.
He never said Russian shills or any of that. You just straw manned the entire essay.
Liz
Why are you able to distinguish between America under Trump and America under Obama or Biden but apparently unable to distinguish Ukraine under Zelenskyy (since only April 2019) and Ukraine under his predecessors?
Is Ukraine any more corrupt than America? Was Ukraine‘s election as fraught with overwhelming fraud as America’s 2020 election?
Is there any evidence of Zelenskyy being corrupt? I think that if he was corrupt he would’ve taken the money and run rather than put his life on the line for his country.
Terence, I am of the opinion that Zelensky is corrupt and authoritarian because of the actions he has taken. For example, the detaining of opposition leaders and the nationalization of media outlets. I think there is also enough evidence in recent history to show the deep corruption of Ukraine. The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop being at the top of that list. As for more evidence of Zelensky’s corruption you can also look to who funded his election campaign: a certain Igor Kolomoisky who was under FBI investigation for a slew of financial crimes.
Liz
Is your opinion supported by any facts? Hunter Biden resigned from Burisma the same month that Zelenskyy was elected (April 2019). Zelenskyy ran on a reform platform and got 78% of the vote. Ukrainians obviously support him and are willing to fight for their independence from Russia.
In his famous conversation with Trump, it was Zelenskyy who raised the issue of corruption in Ukraine.
You are very sadly misinformed.
Zelensky is in the Pandora Papers.
Yes, he is.
You are the one who is pathetically misinformed
I don’t don’t understand how you can even say this. Zelenskyy has banned opposition political parties in Ukraine. None of those parties expressed support for the Russian invasion. One of them holds 40some seats in parliament. Elected by the people. In Ukraine it’s illegal to disagree with Zelenskyy. And that’s just the most recent news. And you ask if there’s evidence of his corruption. Unbelievable
Yeah, talk about presenting false dichotomies?! What garbage. I guess we can thank Bari for giving a platform to a range of voices, but that's about it.
I assure you Bari is 100% in agreement with Martinez and she helps write these essays as well. It isn't a false dichotomy since Martinez literally made up name to call a faction of the right that sounds like Chomsky. The right has many factions and always had. The divide between Paleo-Cons and Neo-Cons goes way back, much further than the latest Trumpian flair up. Study the term "Straussian" for example.
Thanks, good insights. First of all, I don’t subscribe to the “right-left” false binary either, so of course the “right having many factions” doesn’t mean anything to me either. But of course I recognize that it these categories have a great deal of meaning to many others.
As re Bari agreeing/collaborating with Martinez, that doesn’t sway me either. Pre-Trump, I doubt I would have paid much attention to Bari (not meant to be offensive, just stating a fact). What I find compelling is her conviction and courage to say FU to the post-2016 leftist cult that has become dominant in our institutions.
Exactly, Liz. These writers get worse and worse.
Liz ya kicked the hell out of me Martinez, good job.
Lefty writers like Martinez always mistake snark for wit, and the people that consume that dreck always assume they have the sophistication of Dorothy Parker, laughing oh-so-knowingly at an inside joke that is nowhere to be found
It’s all shit: the writer has no idea what he’s talking about, and the readers are ignorant rubes who understand almost nothing of the real world. Why do you think popular entertainment is so excruciatingly vacant? No one is home— just disembodied voices baying at their unhappy demons…
Come on Bari, not cool!
I’m sorry, but what? 🥴 you’re not making any sense.
Welcome to the insane asylum.
Dude, you are not making any sense.
Are you insinuating that I am agreeing with the opinions of the original piece by the comment I made? Because I sure as hell do not agree with what he is saying.
He makes no argument to support the headline. The only argument I was able to somewhat decipher is that to criticize Ukraine is to support Russia -- which is precisely the opinion I am criticizing!
🤦♀️ I’m so sorry. You’re sarcasm went right over my head. I’m used to Facebook hostility where every “compliment” is just passive aggressiveness. So sorry for the confusion!! 🤝
Sarcasm doesn’t always convey well in posts.
It never ceases to surprise how some writers can take their own skewed, cynical view of the world then use it as a foundation for skewed arguments leading to skewed conclusions - conclusions without any proof other than self reference. Typical in this little missive: "The New Right - Trumpian in its isolationist America First attitude and deeply cynical about the country’s ability to act competently in the world." I don't know anybody remotely like that. The only Trump supporters I know supported his economic policies, which were reaping tremendous benefit for the Average, Middle-Class American, appreciated his restraint vis à vis spilling American blood to fulfill non-serving politicians such as the Clintons, Cheneys and Romneys lust for foreign adventuring (hardly "isolationist"), and his willingness to stay out of fights that did not involve American interests. They (we) appreciated our being energy-independent and the benefits thereof; compare those days to now, when the entire nation's economy is being whipsawed on a daily basis by the craziest progressive ideologues in the Democrat party while Titular President Asterisk begs our enemies for a few crumbs of oil.
No, Sir, you are dead wrong about America. This is a fine, good Nation filled with good people who simply have been asleep at the switch and have allowed their homeland to be taken over by elected fools - the Nancy Pelosis, the Chuck Schumers, the Sandy Occasional-Cortexes, and little unelected dictators like Herr Fauci. This is the greatest nation that has ever existed, and it deserves to be saved from these fools and predators. Can it be done? I don't know, but we must try.
Trump's actions were the most impressive of any President I've witnessed in my 65 years. Unfortunately that came with a pompous blowhard style that the left feasted on. He was the opposite of Obama who was all style and no substance, but the left loves them some style.
Wow, well said sir! I was going to provide a similar response but apparently don't need to. Great comment, Jim.
Thank you for stating so well exactly how I was feeling reading this essay.
Thanks Jim, that was awesome!
I’m not sure what Mr. Martinez’s political persuasion is but it sure sounds like he’s bored with our newfound “isolationism”. I mean we’ve been out of Afghanistan almost 6 months now. Maybe he’s simply an aging neocon going through a midlife crisis who yearns for the good old chest thumping days of the “old right”. Whatever he is, he doesn’t lack grandiosity. Nevertheless, if he and his neocon pals are dead set on interventionism, my advice would be to start small. Maybe an island in our hemisphere, like Cuba! Hell, he and Victoria Nuland could even save air fare. All they need is a couple of boats, a few AKs and an imbecilic president’s blessing and they can go create an egalitarian utopia. Just don’t tell those Berkeley hippies.
Yes, yes, yes. Jim I feel I am coming to know you through your commentary and I appreciate your contributions. Just so you know.
Thanks. My med school mate's dad used to say, "Man is basically evil; you don't have to try to be bad but you have to try to be good." I love this country so very much. I'm trying.
Your friend's father was correct. We have to actively work at it to be good people. If people were naturally good we would not need the Ten Commandments. We would not need a Constitution and a body of laws to govern ourselves. In fact, as civility breaks down we need more laws, not fewer. When people distance themselves from God and religion and place themselves and their desires at the center of their universe eventually they will commit any atrocity and be able to rationalize it. "G.K. Chesterton's most famous quotation is, "When a man stops believing in God, he doesn't believe in nothing, he believes in anything."
If by "evil" you mean vicious, self-absorbed killer apes then I mostly agree, but there have been arguments from an evolutionary standpoint that attempt to reason that some degree of altruism has had a positive selectivity. Evolutionarily, it makes perfect sense that we evolved the traits of tribal isolationism, aggression, and warfare having some of which I am not opposed to. So, yes, I believe we have a constant struggle to be objective, fair and rational that our instincts are opposite to. When I went through college and med school in the 70s the teachers seemed mostly committed to these virtues, but now increasingly the woke, crazy, irrational, ludicrous, CRT standpoints seen in institutions of "higher learning" is downright depressing and alarming. Med school examples below:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9831463/Woke-medical-students-bullying-professors-apologizing-using-terms-male-female.html
https://eagleforum.org/publications/focus/the-shock-of-woke-medical-schools.html
I ran into some of that in the 'seventies, too. The class before mine was about 10% female. Ours was right at 50%. Bang. One year. The professors, many of whom were accustomed to the typical male-dominated atmosphere had some adjustment problems - to say the least. Add to that the soy-boy superacademics in my class, and it was a problem.
My first taste (distaste) of this nonsense was when Dr. Brown, a kindly elderly pathologist with the requisite long white coat and bowtie, was giving a lecture on breast pathology. We had 86 people in our class and all took the same classes at the same time; this class in the small auditorium, which had a two-story slide screen. He began the section by projecting a slide of a complete breast specimen that had been sliced open bivalve-fashion and said, "This is how we pathologists usually see the breast. It's sort of an ugly thing, don't you agree? Now THIS is what we are really talking about - a part of live, breathing patient."
At that point he projected on the two-story slide screen the side view of a bare-chested and rather perky Playboy model. "Beautiful," he said. Then he went on to the next slide. Case closed. I thought.
Most of the women in my class were cool and appreciative of his point; some of the (later aptly-named) FemiNazis and the beta men who were constantly trying to curry favor with them filed a formal complaint against the old gentleman. He was baffled. Just baffled. I've never felt sorrier for anyone, and I've had no patience with that stuff since then.
I remember an incident in a former place of work at the VA where a patient was talking to the secretary about some subject where he said to her that some person was "black hearted." It happened that an African American nurse's aid was rubber necking into the conversation from her room and was offended by the reference. She reported it and wanted the patient banned from the clinic. It went completely up the administrative chain and the patient got moved to a different clinic as the result of what they called a "microaggression" which was the first time I had ever heard of the term. Considering the context of the comment and that fact that the offended person was actually listening in and not part of the actual conversation struck me as incomprehensible how thin skinned people have become.
And as a hospital administrator from the 80s until 2013, that bolus of female practitioners changed the hospital practice significantly. The expectation was that (and the males moved this way too) the income levels would stay the same, but the 60+ hours work weeks and free call were not to be tolerated.
I went to SIU-SOM Carbonale late mid 70s and can completely see exactly in my mind what you describe. It's just mind-blowing to me how overly sensitive everyone has become. Here is a post I made to the commentor of an article published by the Atlantic called "The Coddling of the American Mind." I think it summarizes my thinking on the issue of "microaggressions."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
"@Steve:
Evidence to my point above. People get pissed off more than "anxious" over what others say. The coddled" then respond in an aggressive attack of their own by claiming to be righteously offended and "triggered". You appear to have been "triggered" by Mr Anderson, but at least you didn't try to use that excuse and instead attempted to engage in debate as any rational person should to something that someone may say that they disagree with.
The PTSD stuff is most of the time except, I believe, in a diminshingly small percentage, a smoke screen for their anger. And as others have rightly pointed out the correct therapy for PTSD other than SSRIs is exposure therapy, and as such the "triggered" person should actually say "thank you" to the (LOL) microaggressor. Yes maybe in a fleeting moment we should consider their protest to be PTSD related, but then I want to hear an explanation from them and not their threat.
As you say the offended have every right to object to what someone says but they don't have the right to muzzle them even if this warped justice system thinks so.
Yes, I think "coddling" is an unfortunate term in this discussion and more appropriately the phrase "giving in to" or "surrendering to" is more to the point. Perhaps even "enabling" should be considered since if they really are experiencing some sort of actual legitimate psychological reaction to an actual PTSD event then it might be best to suggest that they seek professional help from a Psychiatrist or therapist for their issues and not just bend to their demands."
--------
"Again you're misreading a post. I never said that you "aggressively attacked" anyone. I merely said that you appeared have been triggered in an emotional sense which I think is rather obvious. You also admit it being a "pet peeve". I think it interesting that you want to claim it impossible to "aggressively attack" using only words, yet you want to argue on the side of those persons who seem to feel "attacked" by someone's words even if they are of the mildest form. I am referring to those people the discussion is referring to as "coddled" as engaging in an "aggressive attack."
You really seem to have a problem with understanding posts including Mr Anderson as above. You accuse my use of "muzzling" in a egocentric (perhaps even narcissistic?) manner as if I'm referring to you, which I am again not. Again, I am referring to those thin skinned persons who want to shut down conversation.
Finally, and I really don't like one-upsmanship but don't accuse others as not understand PTSD treatment. I'm not suggesting that people go around purposely "triggering" others
just to inflict "therapy" on them. Perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek I said that the triggered person with PTSD thank their source of discomfort, knowing that isn't appropriate outside of a therapist's office. I do stand by my observation that to obsequiously cow tow to overly sensitive individuals is in fact enabling their infantile view of the how the world should work. I, in fact, am a Psychiatrist and treat Veteran PTSD all the time so you can lay off the insinuation that I'm a layman. I don't know what your qualifications are and neither do I really care.
I agree whole heartedly with "the request is that people be considerate of others and respect their well being fairly" but you really should look at your own "microaggressions" if you will. By saying this, you wish to accuse me of being aggressive, then so be it. I am not the one with a particular problem with them, and if I become miffed at something you said then I'm fine with that too."
Matt Ridley has written about tribalism. I wish he would address what is going on now with the Woke mobs.
Here, here!! I want to like this comment twice.
Don’t forget the Romneys, grahams, Cheney s, Bushes. Lots of terrible Republicans
I agree.
I mentioned them - at least the Romneys and Cheneys, but they are certainly not the only bad apples in that party. Vide supra.
Yeah, I voted for Trump the first time around because the only other option was Clinton. I voted for him the second around because the only other option was Biden. Both decisions seemed like no-brainers to me.
I was a two time Obama voter. Voted Dr. Jill Stein (I know she was a whack job) in 2016.
I went for Trump because I let go of my hate and recognized he was not the monster the press dreamed he was and Biden was a drooling old man. What was worse, his running mate was even worse.
Great comment, Jim, and some real Common Sense at that—hope Bari will agree
Well said, Jim!
Martinez offers nothing here that I haven’t already heard a dozen times yesterday on CNN.
If this is the sort of intellectual conversation I can expect from guest authors, than perhaps I’m wasting my money
Exactly. I hope Bari doesn’t take subscription money to pay this dolt for this drivel.
No, no....not a waste because it is very important we hear how they think.
There are many places we can already go for that.
Well, at least it wasn’t the usual disguised attacks on anything that isn’t explicitly Hard Left, masquerading as even-handedness. No, Mr. Martinez just lets his Alt-Left freak flag fly.
I had a little sympathy when he got cancelled at Apple for seemingly nothing, but I guess he really IS an asshole!
To be honest, this is a very rare misstep in my opinion, and there's something to be said for exposing all viewpoints, even if they're pretty weak.
Weak is one thing. Intentionally disingenuous is quite another matter.
I think this is an important point in “liberals” have no concept how “conservatives” think but “conservatives” know how “liberals” think.
There was an intriguing study about 5-6 years back (Dr. Jonathan Haidt) which showed conservatives could predict moral questions toward liberals but liberals had no concept how conservatives would respond.
This article was proof that is true.
I think this is because liberals tend to be younger than conservatives. Conservatives lived through those 'high intelligence/low wisdom' years, so they can identify with them, but appreciate why they're wrong. Conservatives don't get as angry and intolerant as the liberals, because we've experienced that stage and understand that it's a phase of intellectual growth. But, Hollywood, most media, and white elitists are the exception.
Agreed! This was another vapid left vs right missive.
So boring.
The predictability, the poorly disguised venom, the condescension are all there.
+100
He lives in or near a large city and all his friends share his opinions.
And brain… hive mind
A brain virus. Reading Gad Saad's book "The Parasitic Mind." I highly recommend it.
It’s a good read.
Bari, I rarely comment, but please keep the bar high for Common Sense. This article is hopeless - as many have pointed out. No hard examples, lots of grand claims/sensationalism.
I think it’s fine because this is the Democrat position so it needs to be on display. There isn’t a more sophisticated version.
“You are criticize teh government sooo you pro-Putin!!!”
👏🏻😂
While I sympathize with your want of excellence, I'm gathering that this is as good as they have to offer.
Sorry but the only vacuum I see is between Mr. Martinez's ears. Tucker Carlson does not sound like a Berkeley leftist. Nor does he bash America. What he does do is expose the fatuous lies of the New York Times and the leftist foreign policy elites for whom the Times shills. Sorry but even the odious Victoria Nuland admitted to Congress that there were US funded bio labs in Ukraine that held dangerous materials. Yes, the very same Nuland whose meddling in Ukraine led directly to the severing of the Crimea - a crime for which Obama did zilch. Is there a coincidence between Nuland being back in government and Ukraine's troubles? You tell me. And no, Ukraine is not a "fighting for our democracy" as the leftist media shrieks. And Zelensky is not the second coming of George Washington. He presides over a corrupt country and has jailed and silenced his opposition. He is, however, fighting bravely for Ukraine. His country, not ours.
Bari - we subscribe to your blog to read honest discourse. Not the same sort of lies that led you to abandon your former employer. You're way better than this. Martinez is a fool and a liar.
I concur wholeheartedly. I was a free subscriber for some time and just recently switched to paid subscriber. As someone who is not a leftist at all, I was hoping for more intelligent discourse, especially presented by authors with whom I share little in common, politically. Most of the articles on the substack provide that forum save for this and a few others. The only other article that I can think of that was as clearly partisan and lacking of substance was the Peter Savodnik piece.
Same! I was free and enjoyed it so I paid. Well, I pulled that the other day. Lol It has been ridiculous after ridiculous lately. What a disappointment. I'll continue to just read free when my month is up.
"partisan and lacking substance"
These two seems to go together a lot.
Like peanut butter and jelly.
Wholeheartedly agree. I'm concerned Bari is pulled in so many directions that when she gets wind of a trusted colleague who's just back from the front lines, she wanted him to run with it. While there should be very little editorial control, when you have guest writers, they ought to meet your Common Sense expectations.
Plenty of intellectual discourse in these comments! You are all educating me.
Here we go again - obviously this guy has never watched tucker yet gets his info from cnn edited clips - we should ignore Biden and his disgusting son’s connections to Ukraine -these articles are getting old - I prefer the old liberal to this new poison we call liberals today!
Good post, but remember that Hunter Biden's laptop isn't about his addiction and depravity. It shows, instead, that the President of the United States is deeply corrupted and conflicted. If we had a real Congress and not a bunch of geriatric vomit lickers, he would be both impeached and put on trial for corruption and possibly treason.
Yep!
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Yes but the NYT and the post at one time was claiming how corrupt Ukraine is - now they just adore it - it’s all odd
The “Great Gaslight”.
They defended the nazis as well-
Yes there is a growing group of conservatives questioning the US ability to be the world policeman. One of the reasons is concern for our growing financial limitations (which no one seems to acknowledge). The other is a growing realization that while our efforts maybe well intentioned we don’t always get it right and we are slow to recognize that we some times do more harm than good. Good intentions are not enough, that’s a solid conservative position.
Unlike the Berkeley left who embrace counter movements like Cuba or Venezuela the right is not embracing other cultures or political systems, it is merely recognizing the hubris of believing everyone wants or should be like us and that it’s in our power to make it happen. That’s not anti American it is certainly protectionism.
I don’t know where I personally come out in this as it relates to Ukraine. I am sympathetic to the underdog and believe they are serving the world by exposing Putins considerable limitations. The debate as to how involved we should be is needed and healthy. I suggest Tucker is more like Rogan debating Covid policies than Angela Davis wanting to burn it down. The authors argument linking the two as America haters is weak.
This is exactly what I was thinking as I read the article. Neither Martinez nor Savodnik (last week) sound like they know any conservatives. Both have relied on weirdly concocted caricatures of the supposed Right to argue for a middle ground. Perhaps Bari needs to find someone who comes from the Right to write about it more accurately.
I read through this article with the hope it would make a point that resonated, as Common Sense articles typically do for me even when I disagree with an author. But I got to the end without feeling it strike a single chord of truth or sense—the first CS article to feel like a total waste of time, and I’ve been a subscriber since the beginning.
I agree that this is the bottom of the barrel since the beginning
I just hope she doesn’t bring David French on board to “represent” the right. His odious writing is smug and mostly wrong (which is the worst combination in the world)
someone here refers to him as Pastor French, which I think does a great job of communicating French's combination of foul hyprocrisy and smarmy cowardice...
Same...
Thank you! I too don’t know where I stand on this issue and was hoping for intelligent, thought provoking discourse here. I’m disappointed.
The fact is labels like left and right don’t apply any more. We’re seeing a shift. How will that play out? It’s a fascinating time to explore these shifts!
I am pro civil liberties, freedom of speech, equality of opportunity, and at my core I am against war, unless absolutely necessary . I think we need to have healthy debate about this conflict and what we should do or not do. What I’m seeing is people on the “right” questioning the situation while people on the “left” yell at them for questioning, while not providing answers about what to do. For example, does the author think we should send troops? Weapons? Invade Russia itself? Will he take up arms and risk his life over there?
Who knows? He just thinks tucker Carlson is stupid I guess.
There is an intense effort to discredit FOX and specifically, Tucker Carlson.
He is too effective at exposing the hypocrisy in politics, government and society. He usually exposes the wacky left but he also goes after the loony right at times too. He just roasted a Republican Congresswoman who is push policies tat could get us into a hot fight with Russia.
The establishment (Rs and Ds) and their media allies will do anything to take-down Tucker. Anything. He is a serious threat to their ability to control the population. As the election nears - you will see wild attempts to silence him. Maybe Christine Blassey-Ford will step forward and accuse him of rape 40 years ago - like they did with Kavanaugh. Anything is possible. Just wait. It's gonna get uglier.
Tucker Carlson hates America? Trump hates America?
I think this writer just hates. What a fool.
It seems that no one can write about Ukraine and Russia except in cartoon-style.
You have to love Candace Owen's response to a NYT writer asking her if she stood by her comments about accusing the Ukraine of being a corrupt country. She responded by tweeting links to five recent NYT articles (all pre war) talking about how corrupt the Ukraine is.
That’s great! She can definitely take care of herself
And did you notice that Nellie Bowles took dig at Candace Owens on this very issue a couple of Fridays ago in the TGIF column? I can't help but think that too many within Common Sense are running so many things that they aren't fully vetting before printing. Candace doesn't talk out of her ass, and neither does Carlson. They are actually thinkers.
This article is strong on accusations, but almost completely bereft of actual examples.
Another head scratcher.
Bari, Are you sharing this because you believe what is written here? I’m actually sorry this article is in my email. For the first time ever I have regrets for following you and I highly respect your Common Sense opinions. I listen to your podcasts…repeatedly. Your guests are usually smart, thoughtful and passionate. I’ll admit, the consistent drumbeat of hate for Trump supporters is sometimes deafening. This writer, however, raised the volume and for completely unnecessary reasons. NEWS FLASH: The majority of “the new right” is primarily made up from the same grand ole’ party. Only now people like this writer view its every word through a filter so clouded with hatred, the basic picture is hidden from view. Me thinks Antonio can’t see the forest for the trees. You’re better than this.
It's only one article. It's important for us to see the shallow, contrived, factually incorrect stuff flowing from the Left.
We can see that every minute of every day in just about every other outlet. Bari's enterprise is supposed to produce better than this.
Bari may not hold the same opinion as some of us. She is, after all, liberal Left too. One thing that I have found grating when listening to her on an interview is her patent dislike of Donald Trump. She finds the man so detestable that she is unable to rationally analyze and appreciate what he and his administration did while in office, and often against massive headwinds from lawsuits, deliberate slow motion agencies, and media propaganda. She is an intelligent woman but has blinders on.
I agree with all of that, Naomi.
Consider the idea Weiss that may be smarter than you and you are the one who can't see what is going on.
Then she should be publishing smart articles. The main problem I have with this is that it is vapid, devoid of any substance save for “right bad, left good”
And that's not even substantive!
Martinez is flexing for American exceptionalism and bemoaning that the New Right has joined hands with leftists in embracing isolationism and a war against neoliberalism. He is in fact championing the old neo-con right/conservatives, not dismissing the right wing entirely.
Gotcha.
But what is "left" what is "right"? There is a massive shift happening, and those labels don't mean anything anymore, which is why we have newer labels like neoliberalism, neo-con, "old neo-con right", "new right", "trumpers", etc. Remember the tea party? The labels don't tell us what's in the package anymore. They're unimportant, IMO.
What is important is what is happening in the world right now. I would like some articles that explain WHAT IS HAPPENING over there, WHY IT HAPPENED, and ideas about WHAT WE SHOULD DO. The author says he was over there, so why doesn't he write about that? Did he see an opportunity for America to help in ways that wouldn't start WW III? Insight from someone who was there would be invaluable right now, but instead we get this "boo Tucker Carlson" high school bullshit. It's beyond frustrating to keep reading the same ole, same ole from a different angle.
We have an opportunity now to transcend all the old shit that wasn't working, that was dividing us and preventing us from uniting for a better future, and it feels to me like some people want to keep those divides in place, maybe move the fences a little bit. I'm not here for that.
Thank you. I have and will consider that. It's why it's important to hear other voices and read other viewpoints.
Considered and dismissed.
It's not only one article. Bari Weiss has been correctly pointing this out for a long time, since the Russians used WMDs in Syria at the very least. All the leftists and new right fringe were flexing for Assad, denying nerve gasses were ever used by Russia/Assad, attacking the white helmets etc. It has been clear as day to those of us who study this stuff intensely that the right horse shoes with the left. Easily noticeable following Tulsi Gabbard cultists. When Weiss challenged Rogan on Russian/Iranian/Assad/Gabbard propaganda both left wingers and right wing isolationsists flipped out. Gabbard's positions and her loyal following vis a vis Israel, Venezuela and Cuba are equally revealing.
This is hopelessly confused.
Perhaps if you start creating horseshoes in your mind to explain the nuances of various political perspectives that you dislike you should drop the binary model entirely.
agreed. now give an example where I used a binary.
Left and right is a binary.
“All the leftists and new right fringe were flexing for Assad, denying nerve gasses were ever used by Russia/Assad, attacking the white helmets etc.”
“It has been clear as day to those of us who study this stuff intensely that the right horse shoes with the left.”
“When Weiss challenged Rogan on Russian/Iranian/Assad/Gabbard propaganda both left wingers and right wing isolationsists flipped out. Gabbard's positions and her loyal following vis a vis Israel, Venezuela and Cuba are equally revealing.”
"fringe" is a qualifier that means not the right, but a faction of the right that is extremely small.
likewise "Isolationists" is a qualifier denoting a faction or subgroup defined by their ideology.
Those were examples of how groups within the left and right, not monoliths, can horseshoe. It was also specific to a demographic listening to Bari Weiss on Rogan. #NotAll. #Neverall.
Agree with a lot of this article, but you lost me at “supposed biolabs”. This was confirmed under oath:
On Tuesday, the US government’s Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland testified before a Senate Foreign Relation Committee hearing on Ukraine in Washington, DC, and said that the United States was working with Ukraine to prevent invading Russian forces from seizing biological research material. The State Department also stated that it was concerned that Russian forces are trying to gain control of biological research facilities within Ukraine. The committee was set to examine Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the worldwide response.
At the hearing, State Department official Victoria Nuland was asked whether Ukraine has bioweapons. “Ukraine has biological research facilities, which in fact we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to gain control of”, she stated to the US lawmakers on March 8. “We are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach”, she added.
Basically everything the media has told us are conspiracy theories that always turn out to be true.
COVID’s not from China.
FaucI didn’t fund the Wuhan Lab.
Of course masks work.
Of course the vaccines work and don’t cause harm,
Of course you don’t need a booster or five.
Of course Hunter Biden’s laptop isn’t real.
Of course Trump peed on the hookers bed.
Of course the Steele dossier is true.
Of course men can be women.
Of course Lia Thomas is a woman.
Of course five year olds can change their gender.
And on and on and on.
George Orwell should get a Nobel prize for alerting the world to the risk of "Big Brother" authoritative societies.
Never thought I'd ever say this - but we are living it now. The establishment is Big Brother and newspeak is pushed forward every day. Also, rewriting our history (1619 project is a perfect example). Step out of line (say or do the wrong thing that threatens the establishment) and you are punished. Kids their parents into authorities for perceived political crimes (like that guy who went to the Capital on Jan 6 - His own son called the FBI.)
Did it occur to you that if Martinez lied so egregiously about the bio labs, that most of what he said was a lie? Was there an actual quote by Carlson? How about Carlson being one of the few news shows to air Nuland's admission to Congress about the bio labs in Ukraine?
So true. I watch Tucker pretty regularly but not always so I was hoping to see a quote or some hard evidence of what all the "Putin loving" Tucker talk was about. Zip zero nada.
Antonio, I care about America’s borders more than Ukraine’s borders. Unfortunately the powers that be in America right now don’t give a shit about our borders. But they’re willing to send our money, weapons, and citizens to protect Ukraine’s border. That’s pretty fucked up, and that’s why Tucker Carlson wants people to question what we’re doing with this issue.
Actually, the powers that be don’t give a shit about Americans, period. Why they’re surprised at the lack of support is the real story
True.
They scream racist so everyone focuses on that - rather than the way they have sold US manufacturing to China and exported US jobs while importing people who work for $1 per day and giving them Medicaid (free healthcare), free education, free food, welfare (about $400 per month per kid in NYC), free phone etc.
They scream about wealth disparity - as they re-create the socio-economics of a third-world country. They scream loudest about the crimes they, themselves commit.
US standard of living will drop over the next 20 years - except for the ruling class. We may as well just use the term "ruling class" and face reality. The establishment politicos and their buddies in business and media are the ruling class in America.
There is a reason for shift Americans appetite for war.
- Country is facing several major internal crisis that need immediate attention -> student debt, fentanyl, southern border, falling inner cities, health of the nation is worst it had ever been
- US is heading for destroying it self financially through endless engagement abroad. Take for example Afghanistan, it costed $2 trillion, and it crashed and burned in two weeks. For that money every inch of USA couls have been covered with high speed internet and every single American could have healthcare.
- US is running unsustainable deficts without any investment, US infrastructure is crumbling, I live in China (but I am not Chinese), I am flabbergasted how bad is US infrastructure compared to China, literal third world country.
- looming social security crisis
And thise are issues that I as non American know with top of my head. With all this said, should US really fbe focusing and sending billions abroad while neglecting problems at home?
Yes. You said it. The Democrats and the Left need a distraction now. Historically the country has united when there is a war, and most wartime presidents get re-elected (with the exception of Lyndon Johnson). COVID is about over so change the subject. What better way than to get the USA into a shooting war with Russia and continually terrify us with the possibility of a nuclear attack.
If they want war, there has to be a statute enacted that at least one member of every family from the Senate and Congress enlist immediately. Also other branches of government as well as relevant lobbyists.
This is a far too simplistic assessment of what seems to me to be only a few people who actually have little in common. If you are going to paint Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon with the same brush, you need a new brush. Speaking of Carlson -- people listen to him because he's pretty much the only person on television who presents a daily, pithy, sarcastic assessment of the news. Like Johnny Carson's opening monologue long ago, it's a "must listen" to many. That doesn't mean they all agree with their TV messiah, it means they just want to hear the perspective of someone who looks at a photo of white Congressmen and women in kente cloth masks (useless against an airborne virus) and $700 suits kneeling with raised Black Power fists and sees the ridiculousness of the scene, or who reacts to a candidate for the Supreme Court who's asked to define "woman" and says she's not a biologist by saying, not "what a clever riposte to a savage attack!" but, "give me a break, lady!"
It seems to me that few know how to respond to the Russian attack against Ukraine. Russia is not and cannot be "the good guy" here. And Ukraine, though well known for its political corruption and no pristine example of democracy -- IS the victim of a massive attack. Our political class really seems to have fallen for the globalist utopian dream that if we only discourage everyone from being patriotic (because that might lead to nationalism) and make sure all countries are dependent on each other for trade and goods, only the "bad, uneducated, poor countries" will ever attack each other again. Only people who don't understand human nature could ever believe such a fairy tale. But because they DID believe it, they have no idea what to do now. There is no good guy., and we don't know where we fit (if at all). There's a lot more going on, but that's a big part of what we're seeing.
Very well said! You demonstrate a far better understanding of the concerns and perspective of the “New Right” than Martinez.
This is the typical strawman argument of the left. They claim we believe something that we don’t and then argue against THAT instead of the position we ACTUALLY hold. It’s YOUR warlike ideas and fabricated casus belli that are the indefensible ones. Before you ascribe to me a mindless position on Russia begin by defending your 20 year wars in the sovereign nations of Iraq and Afghanistan.