How can we call them a tyranny or immoral when we can’t even define what a man or woman is? If we don’t stand for something, we’ll fall for anything, and Western civ. doesn’t seem to have much to stand for beyond hedonism and a feel good “you-do-you” mentality.
It isn't Western civ that stands for nothing. It's the leftist cabal of business, government and entertainment that has cheapened our culture and community.
That is the definition of fascism, the melding of government, society and business interests for a common cause. That "cause" is the removal of anything, or any idea, that contradicts the zeitgeist of the day.
It's only money, Bruce. For twenty four million bucks, the pope might have shown up too. Left. Right. Up. Down. Everybody's in bed with someone else. Trump sold the 45th floor in Trump Tower to Saudi Arabia. He loves them. Biden probably does too. Big deal. Saudi kills a journalist in 2017 and America does nothing. So what's different?
There doesn't have to be a political angle to everything. The writer of the article wants it to be. The commenters here want it to be. But it's all corruption, priorities and ignorance.
The idiots going to Dubai were in denial as to how onerous the regime there is. They don't want to know because on the surface, hey! it all looks great. And there's a ton of money. How bad can it be? Plenty. But it's always been done and will continue that way as long as the spigots flow..
Ah yes. republicans have been on a 50 year rampage to destroy worker's rights, destroy unions, reduce the minimum wage, abolish the consumer protection agency, and cut corporate taxes, but it is leftists that are pro-business.
The leader the conservatives, trump is the most pro-Saudi/UAE president in history. His son in law is entirely funded by the UAE, Trump is single handedly supporting the LIV golf tour.
RT - American business is firmly in the control of left leaning Democrats. I would offer almost all of Tech, the Roberts family that owns Comcast, the family of the rotund governor of IL, Jamie Dimon and his banker buds, Black Rock and Goldman, the dolts at Woke Coke.....the list goes on and on. Are you now aping Rip Van Winkle?
That's not quite right. You are confusing your leftist belief that all business is bad and that conservatives like the Koch's are eternally damnable because they are conservative, with political commentary. It is interesting to note the plethora of Democrat politicians who've become headspinningly wealthy while in office when they weren't before. Including Biden. Big media outside of Fox leans heavily Democrat. Paid advertising and company mission statements naturally follow. Having been a Democrat for a long time, I have been saddened to see the spin and myopia engulfing so many who consider themselves open-minded liberals. Rich celebrities and billionaires always get a pass if they are perceived as having Democratic values. But those who step out of line and expose the grift and corruption of the Dems - not so Musk...I mean much. The wealthiest counties and their movers and shakers, at least in the North East and California are Democrats. It's not about picking out the few conservative billionaires. That in itself is not evidence of criminality or wrongthink, no matter how much left-think insists it is. The greedy celebrities who posture and revolt against Democracy are lapping up fascism like gravy. Thats the point of this story - its not about generalizing greed or blaming everything on corporatocracy - that's a distraction tactic. This article has a point. And the point is clear.
"The greedy celebrities who posture and revolt against Democracy are lapping up fascism like gravy"
I'm not sure they're revolting against democracy. I suspect if you asked them to define the term, most would stammer and stutter unless someone handed them a script. Far from revolutionaries, most are nothing but puppets without the strings. They'll say and do whatever their paymasters demand.
“Timothy - last time you responded to something I wrote, you mocked me when I shared I was overweight in relation to a covid discussion and said it must 'suck to be me' because I shared I have a disabled child. Your literal reading of my comment above proves that you aren't someone I want anything to do with. Plus since you've added a family photo to your profile - I can tell you right now that your wife is double my size so enjoy the karma of being the playground bully and body shamer. Does your wife know you go around nasty-trolling women“
For some reason your comment didn’t show up in this thread, only my email notification. So I cut and pasted it for context, if not an accurate reading of a past post I addressed to you.
First off, the young lady you referred to (is mocked a better term?) is not my wife. She is my daughter, which is pertinent because at the age of two and a half she had to undergo open heart surgery. Unlike you, her mother did not use the 24 hour care she provided post surgery as an excuse to become obese. In fact, she has the same build as my other daughter, standing next to me in the picture.
Karma isn’t the reason my oldest daughter is overweight and I don’t care to share them with you but she never makes excuses. I love her dearly, and if obesity is a part of the beautiful, lovely young woman she is, I’ll happily accept it.
Btw, you might want to be more honest in your retorts. Otherwise I suggest you change your pseudonym to Nuanced & out of context
You’re claiming big oil and gas companies are run by Republicans and most of their employees are? Hilarious. Your knowledge on this one is at least a decade out of date.
Also, words used to have meanings. We started down the slippery slope when we changed the definition of marriage. I believe gay couples should have the all the rights of straight couples, under the law. But pick a different word. It sounds petty, but if every word can be redefined to make a person feel good, then none of the words matter.
"We started down the slippery slope when we changed the definition of marriage." Like we haven't changed the rules of marriage whenever it suited us before?
In medieval Europe, marriage wasn't for love. It was arranged to secure power, money, prestige, alliances, inter-kingdom war settlement, debts, or anything but what the groom and bride might have wanted. Daughters were property, assigned to her next owner by her father and family.
Marriage came with no age restrictions---you could marry off toddler. Age restrictions came later.
We routinely forbade marriage to "the feebleminded," outside one's race, outside one's religion. Those changed. In some cultures, a husband could have a wife stoned or burned to death if he thought--without proof--she was unfaithful. That did not work in reverse, of course.
The early Catholic Church allowed priests to marry. That ended when the Church decided that it, not the wife and kiddos, should inherit the priest's property.
"Marriage" has changed with the times; gay marriage is just the latest one. Marriage is the correct word, it being a state-recognized contract between two consenting adults. Straight or gay doesn't matter, and shouldn't. That religions might not like that doesn't matter.
In all the historical examples you note, which I don’t disagree with, was there ever a time when the marriage wasn’t defined as between a male and a female?
From my reading, Jody, same-sex marriage occurred in some places, but I wouldn't call it widespread or even common. This Wiki piece has the best roundup:
In my view, liberty requires that consenting adults be allowed to legally marry other consenting adults. Sex, age, color, religion, and all that should be no barrier. I emphasize "consenting" and "adults" for two reasons: it prevents people from marrying children and animals, neither of which can consent to such a thing.
This I apply only to the matter of state marriage licenses. Religions can bless the unions or not solely as they see fit.
Lol. You're really digging deep here, desperately trying to avoid the obvious - that this is something new in the modern world which should appropriately be accompanied with new terminology.
Also, curious if polygamy is ok with you. Would there be any problem if three or four consenting adults wanted to marry and spend their lives in their preferred life arrangement? Or is there something magical about the number two? Polygamous relationships have existed for long periods of time all over the world you know. You don't have to search so hard to find examples in wikipedia.
I found no bias in this particular Wiki article, just a roundup of same-sex-marriage practices in cultures throughout history. It was as evenhanded as anything else I found on this topic.
None of those things is about the definition of marriage, they’re just examples of different uses for it over the centuries. Marriage is a monogamous union between one man and one woman. Period. That’s the definition, and none of the examples you cited changes that in any way. Gay “marriage” does. That is why it is not a real thing. It is something new.
"Marriage is a monogamous union between one man and one woman. Period."
Used to be one man one woman. Now it's one adult one adult. Things change.
Black people used to be property, slaves, and only 3/5 of a human. Our culture decided to expand that to fully human full citizens. Things change.
America is about freedom. That concept allows consenting adults to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm the rights of others. That adults can now marry other adults doesn't affect my marriage or my rights one bit. Explain how it affects yours.
Marriage is what Marriage is. It’s like saying the color Blue is now Green. It doesn’t work like that. If you wish to pretend that a man can marry another man, be my guest. But don’t be shocked when the rest of us look at you like a crazy person because two men marrying is not really a thing that can happen.
The fact that Black people used to be slaves has zero to do with the definition of a Black person; it’s just an unfortunate characteristic of the culture 150 years ago. People of all colors have been slaves at different times. Again you are fond of citing examples of things that don’t support your point.
Men having anal sex with one another is not freedom, it’s license. It’s not something good or beneficial for society. It can spread disease and every major religion, which is where definitions of morality originate from, condemns the activity. People like you instead want to call it freedom and say that one man “marrying” another (in effect condoning the behavior, even celebrating it) doesn’t affect anyone else. That is ridiculous. Marriage undergirds our entire society because it flows into another major construct, “family.” Change one and you change the other. For everyone, not just for married persons. Then you get “married” homosexual couples demanding the same rights to adopt children (since they cannot create their own), even being given children instead of actual married couples, so now the children are at risk by being raised outside of the traditional family structure that we know works.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Gay “marriage” is an experiment that we simply don’t know what it will do to the society over time. We can predict the easy stuff but who’s to say where else it leads. Nowhere good I’m sure.
Pick a different word because it is a different thing, freshly invented. Marriage is an ancient global institution. It has always meant the same thing: a union of husband and wife. Now there's this new concept, for which there should be a new word. Pretty simple concept when you take out the politics and social agendas.
Marriage is the union of a heterosexual couple, typically for building a stable family. The union of a homosexual couple is a different thing entirely. It is not marriage. Invent a new word.
Everyone seemed fine with “civil union” back in the day but the hardcore leftists must always be fighting about something so they force-fed us “gay marriage” and won because not enough people cared enough to fight it.
"Marriage" is the union of two consenting adults into a partnership sanctioned by the state. That marriage used to be "one man and one woman" doesn't mean it has to remain that way---and in fact has not. Nobody "force-fed" it to you, because granting marriage rights to gay adults does not affect your life or marriage one little bit.
Since you are fine with same-sex adults being joined in "civil union," the only point of denying the title "marriage" is spite. I thought conservatives WANTED people to be married and faithful and have kids, all of which gay marrieds can do as well as straights.
I'm as straight as railroad tracks, liberal without being woke, and was married until my wife died. I cannot fathom why this is such an issue to so many straight conservatives.
This, exactly. "gay marriage" is not a thing. A man can't have a husband. A woman can't have a wife. We only pretend they can so we can be good people, deserving of a pat on the head.
We have not run out of words and are not forced to pile new meanings on to existing words. We can create new words for new things as we always have. Now we are all the way to the point where we don't know what a woman or a man is and have to pretend that we're too stupid to recognize the difference and claim that biology really doesn't matter.
Marriage has been redefined numerous times throughout history, by the way.
Interestingly enough, the gay rights movement in the 1970s was actually against the concept of gay marriage, as they didn't believe in assimilation into the mainstream. Only later did they think that assimilation into the mainstream was a good idea.
Too many to list here, but the biggest redefinition was in the 19th century when (in the West) marriage went from being primarily economic and political, to being primarily about love. That was far more fundamental a change than opening marriage up to being largely gender neutral.
Also, the second biggest change over the centuries was that the expectation of fidelity is no longer one-sided and hypocritical. (Though one can also argue that a *reverse* double standard has emerged in very recent history, at least in some circles, primarily in the USA, but not so much elsewhere.)
Those are not redefinitions, you know. They all refer to the same thing - a union of a penis-having person and a non-penis having person, of whatever age was deemed appropriate in the culture. Nothing more, nothing less.
You only think that because the word "marriage" happens to be your line. Everyone thinks their own definition of "reasonable" ought to be THE definition of reasonable. On what basis do you claim this is the "start of the slippery slope"?
Many people (including I) think we started down this slope in the Enlightenment, with John Locke asserting that he could defend human rights without a divine source. We picked up speed when J.S. Mill asserted "my rights only stop at your nose." We got a taste of the future with occult leader Alistair Crowley's "do what though wilt is the whole of the law", but it took us until the 60's postmodernists to officially deify personal will as our new god. Everything that's happened since is the logical outcome of a society whose new highest good is maximal individual autonomy. And it's not stopping. Expect polygamy ("they love each other, so why not") and pedophilia ("she can consent to slicing off her private parts, surely she can consent to using them") next.
There's no going back to the nice, friendly, 1990's liberalism. Anyone who thinks there's philosophically stable ground there is deluding themselves.
You hit the nail on the head. It isn't marriage. How about government issues civil union certificates. And let's let marriage be between a man and a woman, as it has been for millenia.
Wrong. You started down the slippery slope when You put human rights into Your constitution and allowed slavery in Your country for almost another century.
After all Beyonce is just doing what Americans have always done since the days of the founding fathers: Talk the talk without doing the walk. Talk about values and human rights and have slaves, butcher Indians to steal their land, bring war to countries all over the world to steal their resources and, yes, kissing a medieval dick's dick for a big pay check. Beyonce is just practicing the American dream.
This is specifically an American attribute? You are blinded by your hatred. All countries are guilty of this. All peoples are guilty of this. Why? Because we are human. Humans are fallible and don't live up to what they believe in. We aren't perfect. I would bet money that you have claimed to believe in things that you have failed to live up to in your own life. If you haven't, you are a living saint.
You clearly know nothing about our country's history. Best not to comment out of ignorance. What's your homeland btw, Bernd? I'm sure we can have a field day there. Come on, dish.
We started down this road when we tried to have human rights without god. Sans a divine source of some kind, universal human rights are a logical impossibility; any right defined by man can be redefined or removed by man. And now that we've killed off God, we're happily doing so.
And that goes for all of Western civilization, not just America.
Mot quite sure what this comment is doing here but it demands a response. Marriage is here for love and to create and support families. What we need are stable
Families no matter if the parents are straight or gay.
Society's interest in marriage is its most basic need: "to create, raise, and acculturate the next generation to be capable of doing the same." Any society that fails this task... fails. We can argue about the "raise" part, but by definition, 2 people of the same sex can not "create" the next generation.
Traditionalists lost gay marriage because they had already separated marriage from its historical purpose: producing children. It appears from your comment that you have largely done the same. If marriage is just about personal fulfillment ("we love each other"), no restraints on marriage are possible.
Traditionalists lost gay marriage because they had already separated marriage from its historical purpose: producing children. It appears from your comment that you have largely done the same
4 children …. 9 grandchildren - and counting. Misread and misunderstand you did.
You misunderstood, Ira. I wasn't saying you were "anti-natal" at all. I was saying that your comment "Marriage is here for love" is an acceptance of this underlying philosophy of marriage as primarily about the happiness of the two people getting married. Once you accept that, saying it's "for families" is pretty much irrelevant, since both can't be true. Either marriage is primarily for children (in which case social and legal constraints make sense -- for the children of course), or marriage is primarily for personal happiness (in which case they do not.) I didn't mean to imply at all that you personally were anti-child. Sorry.
The best and the strongest article here in a while. Many of us think and feel the same, but I would never be able to reveal the hypocrisy and corruption of the co-called liberal celebrities with such force and clarity. They are willing to sell their souls to the highest bidder but look down at us, mere mortals, and keep throwing labels around: one says we are racists, another - domestic terrorists. But the reality is our cultural elite has completely lost moral compass. Disgusting.
These same liberal celebrities call for the cancellation of anyone who uses the wrong pronouns or otherwise runs afoul of wokeness here in America, while selling out to countries that persecute and murder women and gays. That tells you all you need to know about them. They are trash and anyone who cares or even entertains anything they say is an idiot. Watch their movies and shows and listen to their music if it appeals to you, but otherwise ignore them like you would a toddler throwing a tantrum.
This kind of thinking is not helpful. Unfortunately it's a popular way to think, demonstrated by your comment having over 100 likes. Just because things are less than perfect here doesn't mean we can't recognize when things are far, far, far worse elsewhere.
That's my point. It almost seems like a religious dogma when, if speaking of a tyrannical government or an atrocity committed in history, to mention a similarity in our own culture/past.
Don't get me wrong. I agree with you, but it seems to me that we don't believe in ourselves anymore. I think that that was one of the largest cultural changes of 2020.
This of course is the goal of the enemies of western culture. Its important that we encourage self criticism ... up to a point. The limit is when our society begins to delve into self loathing--which we see being led by the enemies of our liberalism.
I have trouble believing in us....if you have some gift of wisdom that I could hold onto...I would love to receive it! I usually am a positive person. I just feel like there are more and more reasons to feel I am in 1984.
You choose your own culture--you don't have to follow the crowd. I wouldn't know Beyonce if I ran into her in the grocery store, sounds like she a Dubai deserve each other and that I'm not missing much.
I go to church and have meaningful relationships there. I have rich relationships with my family. I have friends that don't often discuss politics and when we do we are all adult enough to understand that if we don't agree it doesn't mean there isn't common ground. I don't watch much TV or many movies. I enjoy watching some sports. I have hobbies that I love. I get outside.
But I'm not stupid and I'm not uniformed. I do political advocacy and research--it doesn't own me--but it does mean I'm pushing back against the culture I dislike and think is so destructive. Many of my friends have no idea I do this--but you don't have to share everything with everybody.
Darwin didn't actually say "survival of the fittest". He said it was survival of the quick adaptors. Hard times may be ahead--they always are. Adapt your life so it doesn't pull you under. There are a lot more of us NOT wrapped up in the Beyonces of the culture than are. Choose the culture you want to surround yourself with, that has meaning for you, and work from there.
Thanks...I also wouldn't know Beyonce, that she was gay, that she hasn't performed in 5 years! I did find the irony interesting in a statement of our times. Thank you for your advice. I can't say that I have people that are willing to hold their beliefs as theirs and not want others to conform. Maybe that is a side effect of living in a more blue environment and me being more red. I want others to have their beliefs and feelings and me have mine. Too much of what I sense is that we aren't allowed that. Which is why I have closed my circle close and don't engage with people who can't sit with the discomfort of not agreeing. I appreciate your advice...
Frankly I don’t give a shit about some desert monarchy tying to outdo Las Vegas or the fact that some “Black Queer” entertainer accepted $24 million to lipsinc her way through a medley of songs most people never heard of. It’s almost like the author it’s twisting her own words to say ignore the real tyranny occurring here because theirs is so much worse.
There is simply no equivalency between Dubai and America, tyranny notwithstanding. I’ll never visit the place. Decadence, whether it be artificial palm reefs or the prospect of the hired help holding my dick doesn’t excite me. My point is that despite the flops of her recent albums, at least Beyoncé can point out that it’s better to be a has been than a never was. Dubai was never a democracy but our country was founded on it. While they are a never was my fear is that we’re becoming a has been.
That’s the whole point of the article. USA & UAE are not equivalent.
We abolished slavery 150+ years ago. They are still holding slaves. Who are mistreated, will do anything they are asked to do, for fear of reprisal. They are probably beaten or just disappear if disobedient! They still publicly execute people, yes….government sanctioned executions.
Yet our celebrity culture finds it all ok, if they are paid handsomely for services rendered.
Yup 100% the point of the article. Yes, it’s judgmental- as it should be. It’s pointing out the hypocrisy of those pointing fingers at everyone else and acting as the “PC Police” but not looking at the one right in front of their face.
I get what you are saying now....myo nly other piggyback to that is when she comes home here to spout how we are awful...after going to Dubai...that hypocritical BS gets under my skin.
I think the article is judgmental, which is ironical given what I think Bari's philosophy is. I hope I'm right and won't be censored by the monitors again.
Yes, the article is very judgmental...As it should be. Beyonce claims to be an LGBT ally, dedicating her latest album to the cause. Yet she knowingly takes 24 million from a country that has outlawed homosexuality making it a crime punishable by death. Nice ally.
But like most liberals/progressives, it's okay when they are hypocrites. Because they pay lip service to all woke causes, and even promote them through their content.
Yes, definitely judgmental. Is that a problem for you? And what is Bari's philosophy that makes it ironic for a writer to be judgmental? I'm confused. (I'm really judgmental myself - totally against slavery and abuse - I judge it to be totally wrong.)
It doesn’t matter... she has the right to say (write) it, we have the right to read it, you have the right to hit “delete”. That’s the point of thus substack.
Yes, definitely judgmental. Is that a problem for you? And what is Bari's philosophy that makes it ironic for a writer to be judgmental? I'm confused. (I'm really judgmental myself - totally against slavery and abuse - I judge it to be totally wrong.)
How many times do you have to reply? I believe I can judge what is ok or not ok for me, but not for someone else. Otherwise, we can assign most of the countries in the world to the same horrible place as Dubai. However, there are humans living there and everywhere. So, if they don't act like us, you think they are unacceptable? That's how Clinton got in trouble with her "deplorables."
All countries do bad things as if all bad things are equally bad?
The point of the article isn't even about relativitsm, tho. It's about shaming someone who shames her own country and people yet is happy to perform for cash before people most would argue are even worse...with nary a word of criticism for those paying tyrants. Its hypocritical and, frankly, gross.
I got the sense was what he is saying is if we can't see it there and the similarities here...we are screwed....but that may be my interpretation. We accept it there...we may accept it here...
We need a new version of the Sex Pistols - crass cynical youth with a huge platform who see corruption and call it out. At some point young people are going to push back against all this virtue signalling. When your school principal is wearing his rainbow / Ukraine flag - surely the teenagers will not want to do the same.
What I meant was that I don't think our culture has any strong ethos or value system. Say what will about the Saud dynasty, they know what they believe. What does our culture believe in? Who knows? The most popular song in 2020 was about female genitalia and church attendance dropped below 50% for the first time in American history, meanwhile, before we left Afghanistan we painted murals of George Floyd in Kabul and raised a pride-flag over our embassy. What does all that mean? IMO, sound and fury.
What do the Sauds believe that you find so admirable I wonder? There is much in any culture to admire, but I wonder what it is specifically the Sauds got right? Their treatment of women and homosexuals, I guess?
We do believe in something in the West, else we wouldn't have these conversations, try to self-reflect. Nor would we ever correct our mistakes. We have. Some ethical standard does guide most of us or history wouldnt have changed our behaviors.
We would still have slaves and,/or Jim Crow, women would still be chattel and it would be legal to beat gay people in the street if we believed in nothing. If we had no moral compass. But we clearly do.
We do find our mistakes and people fight hard to get us to face these mistakes and change them. We dont always change as fast as some may wish. And everyone won't always agree with changes demanded, but we try to improve. That is a beautiful thing. Even if sometimes we are mislead or take wrong turns.
And we are free to debate and discuss what needs changing. Which is more important than a country sharing a single faith tradition. It's what enables us to see from another's perspective. And that creates growth and greater humanity ultimately. I believe.
Of course, I believe faith matters. It helps individuals find their moral compass. I believe. It helps us not be as narcissistic and self-centered. But faith can also lead to atrocities when religious fervor overrules truth or when words of a faith are abused and misinterpreted. And history has shown this can and does happen. To this day.
Murals of George Floyd are not a bad thing. Not if you ask yourself what inspired people to paint them. People felt horrified that some cruelty was perpetrated. Whether you think it went too far or not, the heart behind those murals was good.
I dont think gay flags or breast cancer awareness flags or any 'cause' flags should be flown over our embassies. But I dont see the evil you see. Misguidedness, perhaps.
Please don’t put words in my mouth or beliefs in my mind. I didn’t say I admired anything about the Saud dynasty.
I don’t see flying pride-flags over a conservative Islamic country as evil. Misguided, idiotic, culturally insensitive, yes, but not evil.
George Floyd was a thug. He didn’t deserve what happened to him, but what did happen to him? He died of complications from a Fentanyl overdose, not hypoxia. The protestors who caused such a ruckus in 2020 were (for the most part) either upper-class, white, college students, or criminals looking to have some entertainment. I saw it first-hand in DC while being filmed by a Chinese newscaster. Go figure.
You overstate the case. We are going through a difficult period, but this fine article would not be readily available if our situation was a hopeless as you claim.
Excellent article. There is so much I cannot understand about American progressives’ attitude towards Islam and the Middle East. Somehow hosting a speaker who once said something objectionable is platforming them, but being pampered at an elite hotel with trafficked maids is … an act of protest? Enlightenment?
Relatedly, I have never been able to understand how the extremes of the #MeToo crowd, who often dogged American who expressed any disbelief of Kavanaugh’s accusers, don’t seem to mind when entire countries force women to wear Burkas, insist on total subservience to husbands, etc.
Nor can I understand how someone can absolutely hate JK Rowling for pointing out that the extremities of the trans movement can occasionally harm women, but the same person is totally okay with Middle Eastern regimes that refuse to recognize trans people or punish them as criminals.
Or people who think a conservative Christian who refuses to decorate a cake for a gay wedding is a monstrous bigot, but a conservative Muslim who kills a gay person is just…different?
I really can’t understand it. Arabic cultures in general couldn’t be further, values-wise, from American progressives. But somehow the bigotry and occasional horrifying violence that comes from some of those places is the one thing in the entire world that American progressives have a palate for. Truly can’t comprehend it.
(Maybe if the ghost of Hannah Arendt were here, she would point out that the Left and the Saudi Right appear to be on polar opposite extremes substantively, but that they believe in the same political means, or share a same underlying belief in the abolition of the distinction between public and private spheres, or something more insightful and creative that probably on she could recognize.)
There is another explanation that covers all of this nonsense. When people in the 1790s read Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” it swept the universities of Europe and the world. In 200+ years it is the world’s dominant philosophy, nihilism.
Kant released intellectuals from the necessity to ever make sense by saying in effect that you only think that you think; you can know nothing. Your senses lie, your reason is flawed, your mind inadequate. You are ignorant. Someone else needs to tell you what to do. Kant’s writing is difficult and impossible to follow.
He used new and old words in new ways without defining anything. One sentence was simple and clear: I need to kill reason to save faith. He was half successful, or lying. The actual result of the Kantian devolution was to kill both, kill every bit of logic, and remnant of common sense.
In the situation of this post, every culture has its own “truth.” The elites think they are demonstrating their enlightenment by accepting the horrors of tyranny for huge payments. Their goal is to be “enlightened” rulers of all the world. Whether it is an Islamic caliphate or a Chinese re-education camp, they don’t much care. And maybe one out of the thousands of elites vying for the role of New World Emperor will actually get it.
This is not a conspiracy, and it is not all on Kant. The world is sliding down a rabbit hole lined with rose petals and the bodies of people who said no to Kantian BS posing as thinking.
This is only my opinion, but if you look around and the number of conflicting “truths,” you may come to agree.
Any?? Every?? My, my, as my grandmother would have said. There is a little hypocrisy in all of us, but some of us are definitely more hypocritical than others.
McCarthy finally summoned some backbone when he tossed Schiff and Swalwell off the intel committee. He wouldn't have been my choice but this is a both a principle stand and a deeply satisfying way to piss off proggies.
The entire goal of conservatives is allow unfettered religious freedom (including the freedom to discriminate) and unfettered capitalism (including the freedom to exploit workers.) They are against the minimum wage and the right for workers to form unions.
The entire purpose of this blog is to argue against cancel culture.
So here's an article trying to cancel someone for the mere association with a culture that lets religious freedom trump human rights and exploits workers. The hypocrisy is mind numbing.
Never mind that the leader of the conservatives is the most Saudi friendly politician in history. Trjmp is single-handedly granting legitimacy (and his golf courses) to their LIV golf tour: A money losing venture that exists solely to improve their reputation.
Never-mind that Trump refused to accept that the leader of Saudia Arabia murdered and cut up a journalist.
No one gets very far complaining about hypocrisy, so you can put your boots back on. The people who want to demand payback for worker “exploitation” don’t care to take the risks of the capitalist, they just want to eat up the rewards.
Next they will be campaigning for UBI—minimum wage for not working at all. Oops, wasn’t that the prerogative of politicians?
Whose going to make your latte if everyone stays home?
Not a De Santis fan either. TRUMP derailed. There’s no one either sane or sentient in principle in the swamp today.
We are hurtling toward a fascist dictatorship. In polite language it’s called mercantilism—what the American Revolution fought against.
I just read where the Colorado baker was targeted by a man who wanted a cake for his transition to a mentally ill man, sued the baker and the Colorado court of appeals ruled against the baker’s free speech. Apparently Dubai isn’t the only place on earth wanting to enslave people.
Apparently the baker, who's been put through years of grief for his religious convictions, cares more about freedom of expression than a bunch of Colorado appellate judges.
His "victims" could have chosen any number of other bakers who would have been happy to help them celebrate their gay marriage and "trans" coming-out event. Instead they have sought to punish him through court after court after court.
As a Christian who has attended attended two gay weddings, I feel sorry for the guy.
How so? Who imposed the lockdowns? Who mandated that healthy people take a vaccine for an illness to which they weren't vulnerable? Who insisted that healthy people don face diapers as a sign of obedience and fealty to the collective? Who opened our borders in violation of our laws. Who forces people to bake cakes and wear stupid "pride" jerseys? Who hangs BLM and Rainbow flags from our embassies without asking us? Who takes little children from their parents to castrate them or perform radical mastectomies? Who, indeed? Not the right.
Angelica, can you give some examples of what you mean? The replies to you by Andy and Pariah reflect what I see, looking at our political landscape. So I’m curious what you see that is specifically the right trying to bend others to their will, because nothing is coming to mind for me.
These days, if you think women should be allowed to shower in a female-only dressing room at a gym, you are, by definition, right wing. Not sure if I'd call advocating for that "bending anyone to their will" but yeah, maybe it is.
Among my gay friends who run the gamut from moderate-right to hardcore left, absolutely NONE have expressed any desire to go remotely near the Middle East. Even on lefty reddit, gay people are absolutely not enamored with any Middle Eastern countries and are even skeptical of Turkey. There is frequent mention of the two teenagers hung in Iran for being gay.
I work at a university that is about as left-wing as you can get and when a single woman in my department said she was going to Dubai alone virtually ALL of us tried to talk her out of it.
The ultra rich exist in a completely different world from everyone else where the ONLY thing that talks is money. Right or left, with a few exceptions, they'll do business with anyone that enriches them--period.
"my gay friends who run the gamut from moderate-right to hardcore left, absolutely NONE have expressed any desire to go remotely near the Middle East."
Perhaps the geographically-impaired among them will discover someday that Israel is in the Middle East. Its current (01/2023) Speaker of the Knesset, Amir Ohana, is openly gay and, in private life, is raising two kids with his husband.
But then again, they may be geographically impaired but undoubtedly aware that Israel is majority Jewish.
Here is how to make sense of the modern left: they are animated almost entirely by their hatred for the average American. Once you understand this, it all makes sense.
Entertainers were always court jesters, lowlifes living on the court's crumbs. Only that nowadays they've been raised to the status of demi-gods so they can bray and babble from our ever smaller altars, the screens and help keeping the plebs in check.
Integrity was once much more important than any amount of money. Not anymore.
Selling out for money is the norm in today’s world. Look at the NBA. Look at today’s politicians as they stuff their pockets. Entertainers. Corporations. The almighty dollar rules.
This is why Bill Watterson, author of Calvin and Hobbes, will forever be my hero. He turned down riches to preserve the integrity of his work, infuriating many rich people, and then moved to the forest and left society behind.
His comics from the 90s addressed much of our cultural decay and have aged like fine wine.
I've seen several studies about this lately and they've shown that the more money someone has, the less empathy they tend to have.
What's interesting, though, is that the super wealthy are not happier than most others. To a point, money improves happiness--when you're dirt poor and suddenly you have a decent home, can afford food, etc. you're a lot happier. Beyond about $75K (or whatever a base salary is where you live), though, the increase in happiness just isn't there.
I think of restaurants. A $20 meal is usually better than a $10 meal. A $50 meal is somewhat better than a $20 meal. When you start getting into the hundreds of dollars, though, I feel like the restaurant owners are basically just laughing at how gullible their clients are to pay those ridiculous prices.
I was just talking about this with friends. I lived in Baltimore and what many are convinced is a good meal at an upscale restaurant will cost you over 100.00 per person. Yet the same meal: app, salad, main course, dessert and drinks will cost you almost half less per person at a restaurant in the county.
So yes, you are correct. Owners of "Fine Dining" establishments are laughing at the gullibility of the people who will pay hundreds for their meals. Because in the end, a good meal is a good meal whether served on cloth covered tables, or a booth with a paper napkin dispenser on it.
Totally agree. My husband was a head chef in a swanky restaurant. When we would go out dinner, we would always go to this restaurant out in the boondocks, where the napkins were washcloths and the food was fantastic.
There is no real world downside for Beyoncé, Rebel Wilson, Lionel Messi, LIV golfers, et.al. for taking the blood money. Why should there be when western governments continue to eagerly do business with the tyrannical regimes? How many once great universities are deeply involved/financially yoked to horrific countries. Moral indignation is never an issue when there is money to be made. So do not expect any change in behavior, the modern ethos is “ get mine” no matter the ethical cost.
“This collusion between Western celebrities and Middle Eastern despots is enabled by idiotic elements on the left: People who don’t seem to know what fascism, Stalinism, or Nazism is, since they insist upon confusing it with things they don’t much like. They hate their own rotting democracies so much, they cannot accept that other places are worse. Call a democracy tyranny and you won’t recognize tyranny when it hands you a check. “
Sadly, we're all complicit in upholding tyrannies because of our desire for cheap goods and the power of big business to limit workers' wages and benefits, while maximizing profits. The two go hand in hand. Most of us can't afford to be very picky about where the stuff we buy comes from while wages stagnate and the cost of living rises. And so we look askance or just ignore, for example, China's brutal repression of first the Tibetans and now Uyghurs when buying all kinds of goods from China. We aren't given much choice. That said, to see someone like Beyonce, who is already fabulously wealthy, put all her principles aside to make even more money is sickening. She should at least shut up once and for all about caring for the oppressed if she's going to continue cashing in like this.
I do not buy cheap goods. I diligently research for made in the USA although I will accept Western hemisphere. It took awhile to find American made and sourced dog food but I did.
Good luck with that (truly) . There was a book a few years ago written by a woman who tried to live for a year without buying any Chinese manufactured products. She could not do it. Interesting book.
If a war ever comes with China we are screwed. We can no longer manufacture most of the high tech peripherals we are militarily dependent on.
Yeah - it's tough. We started doing a lot better once we closed our Amazon accounts. Turns out the "free shipping" thing isn't so much of a deal anymore anyway. More and more we've been finding we can buy things that do come from this hemisphere online directly from the source or nearly, and at competitive prices. But sometimes we just say we don't need it that bad. Getting rid of Amazon 1-click shopping cuts out a tremendous amount of impulse-buying.
If someone came out with a manual on how to stiff the gangsters in China - and their toadies in the US - it would be a best seller. Except you wouldn't be able to find it on Amazon or referenced on Google.
I also try to buy local. There's no reason to buy food outside of Canada or the US, and there's lots of dog food produced in the US and Canada. It's a different story when it comes to electronics, plastics, toys, less expensive instruments, and so on.
Double check your dog food. Produced/made wherever does not mean the ingredients are sourced there. Like I do for a lot of my food I give it the sniff test. My husband was using supposedly high quality dog food by American manufacturers for our very large lab but it smelled awful. Poor dog was very lethargic and had very dry skin. He is doing much better now.
We always have a choice. But we consistently choose the cheapest price. Since free trade agreements create an extremely uneven working field for manufacturing, the ones who end up getting all the business are the ones in countries with indecent working conditions and no consumer protections for defective and inferior products. The few domestic manufacturers that remain which continue to produce quality can only do so at very reduced economies of scale, and so their prices are no longer affordable to any but wealthy elites. So this free trade system has created a two-tiered product collection, not unlike what used to be described in the old Soviet Union, where party member elites shopped in their own stores.
What is ironic is that in for automobiles it's flipped to some extent. The domestic U.S. vehicles have half the lifespans of Japanese and now even some of the Korean vehicles,and they break all the time. After 100k miles on American vehicles you start buying it over again in increasingly costly repairs. 200k is expected and 250k common with Japanese vehicles.
Amazing that these people are fabulously wealthy and still willing to SELL THEIR SOULS!! The late great Jesus said it best “what does it profit a man to gain the whole world yet lose his soul?”
Dear me, trotting out all the stereotypes on the World Cup. You do realise that the anti-gay laws about which you are so superior were exactly the same in the UK when we last hosted the World Cup? And there is still considerable homophobic violence here (but not in Qatar).
Also the idea that countless people died buidling the stadia is based on a poorly researched article in the Guardian. Out of 2 million migrant workers over 10 years, 6500 died, around 17 in the stadia.
"In December 2022 in the UK, there were 49,339 deaths registered in England, 5,871 deaths (13.5%) above the December five-year average (2016 to 2019, and 2021). That's in one month.
And the essence of slavery is that you are captured and put to work. All the migrant workers chose to work there as they were earning considerably more than they would have earned at home.
Surely you can see the argument that for western celebrities to be feted there is going to make it more rather than less likely that they will examine their laws, and move to a more liberal worldview? In Saudi, MBS has made great strides in opening up the country. Yes, they have a long way to go, but refusing to engage helps nobody.
I don’t think the “if we’re nice to them they’ll like us more and want to be more like us”, is a strategy that’s worked with China. Plus, if I have standards of conduct that are dictated by the highest bidder, that makes me a prostitute rather than a partner.
There are worse things than prostitution, but there are more things that are better
The Chinese people are desperate to be more Western: try getting work as an English teacher there. But the authorities don’t want western decadence so there is an interesting conflict. Similarly in the Middle East they want to be closer to us but without the dissolute standards. Plenty of Christians want the same control over us.
Of course this comment comes from a man…and leaves out the repulsive treatment of women in these countries…because you don’t have any data to say that’s it’s not horrible because IT’S ALL TRUE.
Thanks SuzeQ fr pointing out this blatant obvious that our man Andrew Daws here overlooked. Did he unintentionally overlook or simply does not care? Either way, it shows he is not someone whose opinion is worth my time when he can overlook the perpetual eternal subjugation of half the population. He can't even see it or he simply doesn't care. He'd defend the only country on earth where women would be arrested for driving.
You can read this same info directly at Shrier's own Substack, fyi. But I think you are actually reinforcing the point Gold is making in her piece: the degradation of women is a by-product of so-called "progressive" Left values—just the cost of the agenda they push. It's being given reign in California thanks to activist bullies and their propaganda, and the moral cowardice of many. But I would point out that the Free Press and most Americans are not in sympathy with this bankrolled Leftist agenda (hello George Soros) that has hijacked our institutions and is destroying our social and moral fabric. IOW, what's going on in California is hardly Exhibit A for Western democratic, humanitarian values. It's largely the antithesis. But like all vacant post-modern ideas, it borrows the language of noble causes and warps the meaning of the terms—ie. "human rights."
“And the essence of slavery is that you are captured and put to work. All the migrant workers chose to work there as they were earning considerably more than they would have earned at home.”
When one’s passport is confiscated on arrival and deposited in the safe in HR and a significant portion of wages are retained it’s hard to argue the absence of coercion.
We may be getting a little inside baseball here, but the exit permit and passport retention aren't quite the same thing. As you are probably aware there are two different labor laws in effect, one for Qataris and one for foreign workers.
I've had multiple conversations with Qatari developers (admittedly pre-2018) who explained in great detail how things work. And subsequent chats with Bangladeshi and Filipino workers on their realities.
I certainly heard from a resident there that he was told that if he wanted to employ a maid, a local would have to employ them as foreigners could not. And the maid had to be female. He had employed an Indian man as a driver (with very little driving) with no problem. This may have been before the law was changed under international pressure (see? we can help).
Or a very craven, apologist defense of the indefensible. We can debate cultural relativism. What is not open for debate is the claim that western "celebrities" agree to be feted in order to force a re-examination of laws and to "foster a more liberal worldview." They are there to line their pockets and to be feted and idolized. Please don't claim otherwise. Unless you want to lose any shred of credibility.
Did it sound "uncritical?" Nah didn't think so. But cultural relativism has its limits. Were the British wrong to ban Suttee? Civilized people don't think so
Good points but careful about crossing the party line. Except that last paragraph. Most celebrities reflect the society in which they arose. They are, as a group, the group least worth emulating if proper moral values are the goal.
Thanks for the context, "All the migrant workers chose to work there as they were earning considerably more than they would have earned at home" is an excellent rebuttal. I'm guessing that is exactly right.
But, I disagree with "Surely you can see the argument that for western celebrities to be feted there is going to make it more rather than less likely that they will examine their laws, and move to a more liberal worldview?" No, not really. Shaking tit's and ass there does nothing to help. It is hypocrisy, pure and simple. I have friends who have visited that Tower of Babel - its just porn to the them. It will change nothing.
What a great article !! Right on every point,and in particular this one: "Call a democracy tyranny and you won’t recognize tyranny when it hands you a check."
But what good will it do? History shows that sport heroes are not the only fellow travellers of tyranny: one could site a great number od Western (and in particular British and French) intellectuals that demonstrated in their declarations that they were blind to tyranny, in particular Soviet or more precisely Stalinist tyranny. And they did not even get paid for their services. So it's an old story, alas.
Lebron James defends China but excoriates America for its racial problems. China kills and jails and subjugates its citizens. That tells you all you need to know about our racial problems. America is a bad country....and the rest of the world is ignored. Ignorance and as such it is easily dismissible.
I’ve never been one to pay much attention to Beyoncé beyond marveling at how her massive boobs are glued into her costumes so they don’t fall out. She’s always been a wonder at the confluence of marketing and sleaze. I wouldn’t recognize any of her songs if they bit me. Why is she a gay icon? Her husband most likely beat up gays as a banger. Certainly he’s a misogynist and a racist.
So true. I went to Dubai once and that was enough for me. Never so bored in my life. And I only spent 3 days there. It’s all made up like Disneyland. One memory. I was swimming at the hotel pool. The husband and kids were splashing around and Mom was dressed head to toe in black , couldn’t even see her face. Nothing there. Will never go back.
People are not "good". Human history is littered with those who will happily sell their morals, friends and/or family for a payoff. Dubai just has more money to spend.
This article is a perfect example of when ideacrats’ concepts have begun the inevitable march towards homophonics. Cancel culture, celebrity worship, politertainment, shame blathering, commodified emotions, judgmental finger pointing. Cancel Beyoncé. No, cancel travel to Dubai. No, cancel indentured servitude. No, cancel yourself with your own leisure travel hypocrisy with mimosa in hand. It seems like the only thing we don’t cancel (and therefore are drowning in its proliferation) is our own delusional and righteously self-centered views emanating entirely from our self-limited worldview that shifts with microsecond relativism of the “news” cycle. You know the only person who is right on this subject? Me. Just ask me.
Great article.
How can we call them a tyranny or immoral when we can’t even define what a man or woman is? If we don’t stand for something, we’ll fall for anything, and Western civ. doesn’t seem to have much to stand for beyond hedonism and a feel good “you-do-you” mentality.
It isn't Western civ that stands for nothing. It's the leftist cabal of business, government and entertainment that has cheapened our culture and community.
That is the definition of fascism, the melding of government, society and business interests for a common cause. That "cause" is the removal of anything, or any idea, that contradicts the zeitgeist of the day.
Yes, but unfortunately that's what makes up our culture nowadays.
You forgot education. The greatest culprit of them alll.
Bring in the trolls.
It's only money, Bruce. For twenty four million bucks, the pope might have shown up too. Left. Right. Up. Down. Everybody's in bed with someone else. Trump sold the 45th floor in Trump Tower to Saudi Arabia. He loves them. Biden probably does too. Big deal. Saudi kills a journalist in 2017 and America does nothing. So what's different?
There doesn't have to be a political angle to everything. The writer of the article wants it to be. The commenters here want it to be. But it's all corruption, priorities and ignorance.
The idiots going to Dubai were in denial as to how onerous the regime there is. They don't want to know because on the surface, hey! it all looks great. And there's a ton of money. How bad can it be? Plenty. But it's always been done and will continue that way as long as the spigots flow..
You are.
But I don't disagree with Lee, generally.
Ah yes. republicans have been on a 50 year rampage to destroy worker's rights, destroy unions, reduce the minimum wage, abolish the consumer protection agency, and cut corporate taxes, but it is leftists that are pro-business.
And it is the democrats that have tried for years to stand up for human rights in the middle east while republicans veto and vote down their measures. https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/are-democrats-alone-in-challenging-saudi-arabia/
The leader the conservatives, trump is the most pro-Saudi/UAE president in history. His son in law is entirely funded by the UAE, Trump is single handedly supporting the LIV golf tour.
RT - American business is firmly in the control of left leaning Democrats. I would offer almost all of Tech, the Roberts family that owns Comcast, the family of the rotund governor of IL, Jamie Dimon and his banker buds, Black Rock and Goldman, the dolts at Woke Coke.....the list goes on and on. Are you now aping Rip Van Winkle?
That's not quite right. You are confusing your leftist belief that all business is bad and that conservatives like the Koch's are eternally damnable because they are conservative, with political commentary. It is interesting to note the plethora of Democrat politicians who've become headspinningly wealthy while in office when they weren't before. Including Biden. Big media outside of Fox leans heavily Democrat. Paid advertising and company mission statements naturally follow. Having been a Democrat for a long time, I have been saddened to see the spin and myopia engulfing so many who consider themselves open-minded liberals. Rich celebrities and billionaires always get a pass if they are perceived as having Democratic values. But those who step out of line and expose the grift and corruption of the Dems - not so Musk...I mean much. The wealthiest counties and their movers and shakers, at least in the North East and California are Democrats. It's not about picking out the few conservative billionaires. That in itself is not evidence of criminality or wrongthink, no matter how much left-think insists it is. The greedy celebrities who posture and revolt against Democracy are lapping up fascism like gravy. Thats the point of this story - its not about generalizing greed or blaming everything on corporatocracy - that's a distraction tactic. This article has a point. And the point is clear.
"The greedy celebrities who posture and revolt against Democracy are lapping up fascism like gravy"
I'm not sure they're revolting against democracy. I suspect if you asked them to define the term, most would stammer and stutter unless someone handed them a script. Far from revolutionaries, most are nothing but puppets without the strings. They'll say and do whatever their paymasters demand.
“Timothy - last time you responded to something I wrote, you mocked me when I shared I was overweight in relation to a covid discussion and said it must 'suck to be me' because I shared I have a disabled child. Your literal reading of my comment above proves that you aren't someone I want anything to do with. Plus since you've added a family photo to your profile - I can tell you right now that your wife is double my size so enjoy the karma of being the playground bully and body shamer. Does your wife know you go around nasty-trolling women“
For some reason your comment didn’t show up in this thread, only my email notification. So I cut and pasted it for context, if not an accurate reading of a past post I addressed to you.
First off, the young lady you referred to (is mocked a better term?) is not my wife. She is my daughter, which is pertinent because at the age of two and a half she had to undergo open heart surgery. Unlike you, her mother did not use the 24 hour care she provided post surgery as an excuse to become obese. In fact, she has the same build as my other daughter, standing next to me in the picture.
Karma isn’t the reason my oldest daughter is overweight and I don’t care to share them with you but she never makes excuses. I love her dearly, and if obesity is a part of the beautiful, lovely young woman she is, I’ll happily accept it.
Btw, you might want to be more honest in your retorts. Otherwise I suggest you change your pseudonym to Nuanced & out of context
You’re claiming big oil and gas companies are run by Republicans and most of their employees are? Hilarious. Your knowledge on this one is at least a decade out of date.
get your metaphor correct: kettle calling the pot black....
Agree on all points.
Also, words used to have meanings. We started down the slippery slope when we changed the definition of marriage. I believe gay couples should have the all the rights of straight couples, under the law. But pick a different word. It sounds petty, but if every word can be redefined to make a person feel good, then none of the words matter.
My favorite quote from the Pixar movie The Incredibles, “If everyone’s ‘special,’ no one is.”
Civil Union
"We started down the slippery slope when we changed the definition of marriage." Like we haven't changed the rules of marriage whenever it suited us before?
In medieval Europe, marriage wasn't for love. It was arranged to secure power, money, prestige, alliances, inter-kingdom war settlement, debts, or anything but what the groom and bride might have wanted. Daughters were property, assigned to her next owner by her father and family.
Marriage came with no age restrictions---you could marry off toddler. Age restrictions came later.
We routinely forbade marriage to "the feebleminded," outside one's race, outside one's religion. Those changed. In some cultures, a husband could have a wife stoned or burned to death if he thought--without proof--she was unfaithful. That did not work in reverse, of course.
The early Catholic Church allowed priests to marry. That ended when the Church decided that it, not the wife and kiddos, should inherit the priest's property.
"Marriage" has changed with the times; gay marriage is just the latest one. Marriage is the correct word, it being a state-recognized contract between two consenting adults. Straight or gay doesn't matter, and shouldn't. That religions might not like that doesn't matter.
In all the historical examples you note, which I don’t disagree with, was there ever a time when the marriage wasn’t defined as between a male and a female?
From my reading, Jody, same-sex marriage occurred in some places, but I wouldn't call it widespread or even common. This Wiki piece has the best roundup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#:~:text=Same%2Dsex%20unions%20were%20known,Mesopotamia%20than%20in%20ancient%20Egypt.
In my view, liberty requires that consenting adults be allowed to legally marry other consenting adults. Sex, age, color, religion, and all that should be no barrier. I emphasize "consenting" and "adults" for two reasons: it prevents people from marrying children and animals, neither of which can consent to such a thing.
This I apply only to the matter of state marriage licenses. Religions can bless the unions or not solely as they see fit.
I agree. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is fine with me. Just keep the doors closed.
Yep! I don't want to see anyone slobbering on each other, gay, straight, or something else. Keep it to yourselves and we'll get along fine.
Lol. You're really digging deep here, desperately trying to avoid the obvious - that this is something new in the modern world which should appropriately be accompanied with new terminology.
Also, curious if polygamy is ok with you. Would there be any problem if three or four consenting adults wanted to marry and spend their lives in their preferred life arrangement? Or is there something magical about the number two? Polygamous relationships have existed for long periods of time all over the world you know. You don't have to search so hard to find examples in wikipedia.
I have no issue with polygamous marriage. Why would I?
Sure..and Wikipedia has no bias at all 🙄
I found no bias in this particular Wiki article, just a roundup of same-sex-marriage practices in cultures throughout history. It was as evenhanded as anything else I found on this topic.
None of those things is about the definition of marriage, they’re just examples of different uses for it over the centuries. Marriage is a monogamous union between one man and one woman. Period. That’s the definition, and none of the examples you cited changes that in any way. Gay “marriage” does. That is why it is not a real thing. It is something new.
"Marriage is a monogamous union between one man and one woman. Period."
Used to be one man one woman. Now it's one adult one adult. Things change.
Black people used to be property, slaves, and only 3/5 of a human. Our culture decided to expand that to fully human full citizens. Things change.
America is about freedom. That concept allows consenting adults to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm the rights of others. That adults can now marry other adults doesn't affect my marriage or my rights one bit. Explain how it affects yours.
Marriage is what Marriage is. It’s like saying the color Blue is now Green. It doesn’t work like that. If you wish to pretend that a man can marry another man, be my guest. But don’t be shocked when the rest of us look at you like a crazy person because two men marrying is not really a thing that can happen.
The fact that Black people used to be slaves has zero to do with the definition of a Black person; it’s just an unfortunate characteristic of the culture 150 years ago. People of all colors have been slaves at different times. Again you are fond of citing examples of things that don’t support your point.
Men having anal sex with one another is not freedom, it’s license. It’s not something good or beneficial for society. It can spread disease and every major religion, which is where definitions of morality originate from, condemns the activity. People like you instead want to call it freedom and say that one man “marrying” another (in effect condoning the behavior, even celebrating it) doesn’t affect anyone else. That is ridiculous. Marriage undergirds our entire society because it flows into another major construct, “family.” Change one and you change the other. For everyone, not just for married persons. Then you get “married” homosexual couples demanding the same rights to adopt children (since they cannot create their own), even being given children instead of actual married couples, so now the children are at risk by being raised outside of the traditional family structure that we know works.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Gay “marriage” is an experiment that we simply don’t know what it will do to the society over time. We can predict the easy stuff but who’s to say where else it leads. Nowhere good I’m sure.
BINGO. Well-said.
Why pick a different word? "Marriage" is the correct one for both straight and gay couples.
Pick a different word because it is a different thing, freshly invented. Marriage is an ancient global institution. It has always meant the same thing: a union of husband and wife. Now there's this new concept, for which there should be a new word. Pretty simple concept when you take out the politics and social agendas.
Marriage is the union of a heterosexual couple, typically for building a stable family. The union of a homosexual couple is a different thing entirely. It is not marriage. Invent a new word.
Everyone seemed fine with “civil union” back in the day but the hardcore leftists must always be fighting about something so they force-fed us “gay marriage” and won because not enough people cared enough to fight it.
Used to be. Isn't any more. Things change.
"Marriage" is the union of two consenting adults into a partnership sanctioned by the state. That marriage used to be "one man and one woman" doesn't mean it has to remain that way---and in fact has not. Nobody "force-fed" it to you, because granting marriage rights to gay adults does not affect your life or marriage one little bit.
Since you are fine with same-sex adults being joined in "civil union," the only point of denying the title "marriage" is spite. I thought conservatives WANTED people to be married and faithful and have kids, all of which gay marrieds can do as well as straights.
I'm as straight as railroad tracks, liberal without being woke, and was married until my wife died. I cannot fathom why this is such an issue to so many straight conservatives.
This, exactly. "gay marriage" is not a thing. A man can't have a husband. A woman can't have a wife. We only pretend they can so we can be good people, deserving of a pat on the head.
We have not run out of words and are not forced to pile new meanings on to existing words. We can create new words for new things as we always have. Now we are all the way to the point where we don't know what a woman or a man is and have to pretend that we're too stupid to recognize the difference and claim that biology really doesn't matter.
So it's all about semantics then?
Marriage has been redefined numerous times throughout history, by the way.
Interestingly enough, the gay rights movement in the 1970s was actually against the concept of gay marriage, as they didn't believe in assimilation into the mainstream. Only later did they think that assimilation into the mainstream was a good idea.
Ajax the notso Great
Gays are not assimilating. They are dominating.
Well, no, gays not dominating. They are becoming equals, which they have been all along but our culture has only recently recognized.
Amen.
LOL, is that the best that you've got?
I'm sincerely curious - can you point me to examples of marriage redefinition throughout history?
Too many to list here, but the biggest redefinition was in the 19th century when (in the West) marriage went from being primarily economic and political, to being primarily about love. That was far more fundamental a change than opening marriage up to being largely gender neutral.
Also, the second biggest change over the centuries was that the expectation of fidelity is no longer one-sided and hypocritical. (Though one can also argue that a *reverse* double standard has emerged in very recent history, at least in some circles, primarily in the USA, but not so much elsewhere.)
Those are not redefinitions, you know. They all refer to the same thing - a union of a penis-having person and a non-penis having person, of whatever age was deemed appropriate in the culture. Nothing more, nothing less.
Makes sense and I agree with you. I was thinking you were talking about legal redefinition, though, not cultural.
Peace
…regardless whether for love, economics or social position marriage up until recently was between a man and a woman.
You mean it wasn't always husband and wife until the last 30 seconds? You sure about that?
You only think that because the word "marriage" happens to be your line. Everyone thinks their own definition of "reasonable" ought to be THE definition of reasonable. On what basis do you claim this is the "start of the slippery slope"?
Many people (including I) think we started down this slope in the Enlightenment, with John Locke asserting that he could defend human rights without a divine source. We picked up speed when J.S. Mill asserted "my rights only stop at your nose." We got a taste of the future with occult leader Alistair Crowley's "do what though wilt is the whole of the law", but it took us until the 60's postmodernists to officially deify personal will as our new god. Everything that's happened since is the logical outcome of a society whose new highest good is maximal individual autonomy. And it's not stopping. Expect polygamy ("they love each other, so why not") and pedophilia ("she can consent to slicing off her private parts, surely she can consent to using them") next.
There's no going back to the nice, friendly, 1990's liberalism. Anyone who thinks there's philosophically stable ground there is deluding themselves.
You hit the nail on the head. It isn't marriage. How about government issues civil union certificates. And let's let marriage be between a man and a woman, as it has been for millenia.
Wrong. You started down the slippery slope when You put human rights into Your constitution and allowed slavery in Your country for almost another century.
After all Beyonce is just doing what Americans have always done since the days of the founding fathers: Talk the talk without doing the walk. Talk about values and human rights and have slaves, butcher Indians to steal their land, bring war to countries all over the world to steal their resources and, yes, kissing a medieval dick's dick for a big pay check. Beyonce is just practicing the American dream.
This is specifically an American attribute? You are blinded by your hatred. All countries are guilty of this. All peoples are guilty of this. Why? Because we are human. Humans are fallible and don't live up to what they believe in. We aren't perfect. I would bet money that you have claimed to believe in things that you have failed to live up to in your own life. If you haven't, you are a living saint.
You clearly know nothing about our country's history. Best not to comment out of ignorance. What's your homeland btw, Bernd? I'm sure we can have a field day there. Come on, dish.
I was going to ask him the same question… lol
We started down this road when we tried to have human rights without god. Sans a divine source of some kind, universal human rights are a logical impossibility; any right defined by man can be redefined or removed by man. And now that we've killed off God, we're happily doing so.
And that goes for all of Western civilization, not just America.
Does Bernd employ logos? Mais, non! Does Bernd employ pathos? Mais, non! Does Bernd employ ethos? Mais, non! Does Bernd employ Kairos? Mais, non!
But I suppose you think this is terribly clever and very 'to the point.'
Huh. Canada allowed slavery and stole indigenous land through colonization.
https://www.canada.ca/en/parks-canada/news/2020/07/the-enslavement-of-african-people-in-canada-c-16291834.html
https://opentextbc.ca/indigenizationfoundations/chapter/43/
What was that again about people in glass houses not casting stones?
Mot quite sure what this comment is doing here but it demands a response. Marriage is here for love and to create and support families. What we need are stable
Families no matter if the parents are straight or gay.
Society's interest in marriage is its most basic need: "to create, raise, and acculturate the next generation to be capable of doing the same." Any society that fails this task... fails. We can argue about the "raise" part, but by definition, 2 people of the same sex can not "create" the next generation.
Traditionalists lost gay marriage because they had already separated marriage from its historical purpose: producing children. It appears from your comment that you have largely done the same. If marriage is just about personal fulfillment ("we love each other"), no restraints on marriage are possible.
Traditionalists lost gay marriage because they had already separated marriage from its historical purpose: producing children. It appears from your comment that you have largely done the same
4 children …. 9 grandchildren - and counting. Misread and misunderstand you did.
You misunderstood, Ira. I wasn't saying you were "anti-natal" at all. I was saying that your comment "Marriage is here for love" is an acceptance of this underlying philosophy of marriage as primarily about the happiness of the two people getting married. Once you accept that, saying it's "for families" is pretty much irrelevant, since both can't be true. Either marriage is primarily for children (in which case social and legal constraints make sense -- for the children of course), or marriage is primarily for personal happiness (in which case they do not.) I didn't mean to imply at all that you personally were anti-child. Sorry.
The best and the strongest article here in a while. Many of us think and feel the same, but I would never be able to reveal the hypocrisy and corruption of the co-called liberal celebrities with such force and clarity. They are willing to sell their souls to the highest bidder but look down at us, mere mortals, and keep throwing labels around: one says we are racists, another - domestic terrorists. But the reality is our cultural elite has completely lost moral compass. Disgusting.
These same liberal celebrities call for the cancellation of anyone who uses the wrong pronouns or otherwise runs afoul of wokeness here in America, while selling out to countries that persecute and murder women and gays. That tells you all you need to know about them. They are trash and anyone who cares or even entertains anything they say is an idiot. Watch their movies and shows and listen to their music if it appeals to you, but otherwise ignore them like you would a toddler throwing a tantrum.
This kind of thinking is not helpful. Unfortunately it's a popular way to think, demonstrated by your comment having over 100 likes. Just because things are less than perfect here doesn't mean we can't recognize when things are far, far, far worse elsewhere.
That's my point. It almost seems like a religious dogma when, if speaking of a tyrannical government or an atrocity committed in history, to mention a similarity in our own culture/past.
Don't get me wrong. I agree with you, but it seems to me that we don't believe in ourselves anymore. I think that that was one of the largest cultural changes of 2020.
This of course is the goal of the enemies of western culture. Its important that we encourage self criticism ... up to a point. The limit is when our society begins to delve into self loathing--which we see being led by the enemies of our liberalism.
I have trouble believing in us....if you have some gift of wisdom that I could hold onto...I would love to receive it! I usually am a positive person. I just feel like there are more and more reasons to feel I am in 1984.
You choose your own culture--you don't have to follow the crowd. I wouldn't know Beyonce if I ran into her in the grocery store, sounds like she a Dubai deserve each other and that I'm not missing much.
I go to church and have meaningful relationships there. I have rich relationships with my family. I have friends that don't often discuss politics and when we do we are all adult enough to understand that if we don't agree it doesn't mean there isn't common ground. I don't watch much TV or many movies. I enjoy watching some sports. I have hobbies that I love. I get outside.
But I'm not stupid and I'm not uniformed. I do political advocacy and research--it doesn't own me--but it does mean I'm pushing back against the culture I dislike and think is so destructive. Many of my friends have no idea I do this--but you don't have to share everything with everybody.
Darwin didn't actually say "survival of the fittest". He said it was survival of the quick adaptors. Hard times may be ahead--they always are. Adapt your life so it doesn't pull you under. There are a lot more of us NOT wrapped up in the Beyonces of the culture than are. Choose the culture you want to surround yourself with, that has meaning for you, and work from there.
Thanks...I also wouldn't know Beyonce, that she was gay, that she hasn't performed in 5 years! I did find the irony interesting in a statement of our times. Thank you for your advice. I can't say that I have people that are willing to hold their beliefs as theirs and not want others to conform. Maybe that is a side effect of living in a more blue environment and me being more red. I want others to have their beliefs and feelings and me have mine. Too much of what I sense is that we aren't allowed that. Which is why I have closed my circle close and don't engage with people who can't sit with the discomfort of not agreeing. I appreciate your advice...
A wise man once told me this: "It's never as good as it seems, and it's never as bad as it seems."
True words
The American Dream is, and always has been, aspirational. If we no longer aspire to it, it cannot happen in the least.
Frankly I don’t give a shit about some desert monarchy tying to outdo Las Vegas or the fact that some “Black Queer” entertainer accepted $24 million to lipsinc her way through a medley of songs most people never heard of. It’s almost like the author it’s twisting her own words to say ignore the real tyranny occurring here because theirs is so much worse.
There is simply no equivalency between Dubai and America, tyranny notwithstanding. I’ll never visit the place. Decadence, whether it be artificial palm reefs or the prospect of the hired help holding my dick doesn’t excite me. My point is that despite the flops of her recent albums, at least Beyoncé can point out that it’s better to be a has been than a never was. Dubai was never a democracy but our country was founded on it. While they are a never was my fear is that we’re becoming a has been.
That’s the whole point of the article. USA & UAE are not equivalent.
We abolished slavery 150+ years ago. They are still holding slaves. Who are mistreated, will do anything they are asked to do, for fear of reprisal. They are probably beaten or just disappear if disobedient! They still publicly execute people, yes….government sanctioned executions.
Yet our celebrity culture finds it all ok, if they are paid handsomely for services rendered.
Yup 100% the point of the article. Yes, it’s judgmental- as it should be. It’s pointing out the hypocrisy of those pointing fingers at everyone else and acting as the “PC Police” but not looking at the one right in front of their face.
“Yet our celebrity culture finds it all ok, if they are paid handsomely for services rendered”
Not exactly a revelation. She could have saved air fare and made the same point.
I get what you are saying now....myo nly other piggyback to that is when she comes home here to spout how we are awful...after going to Dubai...that hypocritical BS gets under my skin.
I think the article is judgmental, which is ironical given what I think Bari's philosophy is. I hope I'm right and won't be censored by the monitors again.
Yes, the article is very judgmental...As it should be. Beyonce claims to be an LGBT ally, dedicating her latest album to the cause. Yet she knowingly takes 24 million from a country that has outlawed homosexuality making it a crime punishable by death. Nice ally.
But like most liberals/progressives, it's okay when they are hypocrites. Because they pay lip service to all woke causes, and even promote them through their content.
I suppose one could argue that she's made the dastardly country 24 million dollars poorer . . .
Yes, definitely judgmental. Is that a problem for you? And what is Bari's philosophy that makes it ironic for a writer to be judgmental? I'm confused. (I'm really judgmental myself - totally against slavery and abuse - I judge it to be totally wrong.)
It doesn’t matter... she has the right to say (write) it, we have the right to read it, you have the right to hit “delete”. That’s the point of thus substack.
And I have the right to comment. Otherwise this is all hypocritical.
Yes, definitely judgmental. Is that a problem for you? And what is Bari's philosophy that makes it ironic for a writer to be judgmental? I'm confused. (I'm really judgmental myself - totally against slavery and abuse - I judge it to be totally wrong.)
How many times do you have to reply? I believe I can judge what is ok or not ok for me, but not for someone else. Otherwise, we can assign most of the countries in the world to the same horrible place as Dubai. However, there are humans living there and everywhere. So, if they don't act like us, you think they are unacceptable? That's how Clinton got in trouble with her "deplorables."
how did you manage to miss the point of the article so thoroughly?
All countries do bad things as if all bad things are equally bad?
The point of the article isn't even about relativitsm, tho. It's about shaming someone who shames her own country and people yet is happy to perform for cash before people most would argue are even worse...with nary a word of criticism for those paying tyrants. Its hypocritical and, frankly, gross.
I got the sense was what he is saying is if we can't see it there and the similarities here...we are screwed....but that may be my interpretation. We accept it there...we may accept it here...
We need a new version of the Sex Pistols - crass cynical youth with a huge platform who see corruption and call it out. At some point young people are going to push back against all this virtue signalling. When your school principal is wearing his rainbow / Ukraine flag - surely the teenagers will not want to do the same.
You-do-you unless you agree the swamp needs to be drained. Or CRY not taught. Or CHILDREN should not be encouraged to transition. . . .
I disagree Ben , while the you may feel the West doesn’t stand for anything. Though not perfect the West is better than the alternative.
The West is better than the alternative, I agree.
What I meant was that I don't think our culture has any strong ethos or value system. Say what will about the Saud dynasty, they know what they believe. What does our culture believe in? Who knows? The most popular song in 2020 was about female genitalia and church attendance dropped below 50% for the first time in American history, meanwhile, before we left Afghanistan we painted murals of George Floyd in Kabul and raised a pride-flag over our embassy. What does all that mean? IMO, sound and fury.
What do the Sauds believe that you find so admirable I wonder? There is much in any culture to admire, but I wonder what it is specifically the Sauds got right? Their treatment of women and homosexuals, I guess?
We do believe in something in the West, else we wouldn't have these conversations, try to self-reflect. Nor would we ever correct our mistakes. We have. Some ethical standard does guide most of us or history wouldnt have changed our behaviors.
We would still have slaves and,/or Jim Crow, women would still be chattel and it would be legal to beat gay people in the street if we believed in nothing. If we had no moral compass. But we clearly do.
We do find our mistakes and people fight hard to get us to face these mistakes and change them. We dont always change as fast as some may wish. And everyone won't always agree with changes demanded, but we try to improve. That is a beautiful thing. Even if sometimes we are mislead or take wrong turns.
And we are free to debate and discuss what needs changing. Which is more important than a country sharing a single faith tradition. It's what enables us to see from another's perspective. And that creates growth and greater humanity ultimately. I believe.
Of course, I believe faith matters. It helps individuals find their moral compass. I believe. It helps us not be as narcissistic and self-centered. But faith can also lead to atrocities when religious fervor overrules truth or when words of a faith are abused and misinterpreted. And history has shown this can and does happen. To this day.
Murals of George Floyd are not a bad thing. Not if you ask yourself what inspired people to paint them. People felt horrified that some cruelty was perpetrated. Whether you think it went too far or not, the heart behind those murals was good.
I dont think gay flags or breast cancer awareness flags or any 'cause' flags should be flown over our embassies. But I dont see the evil you see. Misguidedness, perhaps.
Please don’t put words in my mouth or beliefs in my mind. I didn’t say I admired anything about the Saud dynasty.
I don’t see flying pride-flags over a conservative Islamic country as evil. Misguided, idiotic, culturally insensitive, yes, but not evil.
George Floyd was a thug. He didn’t deserve what happened to him, but what did happen to him? He died of complications from a Fentanyl overdose, not hypoxia. The protestors who caused such a ruckus in 2020 were (for the most part) either upper-class, white, college students, or criminals looking to have some entertainment. I saw it first-hand in DC while being filmed by a Chinese newscaster. Go figure.
Yes exactly. And now we know - everything (everyone?) is for sale, for the right price.
Supreme Court Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson lost the plot before she even entered the court….
You overstate the case. We are going through a difficult period, but this fine article would not be readily available if our situation was a hopeless as you claim.
Excellent article. There is so much I cannot understand about American progressives’ attitude towards Islam and the Middle East. Somehow hosting a speaker who once said something objectionable is platforming them, but being pampered at an elite hotel with trafficked maids is … an act of protest? Enlightenment?
Relatedly, I have never been able to understand how the extremes of the #MeToo crowd, who often dogged American who expressed any disbelief of Kavanaugh’s accusers, don’t seem to mind when entire countries force women to wear Burkas, insist on total subservience to husbands, etc.
Nor can I understand how someone can absolutely hate JK Rowling for pointing out that the extremities of the trans movement can occasionally harm women, but the same person is totally okay with Middle Eastern regimes that refuse to recognize trans people or punish them as criminals.
Or people who think a conservative Christian who refuses to decorate a cake for a gay wedding is a monstrous bigot, but a conservative Muslim who kills a gay person is just…different?
I really can’t understand it. Arabic cultures in general couldn’t be further, values-wise, from American progressives. But somehow the bigotry and occasional horrifying violence that comes from some of those places is the one thing in the entire world that American progressives have a palate for. Truly can’t comprehend it.
(Maybe if the ghost of Hannah Arendt were here, she would point out that the Left and the Saudi Right appear to be on polar opposite extremes substantively, but that they believe in the same political means, or share a same underlying belief in the abolition of the distinction between public and private spheres, or something more insightful and creative that probably on she could recognize.)
The only logical explanation is that woke progressives are insane. Normal people do not act this way.
There is another explanation that covers all of this nonsense. When people in the 1790s read Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” it swept the universities of Europe and the world. In 200+ years it is the world’s dominant philosophy, nihilism.
Kant released intellectuals from the necessity to ever make sense by saying in effect that you only think that you think; you can know nothing. Your senses lie, your reason is flawed, your mind inadequate. You are ignorant. Someone else needs to tell you what to do. Kant’s writing is difficult and impossible to follow.
He used new and old words in new ways without defining anything. One sentence was simple and clear: I need to kill reason to save faith. He was half successful, or lying. The actual result of the Kantian devolution was to kill both, kill every bit of logic, and remnant of common sense.
In the situation of this post, every culture has its own “truth.” The elites think they are demonstrating their enlightenment by accepting the horrors of tyranny for huge payments. Their goal is to be “enlightened” rulers of all the world. Whether it is an Islamic caliphate or a Chinese re-education camp, they don’t much care. And maybe one out of the thousands of elites vying for the role of New World Emperor will actually get it.
This is not a conspiracy, and it is not all on Kant. The world is sliding down a rabbit hole lined with rose petals and the bodies of people who said no to Kantian BS posing as thinking.
This is only my opinion, but if you look around and the number of conflicting “truths,” you may come to agree.
Sadly, I'd say that 90% of people act this way. It is on *both* sides of the aisle. Any Trump supporter falls into the same category.
Any?? Every?? My, my, as my grandmother would have said. There is a little hypocrisy in all of us, but some of us are definitely more hypocritical than others.
Jane DuComb
In my opinion, BTirado is not hypocritical. He’s plainly stupid.
Like Kevin McCarthy!
McCarthy finally summoned some backbone when he tossed Schiff and Swalwell off the intel committee. He wouldn't have been my choice but this is a both a principle stand and a deeply satisfying way to piss off proggies.
Huh? What does Trump have to do with this? By the way, I voted for him.
The entire goal of conservatives is allow unfettered religious freedom (including the freedom to discriminate) and unfettered capitalism (including the freedom to exploit workers.) They are against the minimum wage and the right for workers to form unions.
The entire purpose of this blog is to argue against cancel culture.
So here's an article trying to cancel someone for the mere association with a culture that lets religious freedom trump human rights and exploits workers. The hypocrisy is mind numbing.
Never mind that the leader of the conservatives is the most Saudi friendly politician in history. Trjmp is single-handedly granting legitimacy (and his golf courses) to their LIV golf tour: A money losing venture that exists solely to improve their reputation.
Never-mind that Trump refused to accept that the leader of Saudia Arabia murdered and cut up a journalist.
Never mind that Democrats are the only party in Congress standing up to the Saudis. https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/are-democrats-alone-in-challenging-saudi-arabia/
No one gets very far complaining about hypocrisy, so you can put your boots back on. The people who want to demand payback for worker “exploitation” don’t care to take the risks of the capitalist, they just want to eat up the rewards.
Next they will be campaigning for UBI—minimum wage for not working at all. Oops, wasn’t that the prerogative of politicians?
Whose going to make your latte if everyone stays home?
Not a De Santis fan either. TRUMP derailed. There’s no one either sane or sentient in principle in the swamp today.
We are hurtling toward a fascist dictatorship. In polite language it’s called mercantilism—what the American Revolution fought against.
I just read where the Colorado baker was targeted by a man who wanted a cake for his transition to a mentally ill man, sued the baker and the Colorado court of appeals ruled against the baker’s free speech. Apparently Dubai isn’t the only place on earth wanting to enslave people.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/madelineleesman/2023/01/27/colorado-baker-loses-gender-transition-cake-appeal-n2618833
Apparently the baker, who's been put through years of grief for his religious convictions, cares more about freedom of expression than a bunch of Colorado appellate judges.
His "victims" could have chosen any number of other bakers who would have been happy to help them celebrate their gay marriage and "trans" coming-out event. Instead they have sought to punish him through court after court after court.
As a Christian who has attended attended two gay weddings, I feel sorry for the guy.
Unless the left decides to stop trying to bend us to their will, the prospect of violence will grow by the day.
So the right isn’t trying to bend us to their will?
How so? Who imposed the lockdowns? Who mandated that healthy people take a vaccine for an illness to which they weren't vulnerable? Who insisted that healthy people don face diapers as a sign of obedience and fealty to the collective? Who opened our borders in violation of our laws. Who forces people to bake cakes and wear stupid "pride" jerseys? Who hangs BLM and Rainbow flags from our embassies without asking us? Who takes little children from their parents to castrate them or perform radical mastectomies? Who, indeed? Not the right.
Angelica, can you give some examples of what you mean? The replies to you by Andy and Pariah reflect what I see, looking at our political landscape. So I’m curious what you see that is specifically the right trying to bend others to their will, because nothing is coming to mind for me.
outlawing abortion?
Refusing to accept gay marriage?
outlawing the teaching of black history and banning books in Florida?
Outlawing criticism of Israeli occupation? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/16/conservative-activists-want-to-outlaw-antisemitism-in-public-education-why-is-that-a-bad-thing
The founder of this substack hates academic freedom if it involves the criticism of Israel https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/
Republicans generally want to make flag burning punishable by jail time.
A majority of Republicans want Christianity to be our official religion https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/21/most-republicans-support-declaring-the-united-states-a-christian-nation-00057736
All the "don't say gay" laws?
Blacklisting of banks that practice environmentally friendly investments? https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3605143-republicans-wage-war-on-environmental-investing-rules/
attempts to oppose punishment on athletes kneeling during national anthem?
These days in America the extreme left rules the country to such an extent that it’s difficult to even know anymore what the right wants.
These days, if you think women should be allowed to shower in a female-only dressing room at a gym, you are, by definition, right wing. Not sure if I'd call advocating for that "bending anyone to their will" but yeah, maybe it is.
Yeah, no, it isn't.
It's called normalcy.
How?
I would have made the cake and included “unusual” ingredients... yeah <grin>
I like your recipe! I’m reminded of the line uttered by Minny in the movie “the help” - “you just ate my shit”
Exactly !
1/3 cup antifreeze?
Among my gay friends who run the gamut from moderate-right to hardcore left, absolutely NONE have expressed any desire to go remotely near the Middle East. Even on lefty reddit, gay people are absolutely not enamored with any Middle Eastern countries and are even skeptical of Turkey. There is frequent mention of the two teenagers hung in Iran for being gay.
I work at a university that is about as left-wing as you can get and when a single woman in my department said she was going to Dubai alone virtually ALL of us tried to talk her out of it.
The ultra rich exist in a completely different world from everyone else where the ONLY thing that talks is money. Right or left, with a few exceptions, they'll do business with anyone that enriches them--period.
"my gay friends who run the gamut from moderate-right to hardcore left, absolutely NONE have expressed any desire to go remotely near the Middle East."
Perhaps the geographically-impaired among them will discover someday that Israel is in the Middle East. Its current (01/2023) Speaker of the Knesset, Amir Ohana, is openly gay and, in private life, is raising two kids with his husband.
But then again, they may be geographically impaired but undoubtedly aware that Israel is majority Jewish.
Excellent. Bari- if you are reading this, how about an interview with the new speaker of Israel’s Knesset?
Well worth listening to Amir Ohana's response:
https://www.israelunwired.com/watch-israels-new-speaker-of-the-house-gives-a-perfect-response-to-this-american-jew/
The current Speaker of the Knesset was formerly Justice Minister and also a security officer.
Also https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/03/30/visiting-knesset-member-to-american-jewish-critic-protecting-israels-security-is-more-important-than-pleasing-you/
Ironically, Israel is the only gay-friendly middle eastern country.
That was disgraceful.
It's because of the commitment to multi-culturalism / moral relativism.
Assume that the only driving spiritual force behind it is a hatred of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and all of it is consistent.
Yes—the Tom Holland theory of the origins of progressivism.
I don't know the reference, can you elaborate?
It's simple. Progressives hate Jews, and Arabs hate Jews. So progressives love Arabs.
I think they're afraid of muslims so they appease them. And there is also a war against white christians.
Here is how to make sense of the modern left: they are animated almost entirely by their hatred for the average American. Once you understand this, it all makes sense.
Entertainers were always court jesters, lowlifes living on the court's crumbs. Only that nowadays they've been raised to the status of demi-gods so they can bray and babble from our ever smaller altars, the screens and help keeping the plebs in check.
Flat out best comment of the day.
They still are. But the crumbs are now huge.
That's "demi-gods", to be accurate.
Thanks. Corrected.
Yes! Read Proust. Entertainers were on a level just below prostitutes.
Integrity was once much more important than any amount of money. Not anymore.
Selling out for money is the norm in today’s world. Look at the NBA. Look at today’s politicians as they stuff their pockets. Entertainers. Corporations. The almighty dollar rules.
This is why Bill Watterson, author of Calvin and Hobbes, will forever be my hero. He turned down riches to preserve the integrity of his work, infuriating many rich people, and then moved to the forest and left society behind.
His comics from the 90s addressed much of our cultural decay and have aged like fine wine.
Calvin & Hobbes is wonderful and timeless. Today's (re-run) comic is a classic!
https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2023/01/28
If you do the job badly enough, you might get to run for president again.
My eight-year-old daughter loves my old Calvin and Hobbes books.
Equal appeal to children and adults. Truly a unique masterwork of art, which makes his refusal of money even more profound.
Fame and money corrupt one’s values it seems.
I've seen several studies about this lately and they've shown that the more money someone has, the less empathy they tend to have.
What's interesting, though, is that the super wealthy are not happier than most others. To a point, money improves happiness--when you're dirt poor and suddenly you have a decent home, can afford food, etc. you're a lot happier. Beyond about $75K (or whatever a base salary is where you live), though, the increase in happiness just isn't there.
I think of restaurants. A $20 meal is usually better than a $10 meal. A $50 meal is somewhat better than a $20 meal. When you start getting into the hundreds of dollars, though, I feel like the restaurant owners are basically just laughing at how gullible their clients are to pay those ridiculous prices.
I was just talking about this with friends. I lived in Baltimore and what many are convinced is a good meal at an upscale restaurant will cost you over 100.00 per person. Yet the same meal: app, salad, main course, dessert and drinks will cost you almost half less per person at a restaurant in the county.
So yes, you are correct. Owners of "Fine Dining" establishments are laughing at the gullibility of the people who will pay hundreds for their meals. Because in the end, a good meal is a good meal whether served on cloth covered tables, or a booth with a paper napkin dispenser on it.
Totally agree. My husband was a head chef in a swanky restaurant. When we would go out dinner, we would always go to this restaurant out in the boondocks, where the napkins were washcloths and the food was fantastic.
I would like to have less empathy then!
Maybe they’re only values are fame and money!
Whores. There I said it.
oh yes, and congressional republicans too.
https://www.cardin.senate.gov/press-releases/cardin-condemns-senate-republicans-vote-against-the-override-of-the-presidents-veto-on-us-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia/
There is no real world downside for Beyoncé, Rebel Wilson, Lionel Messi, LIV golfers, et.al. for taking the blood money. Why should there be when western governments continue to eagerly do business with the tyrannical regimes? How many once great universities are deeply involved/financially yoked to horrific countries. Moral indignation is never an issue when there is money to be made. So do not expect any change in behavior, the modern ethos is “ get mine” no matter the ethical cost.
10% for the "Big Guy."
A fish rots from the head.
Ugh. Thanks for this reminder. I had tucked it away into the memory file labeled ‘impossibly corrupt and stupid’.
yes. https://www.npr.org/2019/07/25/745200244/trump-vetoes-bills-intended-to-block-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia
I think it matters but other than that great points.
Excellent piece.
“This collusion between Western celebrities and Middle Eastern despots is enabled by idiotic elements on the left: People who don’t seem to know what fascism, Stalinism, or Nazism is, since they insist upon confusing it with things they don’t much like. They hate their own rotting democracies so much, they cannot accept that other places are worse. Call a democracy tyranny and you won’t recognize tyranny when it hands you a check. “
Pretty much sums it up.
Great article!
Sadly, we're all complicit in upholding tyrannies because of our desire for cheap goods and the power of big business to limit workers' wages and benefits, while maximizing profits. The two go hand in hand. Most of us can't afford to be very picky about where the stuff we buy comes from while wages stagnate and the cost of living rises. And so we look askance or just ignore, for example, China's brutal repression of first the Tibetans and now Uyghurs when buying all kinds of goods from China. We aren't given much choice. That said, to see someone like Beyonce, who is already fabulously wealthy, put all her principles aside to make even more money is sickening. She should at least shut up once and for all about caring for the oppressed if she's going to continue cashing in like this.
I do not buy cheap goods. I diligently research for made in the USA although I will accept Western hemisphere. It took awhile to find American made and sourced dog food but I did.
I’m with you.
Good luck with that (truly) . There was a book a few years ago written by a woman who tried to live for a year without buying any Chinese manufactured products. She could not do it. Interesting book.
If a war ever comes with China we are screwed. We can no longer manufacture most of the high tech peripherals we are militarily dependent on.
Well we try. You’re right. It will never be close to ‘always.
I satisfies my OCD tendencies. I can't honestly say I never buy anything from China but not much and am unhappy with that.
One unintended consequence is that I will just do without. I am realizing how much I used to spend on totally unnecessary items.
Yeah - it's tough. We started doing a lot better once we closed our Amazon accounts. Turns out the "free shipping" thing isn't so much of a deal anymore anyway. More and more we've been finding we can buy things that do come from this hemisphere online directly from the source or nearly, and at competitive prices. But sometimes we just say we don't need it that bad. Getting rid of Amazon 1-click shopping cuts out a tremendous amount of impulse-buying.
If someone came out with a manual on how to stiff the gangsters in China - and their toadies in the US - it would be a best seller. Except you wouldn't be able to find it on Amazon or referenced on Google.
I also try to buy local. There's no reason to buy food outside of Canada or the US, and there's lots of dog food produced in the US and Canada. It's a different story when it comes to electronics, plastics, toys, less expensive instruments, and so on.
Double check your dog food. Produced/made wherever does not mean the ingredients are sourced there. Like I do for a lot of my food I give it the sniff test. My husband was using supposedly high quality dog food by American manufacturers for our very large lab but it smelled awful. Poor dog was very lethargic and had very dry skin. He is doing much better now.
We always have a choice. But we consistently choose the cheapest price. Since free trade agreements create an extremely uneven working field for manufacturing, the ones who end up getting all the business are the ones in countries with indecent working conditions and no consumer protections for defective and inferior products. The few domestic manufacturers that remain which continue to produce quality can only do so at very reduced economies of scale, and so their prices are no longer affordable to any but wealthy elites. So this free trade system has created a two-tiered product collection, not unlike what used to be described in the old Soviet Union, where party member elites shopped in their own stores.
What is ironic is that in for automobiles it's flipped to some extent. The domestic U.S. vehicles have half the lifespans of Japanese and now even some of the Korean vehicles,and they break all the time. After 100k miles on American vehicles you start buying it over again in increasingly costly repairs. 200k is expected and 250k common with Japanese vehicles.
Maybe Beyoncé’s cause (after her family hopefully) *is* money. Maybe she lets her publicist pick a cause after that.
Amazon anyone?
Not me. For this very reason.
Amazing that these people are fabulously wealthy and still willing to SELL THEIR SOULS!! The late great Jesus said it best “what does it profit a man to gain the whole world yet lose his soul?”
Or a woman!
“Man” in the traditional sense of mankind which encompasses the subsets of both men and women(and the other 53 genders😎)
Dear me, trotting out all the stereotypes on the World Cup. You do realise that the anti-gay laws about which you are so superior were exactly the same in the UK when we last hosted the World Cup? And there is still considerable homophobic violence here (but not in Qatar).
Also the idea that countless people died buidling the stadia is based on a poorly researched article in the Guardian. Out of 2 million migrant workers over 10 years, 6500 died, around 17 in the stadia.
"In December 2022 in the UK, there were 49,339 deaths registered in England, 5,871 deaths (13.5%) above the December five-year average (2016 to 2019, and 2021). That's in one month.
And the essence of slavery is that you are captured and put to work. All the migrant workers chose to work there as they were earning considerably more than they would have earned at home.
Surely you can see the argument that for western celebrities to be feted there is going to make it more rather than less likely that they will examine their laws, and move to a more liberal worldview? In Saudi, MBS has made great strides in opening up the country. Yes, they have a long way to go, but refusing to engage helps nobody.
I don’t think the “if we’re nice to them they’ll like us more and want to be more like us”, is a strategy that’s worked with China. Plus, if I have standards of conduct that are dictated by the highest bidder, that makes me a prostitute rather than a partner.
There are worse things than prostitution, but there are more things that are better
Didn’t work with Russia either.
The Chinese people are desperate to be more Western: try getting work as an English teacher there. But the authorities don’t want western decadence so there is an interesting conflict. Similarly in the Middle East they want to be closer to us but without the dissolute standards. Plenty of Christians want the same control over us.
Of course this comment comes from a man…and leaves out the repulsive treatment of women in these countries…because you don’t have any data to say that’s it’s not horrible because IT’S ALL TRUE.
Thanks SuzeQ fr pointing out this blatant obvious that our man Andrew Daws here overlooked. Did he unintentionally overlook or simply does not care? Either way, it shows he is not someone whose opinion is worth my time when he can overlook the perpetual eternal subjugation of half the population. He can't even see it or he simply doesn't care. He'd defend the only country on earth where women would be arrested for driving.
Speaking of trafficked maids, here is the absolute state of California, home to The Free Press and Beyonce's $90 million mansion:
https://public.substack.com/p/why-street-prostitution-is-skyrocketing?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Many Muslims in the Middle East think that we Westerners are the immoral ones who abuse women.
You can read this same info directly at Shrier's own Substack, fyi. But I think you are actually reinforcing the point Gold is making in her piece: the degradation of women is a by-product of so-called "progressive" Left values—just the cost of the agenda they push. It's being given reign in California thanks to activist bullies and their propaganda, and the moral cowardice of many. But I would point out that the Free Press and most Americans are not in sympathy with this bankrolled Leftist agenda (hello George Soros) that has hijacked our institutions and is destroying our social and moral fabric. IOW, what's going on in California is hardly Exhibit A for Western democratic, humanitarian values. It's largely the antithesis. But like all vacant post-modern ideas, it borrows the language of noble causes and warps the meaning of the terms—ie. "human rights."
Here's Shrier's article:
https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/a-predators-paradise
“And the essence of slavery is that you are captured and put to work. All the migrant workers chose to work there as they were earning considerably more than they would have earned at home.”
When one’s passport is confiscated on arrival and deposited in the safe in HR and a significant portion of wages are retained it’s hard to argue the absence of coercion.
You're out of date. That stopped being common practice some time ago.
In Emirates perhaps, I dont know. In Qatar it is still current practice.
Really? My comment was based on conversations with Qataris in Doha.
https://amp.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/sep/06/qatar-law-change-milestone-migrant-workers-world-cup-2022-exit-permits
We may be getting a little inside baseball here, but the exit permit and passport retention aren't quite the same thing. As you are probably aware there are two different labor laws in effect, one for Qataris and one for foreign workers.
I've had multiple conversations with Qatari developers (admittedly pre-2018) who explained in great detail how things work. And subsequent chats with Bangladeshi and Filipino workers on their realities.
Needless to say these perceptions didn't jive.
I certainly heard from a resident there that he was told that if he wanted to employ a maid, a local would have to employ them as foreigners could not. And the maid had to be female. He had employed an Indian man as a driver (with very little driving) with no problem. This may have been before the law was changed under international pressure (see? we can help).
Only "around 17", so much better. And, while "engaging" to show them the light, why not enjoy all that luxury built on human misery?
As any insurance actuary knows, build up 25 floors, one death. And one more for every additional 8 floors. On average.
However one feels on the morality of this the outrage can be widely distributed.
The people of Yemen are certainly happy that MBS and Saudi Arabia have made great strides. Too bad the Saudi missiles are not so magnanimous.
Very good, skeptical reply.
Or a very craven, apologist defense of the indefensible. We can debate cultural relativism. What is not open for debate is the claim that western "celebrities" agree to be feted in order to force a re-examination of laws and to "foster a more liberal worldview." They are there to line their pockets and to be feted and idolized. Please don't claim otherwise. Unless you want to lose any shred of credibility.
So you’d rather just jump uncritically on the bandwagon? Understood.
Did it sound "uncritical?" Nah didn't think so. But cultural relativism has its limits. Were the British wrong to ban Suttee? Civilized people don't think so
Good points but careful about crossing the party line. Except that last paragraph. Most celebrities reflect the society in which they arose. They are, as a group, the group least worth emulating if proper moral values are the goal.
Thanks for the context, "All the migrant workers chose to work there as they were earning considerably more than they would have earned at home" is an excellent rebuttal. I'm guessing that is exactly right.
But, I disagree with "Surely you can see the argument that for western celebrities to be feted there is going to make it more rather than less likely that they will examine their laws, and move to a more liberal worldview?" No, not really. Shaking tit's and ass there does nothing to help. It is hypocrisy, pure and simple. I have friends who have visited that Tower of Babel - its just porn to the them. It will change nothing.
What a great article !! Right on every point,and in particular this one: "Call a democracy tyranny and you won’t recognize tyranny when it hands you a check."
But what good will it do? History shows that sport heroes are not the only fellow travellers of tyranny: one could site a great number od Western (and in particular British and French) intellectuals that demonstrated in their declarations that they were blind to tyranny, in particular Soviet or more precisely Stalinist tyranny. And they did not even get paid for their services. So it's an old story, alas.
yes. so true. https://www.npr.org/2019/07/25/745200244/trump-vetoes-bills-intended-to-block-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia
Senate tried to override the veto, republicans wouldn't let them.
So waht am I to understand. That this excuses that or justifies that? You can't really mean that.
Lebron James defends China but excoriates America for its racial problems. China kills and jails and subjugates its citizens. That tells you all you need to know about our racial problems. America is a bad country....and the rest of the world is ignored. Ignorance and as such it is easily dismissible.
Great article.
I’ve never been one to pay much attention to Beyoncé beyond marveling at how her massive boobs are glued into her costumes so they don’t fall out. She’s always been a wonder at the confluence of marketing and sleaze. I wouldn’t recognize any of her songs if they bit me. Why is she a gay icon? Her husband most likely beat up gays as a banger. Certainly he’s a misogynist and a racist.
AND a violent former drug dealer. Yet media lionizes him as an astute businessman!
So true. I went to Dubai once and that was enough for me. Never so bored in my life. And I only spent 3 days there. It’s all made up like Disneyland. One memory. I was swimming at the hotel pool. The husband and kids were splashing around and Mom was dressed head to toe in black , couldn’t even see her face. Nothing there. Will never go back.
You can see the black clad ghosts here in America, particularly in areas around DC.
Pretty much sums up my 3-day experience there too. It was miserable and I never ever want to go back.
People are not "good". Human history is littered with those who will happily sell their morals, friends and/or family for a payoff. Dubai just has more money to spend.
This article is a perfect example of when ideacrats’ concepts have begun the inevitable march towards homophonics. Cancel culture, celebrity worship, politertainment, shame blathering, commodified emotions, judgmental finger pointing. Cancel Beyoncé. No, cancel travel to Dubai. No, cancel indentured servitude. No, cancel yourself with your own leisure travel hypocrisy with mimosa in hand. It seems like the only thing we don’t cancel (and therefore are drowning in its proliferation) is our own delusional and righteously self-centered views emanating entirely from our self-limited worldview that shifts with microsecond relativism of the “news” cycle. You know the only person who is right on this subject? Me. Just ask me.
One of the most honest comments I’ve ever read, and I read way too many comments. 👏