Bo, there you go again—as the most famous of modern conservative pol’s, RR, liked to say of his opponents. It is precisely your recommendations that must *not* be followed if we are to win this battle for America and our Founders’ ideals. In that, your missive today was quite instructive—if we simply learn to do the opposite.
Your ideas of virtue are precisely what our Leftist enemies use against us everyday. This is the reason the Republicans have been “glorious losers” since I was a young boy. For example, you decry the false claim that Illegals (Yes Bo, that’s what they are. Illegal aliens who have crossed our borders under false pretenses! But you cannot even bear to use the correct terminology to describe them!) are eating dogs and cats. However, whenever a violent shooting spree takes place, all gun owners are pilloried by the Left and described as impotent hillbillies clinging to their guns and Bible. Of course, what immediately follows is a too often a successful appeal that even more restrictive gun regulation be enacted for the good of the nation. That is the famous ratcheting process the Left uses to great effect.
The above is only one typical example of emotional appeal of the Left to the crisis de jour—there are dozens—and illustrates how the Left has been so effective in the past. Is the appeal to the revulsion of gun violence any more “outlandish” than an appeal to the emotion of IA’s eating dogs and cats? Any more immoral, unethical, unvirtuous, even untrue…?
This is a war, nothing less, in which our very existence as a “virtuous” people *is* at stake—and we are losing. There is one solution and that stems from the unfortunate consequence of war, any war that has ever taken place—that is to win! Our enemies set the “terms of engagement”, not us. You leave your virtues at the door when you enter the arena, you fight with everything you have, and then some, because to lose is to cease to exist as a decent human being—and if not yourself, then certainly your children and their children.
After the enemy is defeated, you can exit and pick up those discarded virtues and use them once again among those who will cherish them as you have shown yourself. That is the path to victory, your path is one of defeat.
In 2022, Kari lake was close to winning the Arizona governorship. She lost by 400 votes. Apparently, at the republican convention of Arizona, Kari asked McCain supporters to raise their hands, only to promptly tell them to get out. There was 1,000s of them. A successful movement must abide by broad appeal. That means abiding by color blindness and what I said before.
Excellence.
I respect that you have lived so long, but don’t let cynicism cloud your mind. By all measures, you appear to be winning. Just don’t let reductionism take it away.
You assume that in the 2022 election the vote was fair and accurate. It was not—or at least there are holes a mile wide in the process which leads to accusations of shenanigans. Valid concerns as I saw and experienced them. To list the discrepancies is an entire issue I will not delve into, but they are real.
You also assume that Kari Lake would have won more votes with a conciliatory stance toward McCain voters than she would have lost via her base support of “Trumpists”. Again, such is not in evidence, or at least unknowable. The party in AZ is in the midst of turmoil and division among those who sense the futility of same old, same old among the old guard Republicans, e.g., McCain, and desire change in tactics.
I live in AZ. There is little I can be lectured on wrt our political situation past and present that I have not had front and center row seats to. This includes knowing the State Rep Charirwomen in charge of the Trump campaign in 2016 and those involved in 2022 campaigns. The political process is pretty rank from my viewpoint and this year is the worse. In that you are correct, your proposed fix is not.
You see, anyone can attempt to win an argument by selecting favorable premises and assuming their validity. I reject those premises without solid evidence of their validity. To accuse one of cynicism because you fail to prove your point is not a valid form of argument since it really does not address the correctness of the viewpoint, cynical or not.
McCain was a sore in the AZ Republican Party for years—and if anyone was disrespectful of their supporters, it was McCain. He was notorious for telling his supporters off at town meetings—that is the few that he had. He grew distasteful of the very people who voted for him in the end. Such was never in the tradition of our vaunted Barry Goldwater. McCain was a machine Republican and a good old boy, but never a poster boy for unity in the party. It was hard core politics with McCain and at the end, “my way or the highway”. No different than machine politics, say in Chicago or Illinois in general. Dem or Rep, it makes no difference.
Trump however made a difference. Yes, he is a populist, but why is that now a slur? Certainly one agrees that a politician should have the interests of the people in mind, but somehow if he does more than give lip talk, he becomes a dreaded figure in politics? Why? Could it be that politics is really a show for the rubes put on every period of years to convince them they are in charge? Now that’s cynical, but is it correct?
The GOP did win in the Bush/McCain era and what did it accomplish? I seem to recall that being a complete fucking disaster.
It's not enough to win, you have to actually govern with the power you win. I have no doubt it would be easier to win by running a bland meaningless campaign by a sock puppet, but what would be accomplished?
But it’s nice that you responded with thoughtfulness.
Anyway, I have read Scott greers article on right wing cancel culture. He accurately pointed out that the dissident right can’t afford to indulge in pointless revenge fantasies. So the right must adopt a much more normie friendly movement. Take a look at the John birch society. They were at the apex of their power, but then they called Dwight Eisenhower a communist (even though he wasn’t) and burned their professional credibility by engaging puritanical (ego) purges. Broad appeal must be sought if the right is to cruise to victory. Truth is a good virtue, but any virtue taken to an extreme becomes a sin.
That is why excellence must be achieved, to become a well rounded movement by creating a balance of strong truth telling whilst aiming it accurately with civility.
Achieving dominance through brute strength alone is childish and above all very wasteful.
Not applicable. What I talk about is the folly continuing a losing strategy via tactics which have been applied for decades before Trumpism. The John Birch society has been a nothing burger for 40-50 years now at least. You might as well cite the KKK. Your suggestion has been tried and found wanting way before Trumpism reared its head.
You think Trumpism and Trump style “debate” has always been around? Trump is precisely the phenomenon which comes from a realization that the old way of approaching things, i.e. your way, has been shown to be a failure in the cause of conservatism. Especially conservatism in the era of extreme demographic change. Sorry to pop your bubble, but the electorate “can’t stand the truth”. Thoughtful discussion is not in the cards, but emotional derogatory is. You, me and our two other like minded friends might indeed get together and have a “thoughtful” and truthful exchange of ideas, but that won’t win the day in this America.
I’m not sure how long you’ve been on the scene, but if you desire civil, thoughtful, discussion we got decades of that from the likes of William F Buckley. Hell, I even remember Buckley speaking on the ‘68 Dem convention as the tear gas wafted through the studio. Yeah, he was the king of civil and thoughtful at that time. Then there were others of that ilk, some still around, like Bill Crystal. Glorious losers all.
If I sound like I’m yelling, yep. I don’t call names, but I don’t bend either. That’s the same tactic I learned from the Left—except they love name calling and control of the language. If you catch them short, they don’t change the subject, they change the very language of discussion. I refuse to play their games.
Israel has tried to minimize damage as much as possible but hamas has sheltered forces among civilian populations, so who’s really at fault.
The man who shoots or the man who forces his hand?
During the Britannia’s rebellion by Boudicca against the Roman’s. Boudicca committed atrocities against the settlers. This invited the Romans to be even more ruthless. Boudicca should have tempered herself.
Americans bombed north Vietnam, this only made the Vietcong fight harder.
Combatants that go from 1 to 10 always lose because they waste lives and invite further resistance from old and new enemies alike.
No one said that any war will definitely be won by going all out. One can give one’s all and still lose. What you are saying is however untrue in that it implies one will lose the war by applying the enemies tactics. Not in evidence.
I lived through the Vietnam era and that the war was lost through escalation is nonsense. We lost the war because we did not go all out immediately. We bombed, but only until it was too late, we targeted areas of known enemy encampment, and avoided the source of the enemies strength, North Vietnam. When we decided to get the hell out, and the North was not going to negotiate a face-saving agreement, we unleashed hell on the North. 5 years earlier and we’d have won, but by then was too late.
We never should have been there in the first place.
Similarly, in the culture war we have allowed victory after victory of the Leftists through our “virtuous” pacifism. It may very well be too late as most all the institutions have been taken over. Nonetheless, that’s the only path left when your back is against the wall.
You’ve not studied the situation adequately or watched too many movies about recent sandbox wars, which like all movies show us in the best light—whether true or not. What the enemy does is what the enemy gets in return. They in essence set the terms of engagement—their “codes” as you put it. What you state is simple liberal gooblygook and stems from emotion not reasoned thought. Our enemies are under no such compunction. If their tactics did not work, while ours did, they’d change tactics.
Some examples easily looked up. The Japanese in WWII considered it shameful to surrender, but they had no problem “pretending” to surrender so that they could take one unwary American life with them, thus achieving a more honorable death. After the first major island hop, the Marines took almost no prisoners. More, they were now so wary of fake dead Japanese, that they mutilated the heads of the dead so that there was no mistaking a dead soldier from one faking death. That was against the Geneva Convention, was it not?
In the European theater, there are stories of American attack units taking German prisoners. They of course, could not afford the time to go to the “rear” for internment. They shot them and moved on—and by the way, the Germans took reprisals in kind as we then set the rules of engagement for them. They lost, we won. No one is goose stepping in America.
As to the terms of engagement and current politics, should we accept that the Left states all sorts of outrageous and false things—not the least of which is blatant lying about candidates and their positions, yet we should accept such and turn cheek?
The Left can pervert our legal system against their political opponents, but not us? Folks from the Jan 6 fiasco can be held without bond or trial indefinitely to make a point to others who might exercise their rights? And no, not all held without bond were violent. Most were finally given sentences for what amounted to simple trespass. The investigation of late now reveals Fed infiltrator within the crowd to boot.
I can go on, but to what point? Your thinking will not change and will not prevail in this struggle. I agree, it is Christian in nature, but we don’t need more martyrs, we need fighters. Do not go gently into that good night.
The lack of civility on the right has been on my mind recently. It's good to see this article pop up. It's an excellent reminder for people to remain civil and polite.
I notice some of the commenters on this article mistakenly believe that the Right has been losing due to not being aggressive or 'mean' enough like the left has. This is not the case. The left has been winning because it attracts intelligent and highly educated people. Theses same people matriculate into top positions at major institutions where they push leftist ideas on the people coming up behind them. Eventually these ideas become dominant and everyone thinks that in order to be high status they need to signal a leftwing perspective. It's mostly the bottom dwelling people on the left who are mean and snide on the Internet. Can you imagine Merrick Garland or William Galston shit-posting on X? I really doubt it.
The left has been winning because it imported a bunch of non-whites. This is easy to see in the math. Effete leftist elites have been around a long time, but they used to be such a minority they couldn't force their will on the rest of us. Silent Majority and all that.
I'll take Elon Musk calling this out on Twitter and trying to do something about it over "polite losing" everyday. They are invaders. They really are trying to Zerg rush us with meat-votes and make it so they have one party control over everything. That's the real issue. If some Haitians feelings get hurt along the way to stoping that, I don't care.
Not letting someone from the third world immigrate to the first world is always going to be MEAN. You are telling someone to suck up having to live a dramatically worse life over there versus over here. If you can't get comfortable with some MEAN, you can't stop it.
Well said. “Class” seems to be lacking in modern discourse. I have always admired Roger Scruton for his class and intellect. Bo is similarly composed and thoughtful.
Emilia Clark is not presenting herself as a dignified matron. She is acting like a woman half her age. She's dressed in a way that's supposed to suggest nudity.
I don't like John Miller's tweet either but when leftists act ridiculously they will inevitably invite ridicule.
The right way forward is to ignore this stuff, not to exhort people to civility.
When will conservatives learn that etiquette and table manners are slightly less important than your freedom? Judging from this, apparently never. Of course civility is a virtue, and a conservative one. There is no need to endorse random or pointless rudeness but there is a very urgent need to mock the insanities and totalitarianism we are facing-the first example is a random attack on a woman’s appearance, but the second given (the cat memes) serves an accurate political purpose. Prissy attitudes towards the fight are somewhat unhelpful at this late stage, and the love of politeness has been a key weakness explaining why conservatives have been so astonishingly ineffective as the western world is taken over by fanatical progressives.
I suppose it all comes down to what is effective. I think you and Bo would probably disagree on the effectiveness of the 'Haitians are eating our cats' meme in winning over anyone. He probably thinks that being civilised stands the best chance of carrying the day (with the bonus that politeness is supposedly one of our traits) while you think fighting-fire-with-fire will be more effective leftists mistake politeness for diffidence. Both views seem plausible to me.
And yet... civility is for fellow civilians, traditionalism for those who share a tradition. Manners develop among people sharing a framework. Adherence to a framework that is not not *actually* shared merely calcifies the very arrangements that drain our people, slowly but surely, year after year.
Hasn't the example of Trump put this "be civil" position to rest? It should have. Trump's rudeness is one of the reasons we aren't the walking dead already, singing praises to Bushes and Cheneys, cheering rather than questioning their overseas perfidies.
Bo, the two examples you cite above are quite instructive, mainly for your failure to see the difference between them. There are manners born of nature, and there are manners born mediately, requiring ideology and institutions for their support. Where there is barely a civitas remaining, we ought to adhere to the first, while assaulting the second outright, and mercilessly, as circumstance requires.
While I can't fully endorse a position on morals like Hume's, where nature and artifice produce fully different sets of manners, it's helpful here. This is because it forces us to restrict our claims for the first category. There *are* a few clearly admissible examples, one being yours. Respecting women in their physical decline is like rebuking men for cowardice -- it should be in our guts. On the other hand, putting on kid gloves for the concept of universal human equality and elevating tolerance over group self-preservation ... this is suicide. Every uncivil tool at our disposal should be active here, because the manners themselves are illegitimate.
Cat memes actually got us a discussion on these issues, and they continue to yield benefits, because liberals are so deeply tied to the mores being mocked.
Thank goodness at least Vance and Trump's sons seem to understand this.
I’m a liberal, but I’m all for civility on both sides. But how can you reconcile your admiration of civility with supporting Donald Trump? Or maybe you don’t? Trump spread the stupid lies about Haitian immigrants. He definitely has some bestial appetites and some impolite impulses.
No, I think the height of incivility is saying they’re eating the pets of the people that live there. Asking how people can go on supporting such a monster is a perfectly legitimate question.
You went straight from “ I’m all for civility” to calling a presidential candidate a “monster”!
You do realize that making comments like this seriously undermines your claims that your beliefs on the genetic-intelligence gap is purely based on science, don’t you?
I am unsubscribing from your Substack column, because you are obviously an ideological activist and not a real scientist. Once trust is lost, it is hard to earn back.
When Bo Winegard objects to writers who spread absurd rumors about Haitian immigrants, I think it’s natural to ask why he doesn’t blame the Republican presidential candidate for doing the same thing. It’s a reasonable and even obligatory question.
I am in no way a Trump supporter (but much of my family is), I consider him a con man and human anal wart, but I will take a crack at answering your question:
The strongest politicial dividing line of our time isn't liberal/conservative but globalist/nationalist. If not for Trump, there'd be no proponent of nationalism anywhere in the political landscape, as the 2016 Republican candidates cared about American workers and their families as much as a wolf cares for a hen and her chicks.
My family (and I assume other Trump supporters) consider him their champion because he was the only one who took their side when their jobs were outsourced, their concerns neglected, their communities flooded w foreigners, their morals and beliefs mocked, and when the globalist regime lavished the cities with the fruits of global capital but called the working class of fly-over America Deplorables and pretty much said Let Them Eat Fentanyl.
Like I said, I don't support him, and I wouldn't say he has any real beliefs or principles, but I entirely accept and understand why other people do. It's not that hard.
People from Haiti do eat cats and dogs. There are a lot of Haitian immigrants in Springfield, OH. Who knows?
The bottom line is they are low IQ trash brought in to increase headcount and thus Eds and Meds state/federal subsidies going to local providers as well as drive up rents and provide cheap (state subsidized) labor that often displaces the locals. Within a short time they and/or their kids will get naturalized and make the whole country a one party Dem state just like California, which last time I checked was run very poorly. Musk said as much in his recent interview with Tucker on X.
I suppose Trump could break out some charts from The Bell Curve, but that would probably be a less successful strategy than what he's doing today. This offends white liberals that are paranoid about being called racist, but regular folks do find these kind of dietary practices vulgar in a way explaining the fiscal impact of an 85 IQ on the country won't hit home.
Haitians have a long history of cannibalism and human sacrifice. Even if they don’t take people’s cats and dogs and eat them, it is an easier way to elucidate the nature of Haitians than explaining voodoo and the Revolution and their dictators and such and such, which the democrats will inevitably blame on the French or even the Americans
1. Yes, being *gratuitously* frank and vulgar is bad, but online vulgarity is quite rational. Just as the archaea are forced into the salt flats, or the underwater volcanoes, in order to live at peace from the more numerous bacteria, dissident political movements must keep their spaces just edgy enough that it keeps the place from becoming wholly normified. If you do not like the brutal honesty, taunting, and vitriol of the internet, you can always leave and go “touch grass”. Just like nobody is forcing you to visit North Sentinelese Island. We are simply encouraging a discursive environment that will hold off against “universal LinkedIn”. Is it bad optics? Not sure. It depends on whether or not the trolliness of the online right is worth less than the meme magic of the online right. The latter cannot exist without the former.
2. The conservatism you are describing should suggest the exact opposite of what you are preaching, with respect to Emilia Clarke. Conservatism recognizes the existence of natural beauty, it does not recognize everything natural as beautiful. There is nothing particularly beautiful about feces, rotting corpses, or pimples. Aging is a symptom of decadence, it is not beautiful but it is a necessary evil we must live with and accept. Denying this is dishonest. We stay with people as they age not because aging is beautiful, but because we can associate someone we have known when they were beautiful with that beauty even as they age.
3. You should not feel the need to be “civil” with politics when your opponents are far past civility, because it is like playing a game by the rules when your opponent isn’t, there is no ref, and your opponent will never respect you. You can be Jesus Christ, or the Buddha, and shoot fire from your hands and walk on water, but if you believe there are innate group differences you are considered ontologically evil to the left. Based on far more insidious lies, to boot.
Call out the evil of whatever you confront with full courage and words as incisive as needed. But do not spray and prey erratically, and do not conflate targets. If its an evil idea, eviscerate the idea and not the person. If an evil person, excoriate the person’s actions, Jadedness towards wide swaths of things detract from your appeal as a charismatic individual. Focus on what you really want to attack/argue. If you cant properly order your criticisms (to the point of randomly roasting Emilia Clark for no deep reason) then you’ll just seem like a hater overall. Dont take random pot shots. But also pull punches in the arena you do choose
Bo, there you go again—as the most famous of modern conservative pol’s, RR, liked to say of his opponents. It is precisely your recommendations that must *not* be followed if we are to win this battle for America and our Founders’ ideals. In that, your missive today was quite instructive—if we simply learn to do the opposite.
Your ideas of virtue are precisely what our Leftist enemies use against us everyday. This is the reason the Republicans have been “glorious losers” since I was a young boy. For example, you decry the false claim that Illegals (Yes Bo, that’s what they are. Illegal aliens who have crossed our borders under false pretenses! But you cannot even bear to use the correct terminology to describe them!) are eating dogs and cats. However, whenever a violent shooting spree takes place, all gun owners are pilloried by the Left and described as impotent hillbillies clinging to their guns and Bible. Of course, what immediately follows is a too often a successful appeal that even more restrictive gun regulation be enacted for the good of the nation. That is the famous ratcheting process the Left uses to great effect.
The above is only one typical example of emotional appeal of the Left to the crisis de jour—there are dozens—and illustrates how the Left has been so effective in the past. Is the appeal to the revulsion of gun violence any more “outlandish” than an appeal to the emotion of IA’s eating dogs and cats? Any more immoral, unethical, unvirtuous, even untrue…?
This is a war, nothing less, in which our very existence as a “virtuous” people *is* at stake—and we are losing. There is one solution and that stems from the unfortunate consequence of war, any war that has ever taken place—that is to win! Our enemies set the “terms of engagement”, not us. You leave your virtues at the door when you enter the arena, you fight with everything you have, and then some, because to lose is to cease to exist as a decent human being—and if not yourself, then certainly your children and their children.
After the enemy is defeated, you can exit and pick up those discarded virtues and use them once again among those who will cherish them as you have shown yourself. That is the path to victory, your path is one of defeat.
With apologies to Orwell, Bo can only pontificate on civility because rough men are being uncivil on his behalf.
In 2022, Kari lake was close to winning the Arizona governorship. She lost by 400 votes. Apparently, at the republican convention of Arizona, Kari asked McCain supporters to raise their hands, only to promptly tell them to get out. There was 1,000s of them. A successful movement must abide by broad appeal. That means abiding by color blindness and what I said before.
Excellence.
I respect that you have lived so long, but don’t let cynicism cloud your mind. By all measures, you appear to be winning. Just don’t let reductionism take it away.
Thank you
You assume that in the 2022 election the vote was fair and accurate. It was not—or at least there are holes a mile wide in the process which leads to accusations of shenanigans. Valid concerns as I saw and experienced them. To list the discrepancies is an entire issue I will not delve into, but they are real.
You also assume that Kari Lake would have won more votes with a conciliatory stance toward McCain voters than she would have lost via her base support of “Trumpists”. Again, such is not in evidence, or at least unknowable. The party in AZ is in the midst of turmoil and division among those who sense the futility of same old, same old among the old guard Republicans, e.g., McCain, and desire change in tactics.
I live in AZ. There is little I can be lectured on wrt our political situation past and present that I have not had front and center row seats to. This includes knowing the State Rep Charirwomen in charge of the Trump campaign in 2016 and those involved in 2022 campaigns. The political process is pretty rank from my viewpoint and this year is the worse. In that you are correct, your proposed fix is not.
You see, anyone can attempt to win an argument by selecting favorable premises and assuming their validity. I reject those premises without solid evidence of their validity. To accuse one of cynicism because you fail to prove your point is not a valid form of argument since it really does not address the correctness of the viewpoint, cynical or not.
McCain was a sore in the AZ Republican Party for years—and if anyone was disrespectful of their supporters, it was McCain. He was notorious for telling his supporters off at town meetings—that is the few that he had. He grew distasteful of the very people who voted for him in the end. Such was never in the tradition of our vaunted Barry Goldwater. McCain was a machine Republican and a good old boy, but never a poster boy for unity in the party. It was hard core politics with McCain and at the end, “my way or the highway”. No different than machine politics, say in Chicago or Illinois in general. Dem or Rep, it makes no difference.
Trump however made a difference. Yes, he is a populist, but why is that now a slur? Certainly one agrees that a politician should have the interests of the people in mind, but somehow if he does more than give lip talk, he becomes a dreaded figure in politics? Why? Could it be that politics is really a show for the rubes put on every period of years to convince them they are in charge? Now that’s cynical, but is it correct?
The GOP did win in the Bush/McCain era and what did it accomplish? I seem to recall that being a complete fucking disaster.
It's not enough to win, you have to actually govern with the power you win. I have no doubt it would be easier to win by running a bland meaningless campaign by a sock puppet, but what would be accomplished?
I’d expected you to shout and yell.
But it’s nice that you responded with thoughtfulness.
Anyway, I have read Scott greers article on right wing cancel culture. He accurately pointed out that the dissident right can’t afford to indulge in pointless revenge fantasies. So the right must adopt a much more normie friendly movement. Take a look at the John birch society. They were at the apex of their power, but then they called Dwight Eisenhower a communist (even though he wasn’t) and burned their professional credibility by engaging puritanical (ego) purges. Broad appeal must be sought if the right is to cruise to victory. Truth is a good virtue, but any virtue taken to an extreme becomes a sin.
That is why excellence must be achieved, to become a well rounded movement by creating a balance of strong truth telling whilst aiming it accurately with civility.
Achieving dominance through brute strength alone is childish and above all very wasteful.
Not applicable. What I talk about is the folly continuing a losing strategy via tactics which have been applied for decades before Trumpism. The John Birch society has been a nothing burger for 40-50 years now at least. You might as well cite the KKK. Your suggestion has been tried and found wanting way before Trumpism reared its head.
You think Trumpism and Trump style “debate” has always been around? Trump is precisely the phenomenon which comes from a realization that the old way of approaching things, i.e. your way, has been shown to be a failure in the cause of conservatism. Especially conservatism in the era of extreme demographic change. Sorry to pop your bubble, but the electorate “can’t stand the truth”. Thoughtful discussion is not in the cards, but emotional derogatory is. You, me and our two other like minded friends might indeed get together and have a “thoughtful” and truthful exchange of ideas, but that won’t win the day in this America.
I’m not sure how long you’ve been on the scene, but if you desire civil, thoughtful, discussion we got decades of that from the likes of William F Buckley. Hell, I even remember Buckley speaking on the ‘68 Dem convention as the tear gas wafted through the studio. Yeah, he was the king of civil and thoughtful at that time. Then there were others of that ilk, some still around, like Bill Crystal. Glorious losers all.
If I sound like I’m yelling, yep. I don’t call names, but I don’t bend either. That’s the same tactic I learned from the Left—except they love name calling and control of the language. If you catch them short, they don’t change the subject, they change the very language of discussion. I refuse to play their games.
Let’s see
Israel has tried to minimize damage as much as possible but hamas has sheltered forces among civilian populations, so who’s really at fault.
The man who shoots or the man who forces his hand?
During the Britannia’s rebellion by Boudicca against the Roman’s. Boudicca committed atrocities against the settlers. This invited the Romans to be even more ruthless. Boudicca should have tempered herself.
Americans bombed north Vietnam, this only made the Vietcong fight harder.
Combatants that go from 1 to 10 always lose because they waste lives and invite further resistance from old and new enemies alike.
No one said that any war will definitely be won by going all out. One can give one’s all and still lose. What you are saying is however untrue in that it implies one will lose the war by applying the enemies tactics. Not in evidence.
I lived through the Vietnam era and that the war was lost through escalation is nonsense. We lost the war because we did not go all out immediately. We bombed, but only until it was too late, we targeted areas of known enemy encampment, and avoided the source of the enemies strength, North Vietnam. When we decided to get the hell out, and the North was not going to negotiate a face-saving agreement, we unleashed hell on the North. 5 years earlier and we’d have won, but by then was too late.
We never should have been there in the first place.
Similarly, in the culture war we have allowed victory after victory of the Leftists through our “virtuous” pacifism. It may very well be too late as most all the institutions have been taken over. Nonetheless, that’s the only path left when your back is against the wall.
In most war
There is almost always codes of conduct.
The wars that don’t are more catastrophic on the perpetrators than on the victims. Don’t repeat the lefts example, it will hurt you more than them.
Not true. Name a war won by pacifists.
You’ve not studied the situation adequately or watched too many movies about recent sandbox wars, which like all movies show us in the best light—whether true or not. What the enemy does is what the enemy gets in return. They in essence set the terms of engagement—their “codes” as you put it. What you state is simple liberal gooblygook and stems from emotion not reasoned thought. Our enemies are under no such compunction. If their tactics did not work, while ours did, they’d change tactics.
Some examples easily looked up. The Japanese in WWII considered it shameful to surrender, but they had no problem “pretending” to surrender so that they could take one unwary American life with them, thus achieving a more honorable death. After the first major island hop, the Marines took almost no prisoners. More, they were now so wary of fake dead Japanese, that they mutilated the heads of the dead so that there was no mistaking a dead soldier from one faking death. That was against the Geneva Convention, was it not?
In the European theater, there are stories of American attack units taking German prisoners. They of course, could not afford the time to go to the “rear” for internment. They shot them and moved on—and by the way, the Germans took reprisals in kind as we then set the rules of engagement for them. They lost, we won. No one is goose stepping in America.
As to the terms of engagement and current politics, should we accept that the Left states all sorts of outrageous and false things—not the least of which is blatant lying about candidates and their positions, yet we should accept such and turn cheek?
The Left can pervert our legal system against their political opponents, but not us? Folks from the Jan 6 fiasco can be held without bond or trial indefinitely to make a point to others who might exercise their rights? And no, not all held without bond were violent. Most were finally given sentences for what amounted to simple trespass. The investigation of late now reveals Fed infiltrator within the crowd to boot.
I can go on, but to what point? Your thinking will not change and will not prevail in this struggle. I agree, it is Christian in nature, but we don’t need more martyrs, we need fighters. Do not go gently into that good night.
The citizens of Nagasaki and Dresden salute you. Oh, wait.
Codes of conduct only work when both sides follow them.
Are you a leftist concern troll, or merely a useful idiot?
"There is almost always codes of conduct."
Explain the Israeli code of conduct?
The lack of civility on the right has been on my mind recently. It's good to see this article pop up. It's an excellent reminder for people to remain civil and polite.
I notice some of the commenters on this article mistakenly believe that the Right has been losing due to not being aggressive or 'mean' enough like the left has. This is not the case. The left has been winning because it attracts intelligent and highly educated people. Theses same people matriculate into top positions at major institutions where they push leftist ideas on the people coming up behind them. Eventually these ideas become dominant and everyone thinks that in order to be high status they need to signal a leftwing perspective. It's mostly the bottom dwelling people on the left who are mean and snide on the Internet. Can you imagine Merrick Garland or William Galston shit-posting on X? I really doubt it.
"The left has been winning"
The left has been winning because it imported a bunch of non-whites. This is easy to see in the math. Effete leftist elites have been around a long time, but they used to be such a minority they couldn't force their will on the rest of us. Silent Majority and all that.
I'll take Elon Musk calling this out on Twitter and trying to do something about it over "polite losing" everyday. They are invaders. They really are trying to Zerg rush us with meat-votes and make it so they have one party control over everything. That's the real issue. If some Haitians feelings get hurt along the way to stoping that, I don't care.
Not letting someone from the third world immigrate to the first world is always going to be MEAN. You are telling someone to suck up having to live a dramatically worse life over there versus over here. If you can't get comfortable with some MEAN, you can't stop it.
Well said. “Class” seems to be lacking in modern discourse. I have always admired Roger Scruton for his class and intellect. Bo is similarly composed and thoughtful.
Emilia Clark is not presenting herself as a dignified matron. She is acting like a woman half her age. She's dressed in a way that's supposed to suggest nudity.
I don't like John Miller's tweet either but when leftists act ridiculously they will inevitably invite ridicule.
The right way forward is to ignore this stuff, not to exhort people to civility.
When will conservatives learn that etiquette and table manners are slightly less important than your freedom? Judging from this, apparently never. Of course civility is a virtue, and a conservative one. There is no need to endorse random or pointless rudeness but there is a very urgent need to mock the insanities and totalitarianism we are facing-the first example is a random attack on a woman’s appearance, but the second given (the cat memes) serves an accurate political purpose. Prissy attitudes towards the fight are somewhat unhelpful at this late stage, and the love of politeness has been a key weakness explaining why conservatives have been so astonishingly ineffective as the western world is taken over by fanatical progressives.
I suppose it all comes down to what is effective. I think you and Bo would probably disagree on the effectiveness of the 'Haitians are eating our cats' meme in winning over anyone. He probably thinks that being civilised stands the best chance of carrying the day (with the bonus that politeness is supposedly one of our traits) while you think fighting-fire-with-fire will be more effective leftists mistake politeness for diffidence. Both views seem plausible to me.
And yet... civility is for fellow civilians, traditionalism for those who share a tradition. Manners develop among people sharing a framework. Adherence to a framework that is not not *actually* shared merely calcifies the very arrangements that drain our people, slowly but surely, year after year.
Hasn't the example of Trump put this "be civil" position to rest? It should have. Trump's rudeness is one of the reasons we aren't the walking dead already, singing praises to Bushes and Cheneys, cheering rather than questioning their overseas perfidies.
Bo, the two examples you cite above are quite instructive, mainly for your failure to see the difference between them. There are manners born of nature, and there are manners born mediately, requiring ideology and institutions for their support. Where there is barely a civitas remaining, we ought to adhere to the first, while assaulting the second outright, and mercilessly, as circumstance requires.
While I can't fully endorse a position on morals like Hume's, where nature and artifice produce fully different sets of manners, it's helpful here. This is because it forces us to restrict our claims for the first category. There *are* a few clearly admissible examples, one being yours. Respecting women in their physical decline is like rebuking men for cowardice -- it should be in our guts. On the other hand, putting on kid gloves for the concept of universal human equality and elevating tolerance over group self-preservation ... this is suicide. Every uncivil tool at our disposal should be active here, because the manners themselves are illegitimate.
Cat memes actually got us a discussion on these issues, and they continue to yield benefits, because liberals are so deeply tied to the mores being mocked.
Thank goodness at least Vance and Trump's sons seem to understand this.
I’m a liberal, but I’m all for civility on both sides. But how can you reconcile your admiration of civility with supporting Donald Trump? Or maybe you don’t? Trump spread the stupid lies about Haitian immigrants. He definitely has some bestial appetites and some impolite impulses.
He never said that civility should be the primary determining factor in voting for candidates. Obviously, policy matters more.
Injecting Trump into every conversation and then forcing others to take a stand on him is the height of incivility. So why do you practice it?
He is, alas, a liberal. By definition, he is civil, others are not.
He does not seem very civil to me…
Well, that's the nice thing about the liberal view on civility. It's not subject to empirical refutation.
No, I think the height of incivility is saying they’re eating the pets of the people that live there. Asking how people can go on supporting such a monster is a perfectly legitimate question.
You went straight from “ I’m all for civility” to calling a presidential candidate a “monster”!
You do realize that making comments like this seriously undermines your claims that your beliefs on the genetic-intelligence gap is purely based on science, don’t you?
I am unsubscribing from your Substack column, because you are obviously an ideological activist and not a real scientist. Once trust is lost, it is hard to earn back.
Do you unsubscribe from Substackers when they express right wing views?
No, I did not unsubscribe because you are a liberal. I subscribe to columns with many different ideological views from Left to Right.
What I can’t stand are:
1) People who inject Trump into every topic and try to force people to take a stand on him, and
2) Ideologues who pretend to be scientists. It demeans the entire profession.
You are both.
When Bo Winegard objects to writers who spread absurd rumors about Haitian immigrants, I think it’s natural to ask why he doesn’t blame the Republican presidential candidate for doing the same thing. It’s a reasonable and even obligatory question.
I am in no way a Trump supporter (but much of my family is), I consider him a con man and human anal wart, but I will take a crack at answering your question:
The strongest politicial dividing line of our time isn't liberal/conservative but globalist/nationalist. If not for Trump, there'd be no proponent of nationalism anywhere in the political landscape, as the 2016 Republican candidates cared about American workers and their families as much as a wolf cares for a hen and her chicks.
My family (and I assume other Trump supporters) consider him their champion because he was the only one who took their side when their jobs were outsourced, their concerns neglected, their communities flooded w foreigners, their morals and beliefs mocked, and when the globalist regime lavished the cities with the fruits of global capital but called the working class of fly-over America Deplorables and pretty much said Let Them Eat Fentanyl.
Like I said, I don't support him, and I wouldn't say he has any real beliefs or principles, but I entirely accept and understand why other people do. It's not that hard.
Are they lies?
People from Haiti do eat cats and dogs. There are a lot of Haitian immigrants in Springfield, OH. Who knows?
The bottom line is they are low IQ trash brought in to increase headcount and thus Eds and Meds state/federal subsidies going to local providers as well as drive up rents and provide cheap (state subsidized) labor that often displaces the locals. Within a short time they and/or their kids will get naturalized and make the whole country a one party Dem state just like California, which last time I checked was run very poorly. Musk said as much in his recent interview with Tucker on X.
I suppose Trump could break out some charts from The Bell Curve, but that would probably be a less successful strategy than what he's doing today. This offends white liberals that are paranoid about being called racist, but regular folks do find these kind of dietary practices vulgar in a way explaining the fiscal impact of an 85 IQ on the country won't hit home.
Haitians have a long history of cannibalism and human sacrifice. Even if they don’t take people’s cats and dogs and eat them, it is an easier way to elucidate the nature of Haitians than explaining voodoo and the Revolution and their dictators and such and such, which the democrats will inevitably blame on the French or even the Americans
Whatever means were used to win will thenceforth be lauded as virtues.
1. Yes, being *gratuitously* frank and vulgar is bad, but online vulgarity is quite rational. Just as the archaea are forced into the salt flats, or the underwater volcanoes, in order to live at peace from the more numerous bacteria, dissident political movements must keep their spaces just edgy enough that it keeps the place from becoming wholly normified. If you do not like the brutal honesty, taunting, and vitriol of the internet, you can always leave and go “touch grass”. Just like nobody is forcing you to visit North Sentinelese Island. We are simply encouraging a discursive environment that will hold off against “universal LinkedIn”. Is it bad optics? Not sure. It depends on whether or not the trolliness of the online right is worth less than the meme magic of the online right. The latter cannot exist without the former.
2. The conservatism you are describing should suggest the exact opposite of what you are preaching, with respect to Emilia Clarke. Conservatism recognizes the existence of natural beauty, it does not recognize everything natural as beautiful. There is nothing particularly beautiful about feces, rotting corpses, or pimples. Aging is a symptom of decadence, it is not beautiful but it is a necessary evil we must live with and accept. Denying this is dishonest. We stay with people as they age not because aging is beautiful, but because we can associate someone we have known when they were beautiful with that beauty even as they age.
3. You should not feel the need to be “civil” with politics when your opponents are far past civility, because it is like playing a game by the rules when your opponent isn’t, there is no ref, and your opponent will never respect you. You can be Jesus Christ, or the Buddha, and shoot fire from your hands and walk on water, but if you believe there are innate group differences you are considered ontologically evil to the left. Based on far more insidious lies, to boot.
Clarke, not Clark.
Call out the evil of whatever you confront with full courage and words as incisive as needed. But do not spray and prey erratically, and do not conflate targets. If its an evil idea, eviscerate the idea and not the person. If an evil person, excoriate the person’s actions, Jadedness towards wide swaths of things detract from your appeal as a charismatic individual. Focus on what you really want to attack/argue. If you cant properly order your criticisms (to the point of randomly roasting Emilia Clark for no deep reason) then you’ll just seem like a hater overall. Dont take random pot shots. But also pull punches in the arena you do choose