The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: Machiavelli on August 11, 2018, 09:49:45 pm
-
Jonah Goldberg
National Review
August 9, 2018
How a 1980s sci-fi flick became an inspiration for Marxist tracts
‘I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I’m all out of bubblegum.â€
It’s one of my favorite movie lines of all time, but there are other reasons I love John Carpenter’s sci-fi action movie They Live, which celebrates its 30th anniversary later this year. Starring the 1980s professional wrestler “Rowdy†Roddy Piper, it is one of the best B-movies of the era. Kurt Russell was supposed to play the lead role, but Carpenter felt that after directing so many Russell vehicles, he should go with someone else. When Carpenter, a wrestling fan, saw Piper’s bravura performance in Wrestlemania III, he had found his man.
I have watched They Live many times since it first came out. But it was only a few years ago that I learned it’s also a timeless piece of Marxist propaganda.
This is not the observation of a cranky right-winger seeing Commies under every bed. This is the considered opinion of numerous Marxist, neo-Marxist, and coffee-house-Marxist commentators.
More (https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/08/27/farce-as-tragedy/)
-
Jonah Goldberg is easily entertained. I found that movie dumb.
-
I've never heard of it.
-
I saw the movie when it first came out. I liked it as silly fun. Shortly thereafter, I learned that it was an attack on Reaganomics (http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/john-carpenter-they-live-was-about-giving-the-finger-to-reagan/).
-
Jonah was there to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And he was all out of ass.
-
Jonah Goldberg is easily entertained. I found that movie dumb.
It was interesting starting out. And then Piper put on the glasses and all the messages on the billboards were revealed.
My first thoughts were on the line of "oh, good grief, it's an anti-capitalism/consumerism flick."
And I was a Democrat at the time. But I was quite sick of liberals moaning about Reaganomics and the so-called "Me Decade" of the eighties.
As if Hollyweird libs like Carpenter weren't crawling over each other to accumulate as money and goodies as they possibly could.
I wonder if Carpenter lives in a hut/shack/tent or some other rude hovel to commiserate with the masses. I'm betting not.
-
(https://c1.vgtstatic.com/thumb/4/7/47942-v2-l/john-carpenters-house.jpg) John Carpenter's lowly hovel in Hollywood. Look at those tiny houses....just nothing but lean-tos.
-
Never heard of either the movie or story but I have heard of Goldberg.
In my judgement, he is another of the neo-con (men) gang, which includes Kristol,
Podhoretz and many others at the Nat'l Review, Weekley Standard and Commentary.
These are the offspring of post WW1 Russian Jewish Marxists who lectured at NYC
Universities; all devotees of Leon Trotsky (real name Davidovish Bronstein).
This offspring evolved and morphed in time but never lost touch w/their radical
roots, which is apparent in their politics and the ideas they promote.
-
Never heard of either the movie or story but I have heard of Goldberg.
In my judgement, he is another of the neo-con (men) gang, which includes Kristol,
Podhoretz and many others at the Nat'l Review, Weekley Standard and Commentary.
These are the offspring of post WW1 Russian Jewish Marxists who lectured at NYC
Universities; all devotees of Leon Trotsky (real name Davidovish Bronstein).
This offspring evolved and morphed in time but never lost touch w/their radical
roots, which is apparent in their politics and the ideas they promote.
Jonah Goldberg is the son of Lucianne Goldberg of "Lucianne". He is a solid, thinking conservative and all around good guy. I have no idea if his family was originally Russian, but he (and his mother) is an American.
-
Jonah Goldberg is the son of Lucianne Goldberg of "Lucianne". He is a solid, thinking conservative and all around good guy. I have no idea if his family was originally Russian, but he (and his mother) is an American.
---------------------------------
Goldberg is no more a principled conservative than Herbert Hoover
or George Bush was.
Suggest you lose the sentimental malarkey about these neo-cons
and get real about these frauds and hustlers.
-
---------------------------------
Goldberg is no more a principled conservative than Herbert Hoover
or George Bush was.
Suggest you lose the sentimental malarkey about these neo-cons
and get real about these frauds and hustlers.
Bullshit. I suggest you loose the "neo-con" dog whistle real quick.
-
---------------------------------
Goldberg is no more a principled conservative than Herbert Hoover
or George Bush was.
Suggest you lose the sentimental malarkey about these neo-cons
and get real about these frauds and hustlers.
@Absalom
Can you give me a list of three writers/pundits such as Jonah Goldberg whom you see as principled conservatives?
-
I suggest you loose the "neo-con" dog whistle real quick.
@Absalom
I agree with @Sanguine. Your posts on this thread are dangerously close to being anti-Semitic. Please drop the neocon stuff immediately.
-
@Absalom
I agree with @Sanguine. Your posts on this thread are dangerously close to being anti-Semitic. Please drop the neocon stuff immediately.
I agree.
There has been a rather consistent use of that term over time by those who fancy themselves "Paleocons" or American nationalists, and always in conjunction with Jewish conservative intellectuals.
And frequently, one can find an accompanying implication of disloyalty to America, either in the form of suggested Jewish adherence to a foreign ideology, or by their implied superior loyalty to the state of Israel.
Both Paul Craig Roberts and Pat Buchanan, to name but two commentators, are frequent sources of this line of argument.
It is wrong, it is despicable, and it poorly serves the cause of constitutional conservatism.
Honorable and honest people can and do differ on a host of political issues, and this is no less true on the Right than it is on the Left.
For his part, Jonah Goldberg is a witty, thoughtful, knowledgeable and intelligent man who loves America dearly and obviously believes in its foundational principles, as even a cursory reading of his large body of work will attest.
He deserves better than to be slandered by narrow-minded nativists who are largely informed by willful ignorance, unfounded suspicion and racialist sympathies.
-
It is wrong, it is despicable, and it poorly serves the cause of constitutional conservatism.
Thanks for opening my eyes! I never gave much thought to the connection between using the term "Neocon" and Jew-bashing. I'm not Jewish, but I detest antisemitism.
-
@Absalom
Can you give me a list of three writers/pundits such as Jonah Goldberg whom you see as principled conservatives?
----------------------------------------
Victor Davis Hanson
Mark Levin
Thomas Sowell
-
----------------------------------------
Victor Davis Hanson
Mark Levin
Thomas Sowell
Interesting, as VDH is a neoconservative.
-
---------------------------------
Goldberg is no more a principled conservative than Herbert Hoover
or George Bush was.
Suggest you lose the sentimental malarkey about these neo-cons
and get real about these frauds and hustlers.
Have you ever read anything by Goldberg? If you haven't (and it sounds like you haven't), you could start with his book about the origins of American liberalism/progressivism called "Liberal Fascism." It's one of the best conservative books of the last half century.
-
Interesting, as VDH is a neoconservative.
He calls himself one. The problem arises when people call other "neoconservative. Over the years, it's become a dogwhistle used by antisemitics.
-
@Absalom
I agree with @Sanguine. Your posts on this thread are dangerously close to being anti-Semitic. Please drop the neocon stuff immediately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the record, my wife is Jewish and neither of us are Anti-Semites.
Since this is a discussion forum, I was expressing an opinion, not
intended to slander Goldberg.
As requested, will drop the neo-con label since it offends.
-
----------------------------------------
Victor Davis Hanson
Mark Levin
Thomas Sowell
888high58888
-
He calls himself one. The problem arises when people call other "neoconservative. Over the years, it's become a dogwhistle used by antisemitics.
Always thought 'neocon' meant, sort of like "new money'... up and coming generations...never Jewish.
WTF do I know? (that's rhetorical) :laugh:
-
@Cyber Liberty
@Absalom
I'm not saying that we should ban the use of the word neocon. It depends on how it's used. Context is everything.
Absalom, my late wife was a Jew too. happy77
-
Always thought 'neocon' meant, sort of like "new money'... up and coming generations...never Jewish.
WTF do I know? (that's rhetorical) :laugh:
That's what I thought too...never associated it with Jewish faith.
-
He calls himself one. The problem arises when people call other "neoconservative. Over the years, it's become a dogwhistle used by antisemitics.
I always considered 'neoconservative' as referring to those classic democrats who, seeing the political handwriting on the wall, joined the 'conservative movement' in the wake of Reagan's obvious success.
They were especially impressed by his muscular foreign policy. The other distinguishing characteristic they share is they kept most of their socially liberal proclivities, unfortunately, and have always disliked 'paleocons'.
The fact that many who met this description were of jewish heritage was incidental.
I realize others have used the term as an antisemetic dog whistle, though, so I avoid use of the term.
-
Always thought 'neocon' meant, sort of like "new money'... up and coming generations...never Jewish.
WTF do I know? (that's rhetorical) :laugh:
Dittos for me, DC.
-
I'm not saying that we should ban the use of the word neocon. It depends on how it's used. Context is everything.
:thumbsup:
-
I always considered 'neoconservative' as referring to those classic democrats who, seeing the political handwriting on the wall, joined the 'conservative movement' in the wake of Reagan's obvious success.
They were especially impressed by his muscular foreign policy. The other distinguishing characteristic they share is they kept most of their socially liberal proclivities, unfortunately, and have always disliked 'paleocons'.
The fact that many who met this description were of jewish heritage was incidental.
I realize others have used the term as an antisemetic dog whistle, though, so I avoid use of the term.
Yes, and since @Absalom's statement referenced Communist Russian Jews, antisemitism is a reasonable conclusion:
In my judgement, he is another of the neo-con (men) gang, which includes Kristol,
Podhoretz and many others at the Nat'l Review, Weekley Standard and Commentary.
These are the offspring of post WW1 Russian Jewish Marxists who lectured at NYC
Universities; all devotees of Leon Trotsky (real name Davidovish Bronstein).
This offspring evolved and morphed in time but never lost touch w/their radical
roots, which is apparent in their politics and the ideas they promote.
To quote another Jew: sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
-
That's what I thought too...never associated it with Jewish faith.
:patriot:
-
I always considered 'neoconservative' as referring to those classic democrats who, seeing the political handwriting on the wall, joined the 'conservative movement' in the wake of Reagan's obvious success.
If I remember right, the first of those thinkers to be called (or to call themselves) neoconservatives in the 1970s were Nathan Glazer, Irving Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Seymour Martin Lipset, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Norman Podhoretz (who steered Commentary away from the left during that decade), and Ben Wattenberg. (His book, The Real Majority, is thought by some to have been the earliest neoconservative argument in full book form.) Their turns toward it began when the New Left drove them to endorse Washington Sen. Henry Jackson for the presidency over South Dakota Sen. George McGovern in 1972, seeing McGovern as a New Left co-opting and Jackson as anything but, especially in foreign policy. The socialist intellectual Michael Harrington first hung the tag "neoconservative" on them, but Irving Kristol fashioned it into a badge with his famous remark about a neoconservative being a liberal mugged by reality and in his 1979 essay, "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed Neoconservative"---written in response to Peter Steinfels' book-length attack on the early neoconservatives. (Kristol, in fact, called his second anthology of writings---his first had been, of course, Two Cheers for Capitalism---Reflections of a Neoconservative in 1983.
The original neoconservatives themselves weren't exactly a movement. The aforesaid Irving Kristol essay included another once-famous wisecrack, "When two neoconservatives meet they are more likely to argue with one another than to confer or conspire." James Q. Wilson, himself an early neoconservative, noted that those neoconservatives had no "manifesto, credo, religion, flag, anthem or secret handshake." And none of those original neoconservatives ever argued with that.
-
Always thought 'neocon' meant, sort of like "new money'... up and coming generations...never Jewish.
Neo-con is an accurate and necessary description. Neo-con was coined by moderates for moderates in an attempt to distinguish themselves as different from Conservatism, while trying to hi-jack the popular branding of Conservatism.
Neoconservatism is always 'kinder, gentler conservatism' (one of their slogans), but inevitably divides the factions of Reagan Conservatism - Preferring the Christian Right for their votes, and the Military for their uses in nation building, but eschewing fiscal conservatism, and especially the Goldwater Libertarianism that all true Conservatism is founded upon.
To wit:
Neoconservatism comes from the moderate wing of the Republican party (the Bushes, McCain, etc), and is not conservative, but pays lip service to Conservative causes.
Conservatism comes from the Goldwater wing, and holds to libertarianism, principles, and merit.
You can tell the difference most distinctly, because Conservatives tend to get along with the principles of Libertarianism, and demand fiscal responsibility, and Neo-cons do not.
To banish the term would be a mistake.
-
Neo-con is an accurate and necessary description. Neo-con was coined by moderates for moderates in an attempt to distinguish themselves as different from Conservatism, while trying to hi-jack the popular branding of Conservatism.
Neoconservatism is always 'kinder, gentler conservatism' (one of their slogans), but inevitably divides the factions of Reagan Conservatism - Preferring the Christian Right for their votes, and the Military for their uses in nation building, but eschewing fiscal conservatism, and especially the Goldwater Libertarianism that all true Conservatism is founded upon.
To wit:
Neoconservatism comes from the moderate wing of the Republican party (the Bushes, McCain, etc), and is not conservative, but pays lip service to Conservative causes.
Conservatism comes from the Goldwater wing, and holds to libertarianism, principles, and merit.
You can tell the difference most distinctly, because Conservatives tend to get along with the principles of Libertarianism, and demand fiscal responsibility, and Neo-cons do not.
To banish the term would be a mistake.
Thanks for the details/info...but the definitions/examples you set forth were already no mystery to me.
SOCON = social conservative
NEOCON = "new" conservatives.
-
Thanks for the details/info...but the definitions/examples you set forth were already no mystery to me.
SOCON = social conservative
NEOCON = "new" conservatives.
Except that SOCONs are a legitimate Conservative faction, preserving the principles of the Judeo-Christian ethic, and welcomed to the Conservative table by RWR...
SOCON
FICON
DEFCON
and I would add, CIVCON = In Reagan era Conservatism, civil libertarians were lumped in with FICON.. I would consider that to be inaccurate. The two conserve different principles respectively.
NEOCONs preserve nothing.
-
Except that SOCONs are a legitimate Conservative faction, preserving the principles of the Judeo-Christian ethic, and welcomed to the Conservative table by RWR...
SOCON
FICON
DEFCON
and I would add, CIVCON = In Reagan era Conservatism, civil libertarians were lumped in with FICON.. I would consider that to be inaccurate. The two conserve different principles respectively.
NEOCONs preserve nothing.
I'm good with the first three (or four) and want nothing to do with the last so I guess I'm just plain conservative.
-
I'm good with the first three (or four) and want nothing to do with the last so I guess I'm just plain conservative.
That's right. :beer:
-
Neo-con is an accurate and necessary description. Neo-con was coined by moderates for moderates in an attempt to distinguish themselves as different from Conservatism, while trying to hi-jack the popular branding of Conservatism.
Neoconservatism is always 'kinder, gentler conservatism' (one of their slogans), but inevitably divides the factions of Reagan Conservatism - Preferring the Christian Right for their votes, and the Military for their uses in nation building, but eschewing fiscal conservatism, and especially the Goldwater Libertarianism that all true Conservatism is founded upon.
To wit:
Neoconservatism comes from the moderate wing of the Republican party (the Bushes, McCain, etc), and is not conservative, but pays lip service to Conservative causes.
Conservatism comes from the Goldwater wing, and holds to libertarianism, principles, and merit.
You can tell the difference most distinctly, because Conservatives tend to get along with the principles of Libertarianism, and demand fiscal responsibility, and Neo-cons do not.
To banish the term would be a mistake.
I would not want to start banishing terms, either. Especially one that represents a clear mode of thought. Where things run into trouble of the type that gets Mods stepping in, is when a term like Neoconservative gets linked with some Jewish conspiracy that is detrimental to the USA. Pat Buchanan does that all the time.
-
I would not want to start banishing terms, either. Especially one that represents a clear mode of thought. Where things run into trouble of the type that gets Mods stepping in, is when a term like Neoconservative gets linked with some Jewish conspiracy that is detrimental to the USA. Pat Buchanan does that all the time.
All of these terms have become muddled, and what is needed is direct and informed return to their definitions.
SOCON and NEOCON are often conflated too - I understand why, considering that the NEOCONS needed Christian votes and swept the FICONS and CIVCONS under the bus, causing a whole lot of butthurt.
But the two are not synonymous - NEOCONS play ever toward liberal (read 'moderate') Christianity, and while lip-syncing conservative Christianity, much to the detriment of Christian Conservatives.
I ain't saying that other Conservative factions don't have a bone to pick, but all the butthurt has to stop. The TEA PARTY would not have succeeded without the Christian Right, and neither will any other Conservative venture. SOCONS have more votes than the rest put together.
-
All of these terms have become muddled, and what is needed is direct and informed return to their definitions.
SOCON and NEOCON are often conflated too - I understand why, considering that the NEOCONS needed Christian votes and swept the FICONS and CIVCONS under the bus, causing a whole lot of butthurt.
But the two are not synonymous - NEOCONS play ever toward liberal (read 'moderate') Christianity, and while lip-syncing conservative Christianity, much to the detriment of Christian Conservatives.
I ain't saying that other Conservative factions don't have a bone to pick, but all the butthurt has to stop. The TEA PARTY would not have succeeded without the Christian Right, and neither will any other Conservative venture. SOCONS have more votes than the rest put together.
Neocons have a reputation for being too happy to get involved with external armed conflicts. That's my rap on them. Leave Turkey to the Turks, like the old song. I don't give a rip if they want to call it Istanbul not Constantinople. Not my Circus, not my monkeys.
-
If I remember right, the first of those thinkers to be called (or to call themselves) neoconservatives in the 1970s were Nathan Glazer, Irving Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Seymour Martin Lipset, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Norman Podhoretz (who steered Commentary away from the left during that decade), and Ben Wattenberg. (His book, The Real Majority, is thought by some to have been the earliest neoconservative argument in full book form.)...
I'll defer to your far and away more complete understanding of the issue. I really didn't start paying close attention until the Reagan era. Anyway it seems to confirm my view.
-
Jonah Goldberg
National Review
August 9, 2018
More (https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/08/27/farce-as-tragedy/)
@Machiavelli
Thanks for posting this. My husband and I have always liked "They Live" as sort of a campy fun piece.
-
---------------------------------
Goldberg is no more a principled conservative than Herbert Hoover
or George Bush was.
Suggest you lose the sentimental malarkey about these neo-cons
and get real about these frauds and hustlers.
@Absalom
Congratulations on one of the absolute dumbest posts I've seen since I've been here.
I suggest you read Jonah's "Suicide of the West". You might learn a few things.
-
@Absalom
I agree with @Sanguine. Your posts on this thread are dangerously close to being anti-Semitic. Please drop the neocon stuff immediately.
@Machiavelli
Is it still permissible to criticize neo-cons who AREN'T Jewish,comrade?
-
@Machiavelli
Is it still permissible to criticize neo-cons who AREN'T Jewish,comrade?
Sneakypete, please stay on topic.
-
Always thought 'neocon' meant, sort of like "new money'... up and coming generations...never Jewish.
WTF do I know? (that's rhetorical) :laugh:
@DCPatriot
I always thought it was a term for stealth Dims like Kristol and actual Dims that switched parties in order to get elected after Reagan was elected. Had/has nothing to do with their religion or where their ancestors came from.
I still see it this way,and I see the "anti-Semitism" shrieks as one more example of a group of people,in this case Jews,trying to establish the status of being beyond criticism,much like the blacks of today.
If it looks like a duck,sounds like a duck,and speaks like a duck,it's a freaking duck!
When did the 1st Amendment become obsolete,anyway?
-
I always considered 'neoconservative' as referring to those classic democrats who, seeing the political handwriting on the wall, joined the 'conservative movement' in the wake of Reagan's obvious success.
The fact that many who met this description were of jewish heritage was incidental.
888high58888
@skeeter
I realize others have used the term as an antisemetic dog whistle, though, so I avoid use of the term.
You will NEVER win any argument where you allow your opponent to define the terms.
-
I just call them fake republicans and move on.
-
@DCPatriot
I always thought it was a term for stealth Dims like Kristol and actual Dims that switched parties in order to get elected after Reagan was elected. Had/has nothing to do with their religion or where their ancestors came from.
I still see it this way,and I see the "anti-Semitism" shrieks as one more example of a group of people,in this case Jews,trying to establish the status of being beyond criticism,much like the blacks of today.
If it looks like a duck,sounds like a duck,and speaks like a duck,it's a freaking duck!
When did the 1st Amendment become obsolete,anyway?
Just curious - what does you opinion on neocons have to do with the topic of this thread?
-
Neo-con is an accurate and necessary description. Neo-con was coined by moderates for moderates in an attempt to distinguish themselves as different from Conservatism, while trying to hi-jack the popular branding of Conservatism.
Neoconservatism is always 'kinder, gentler conservatism' (one of their slogans), but inevitably divides the factions of Reagan Conservatism - Preferring the Christian Right for their votes, and the Military for their uses in nation building, but eschewing fiscal conservatism, and especially the Goldwater Libertarianism that all true Conservatism is founded upon.
To wit:
Neoconservatism comes from the moderate wing of the Republican party (the Bushes, McCain, etc), and is not conservative, but pays lip service to Conservative causes.
Conservatism comes from the Goldwater wing, and holds to libertarianism, principles, and merit.
You can tell the difference most distinctly, because Conservatives tend to get along with the principles of Libertarianism, and demand fiscal responsibility, and Neo-cons do not.
To banish the term would be a mistake.
@roamer_1
Thank you! I tried to explain it several times,but you did a better job than me with just this one post.
-
@Machiavelli
Is it still permissible to criticize neo-cons who AREN'T Jewish,comrade?
@sneakypete
You may criticize neocons of all stripes, but show discretion when you post.
-
Sneakypete, please stay on topic.
@Mod5
Are you saying I can ONLY comment about Jews on this thread,and MUST ignore the non-Jewish neocons?
Please explain this so a simple creature like me can understand it.
Thanks in advance.
-
Just curious - what does you opinion on neocons have to do with the topic of this thread?
@Sanguine
What is the topic of this thread on your home planet?
-
@Sanguine
What is the topic of this thread on your home planet?
Aren't you a funny little man? *****rollingeyes*****