culture / Reblogged / TBT

TBT: A Discourse on Disclaimers

The Portly Politico29 Comments

Last week my Dad sent me a link to an old piece of mine, “A Discourse on Disclaimers.”  When I wrote it, I was still undergoing a based transformation.  This piece represents one of those many little turning points that moved me to the point of realizing that there is no reasoning with the Left.  After all, how can you reason with an ideology that has no fixed moral center, which is always shifting its own goals in the name of some amorphous, perpetual revolution?

The failure of the modern Right has been to attempt to point out the hypocrisy of the Left, based on the unspoken assumption that if we just keep pointing it out and keep using logic, they’ll see the light and convert to reason, logic, and Truth.  It’s like arguing with a pit bull when your baby is dangling from its jaws:  it’s fatally ineffective and will cost you something precious.

Fortunately, while the Left possesses all of the irrational insanity and ferocity of the pit bull, it lacks the animal’s strength.  Yes, there is a strength the Left possesses in delusion and with its control of the institutions, but even that edifice of institutional control is crumbling.

It’s time for us to be bold.  Doing otherwise is tantamount to doubting God’s Promises.  Yes, we should be wise—no good will come from shouting red-pilled Truth bombs in the wrong context—but we should be brave, too.

With that, here is 20 June 2018’s “A Discourse on Disclaimers“:

Yesterday, I wrote about the current child separation policy—and the issue of illegal immigration more broadly.  I initially thought about approaching the topic with delicacy and tact, scaffolding my argument with ample disclaimers about sympathy for the situation of the children, etc. (and, in a flippant way, I did).

But the whole delicate, walking-on-eggshells, tightrope-walk performance of disclaimers is wearying, and I decided to go off half-Coultered instead.  We live in an age in which voicing any controversial (usually conservative) opinion requires pages of tedious disclaimers along the lines of “while I agree that [controversial topic here] is bad, I would argue [very narrow, logically-consistent exception to the badness of the controversial topic].”

This practice gets old fast.  To be an open conservative these days means enduring more litmus tests and grilling than a Supreme Court nominee—and that’s just to be able to function socially in mainstream society.

robert-bork
Robert Bork—one of my intellectual heroes

What does one get for one’s trouble?  Only a very few people take the time to appreciate subtlety of argument.  The Cultural Marxist, social justice warrior approach to any disagreement is to attack every position relentlessly on axiomatic grounds, rather than hearing out the opposing viewpoint in full and digesting it completely.

The effect is that to even make a controversial argument—no matter how balanced, well-researched, or logical—is to invite wholesale scorn and derision, up to and including expulsion from polite circles.  The true goal of this monolithic dismissal of anything outside of the fashionable-for-the-moment social justice “mainstream” is to silence critics and opposing viewpoints, hoping that the tedium and weariness will simply shut up dissent.

Sometimes, it works, and it worked for a very long time (until Donald Trump hit the scene).  Indeed, immediately after the 2016 presidential election, the tension of full-blown Trump Derangement Syndrome made it impossible to even engage in good-natured ribbing with Clinton supporters.  After eight years of spiking the football in cultural victory after cultural victory, the Left couldn’t take the shock of defeat in stride.

Post-Trump, however, some things have improved.  As Charles Norman wrote in an essay at Taki’s Magazine (“Trapped in the Closet,” 15 June 2018), “Courage is contagious.”  Once candidate Trump exposed the cracks in the Cult. Marx. framework, free speech began to get off life support.

In that essay, Norman quotes Paul Johnson; I’ll replicate that quotation here (emphasis Norman’s):

“…it’s good news that Donald Trump is doing so well in the American political primaries. He is vulgar, abusive, nasty, rude, boorish and outrageous. He is also saying what he thinks and, more important, teaching Americans how to think for themselves again.”

Trump was not the first to lead the way.  Polemicist Ann Coulter, philosopher Richard Weaver, commentator Ben Shapiro, Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, National Review founder William F. Buckley, Jr., President Ronald Reagan—the list goes on and on.  Each laid a stone in the forgotten byway of liberty that brought us to where we are today.  Our Founding Father’s cut the path, especially with the First Amendment and its free-speech safeguards, which are virtually unique in the world.

***

To close, I’ll share a brief personal anecdote:  I remember being at some soiree not long ago, and was talking with a parent of some former students.  Somehow, the discussion turned to politics.  There’s always a brief moment in such situations that feels like you’re about to jump off a diving board, and you’re either going to land in water, or a lava-filled shark tank (don’t ask me how the sharks survive; that they do makes them all the more sinister).

I reluctantly-but-hopefully discussed the positive legacy of President Trump; I landed in a pool of soft marshmallow fluff.  He, too, was quietly enthusiastic, and we spent the next half-hour relishing having found a fellow traveler.  That’s what being a pro-Trump conservative—even in the rural South!—is like sometimes.  When you meet another one, it’s like encountering another human being on what you thought was a deserted island.

So, enough disclaimers.  Enough of this endless qualifying.  Let’s have real, gutsy conversations again.  Let’s say controversial things loudly, especially if they’re true.

In short, everybody lighten up!

29 thoughts on “TBT: A Discourse on Disclaimers”

  3. In the case of politics, it’s not now nor ever about arguing with the left or pointing out their failures and hypocrisy. It’s about pointing that out to the people at large.

    In America, you’ll have voting blocs, just like we have here and everywhere else, but the majority of people will either be undecideds or floating voters. They are the people you want to speak to and if you don’t want to use the immorality or ignorance of the left as a weapon, you need to hope that your own discourse is good enough to make a dent.

    You’re right. Talking to hardened leftists is as useful as erecting a building from feathers. The thing is, their representation is not as widespread as they think and there are millions of hardworking people in the country who can handle a conversation without becoming apoplectic or hysterical.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Yes, I do think it is important to win over the squishy middle. The problem is that they’re squishy for a reason—they’re not paying attention, and they’re easily swayed one way or the other. The Left is way better at manipulating emotions, I’m afraid, although their power to do so seems to be eroding rapidly as more and more people are waking up to reality. Of course, it helps that inflation is out of control—people start to care when their wallets are empty!

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      • I’ve just this moment popped onto the computer to link this article and yesterday’s onto TCW. I hope readers there will come here and have a look, maybe post though I doubt they’ll do the latter; one day, I hope they’ll stay.

        One of my friends over there, a philosopher by the name of Dr Frank Palmer, wrote an article recently for the Bournbrook Magazine called The Absurdity of non-judgementalism, which I think you might be interested in. Unfortunately, it’s hidden behind a paywall but I could, if you’re interested, ask him to forward the piece direct to your inbox?

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

    • Just so you know, if I don’t comment in the morning or afternoon, it’ll be because I’m at the hospital. I’ll check in the evening or following morning.

      I’m intrigued to see your response to Tyler’s piece from yesterday. 😉

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

            • We’ll be keeping an eye on election coverage, here and in the US.

              You’ll like this. The BBC see tonight’s Biden vs Trump debate as a heavyweight battle! 😂😂😂

              All I want to know is which Democrat will be controlling Biden because he’s not going to make 30 seconds before forgetting where he is.

              Liked by 2 people

              Reply

              • ROFL! How could the BBC be so clueless? Yeah, they’ll pump Biden full of enough uppers to get a sloth moving like a cheetah, but, c’mon—it’s no contest.

                I’m curious to see who Trump’s VP pick will be, not because it matters all that much, but because it will give a good sense of how much he’s learned his lesson about trusting the wrong people last time around. I’m hoping for someone like J.D. Vance—or someone really outrageous, kind of like a middle finger to the Establishment.

                Liked by 2 people

                Reply

                • All I can say is if Biden is ‘voted in’ again, Democrat voters are as evil as the party and his wife. Whatever one might think of Biden, he should be in a nursing home, not leading the country.

                  Tina came up with a great way, though, of keeping the Democrats out. Wait until the UK is run by conservatives again – hopefully, Farage in 2029 – and then come back under our wing. I think we’d do it better than under our mad German king!

                  Liked by 1 person

                  Reply

                  • If Biden is re-elected, it will be due to widespread and blatant voter fraud, in which case, yes, we’d probably be better of rejoining the Mother Country!

                    I am hoping against hope that Farage will do the impossible and end up with the majority. Even if he doesn’t, it looks like he’s going to destroy the Tories. It’s amazing how just being another version of the Left can sink an ancient and noble political party in twenty years.

                    Of course, I don’t want to get the illegal immigrants y’all have, because you’d better believe that no sooner had they hit the White Cliffs of Dover, they’d be booking a ticket to the far more prosperous and exciting “colonies” in America. Mexican and El Salvadoran gang r*pists are bad enough; I don’t want to add child-trafficking Pakis to the mix. Yikes!

                    Liked by 1 person

                    Reply

                    • 😂😂😂

                      The voting system in this country will ensure Reform won’t get bang for their buck. In 2015, UKIP got 4m votes for 1 MP. The SNP got just over a million votes and around 50 MPs. It needs looking at, for sure.

                      Reform might pick up a few MPs but leftists will vote tactically in Clacton to keep Farage out. They did it in 2015, they’ll do it again.

                      The Tories are blaming all sources for their collapse but themselves. I predicted zero seats at the start of the year and I’m sticking with it. When you put out left wing policies, you’re nailing your own coffin. They deserve obliteration.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Yes, if I’m going to vote for the Leftists, why not vote for the Leftist party? Why should I vote for the allegedly center-right party.

                      I agree with your zero Conservative assessment.

                      Like

  5. Me in 2016: “Anglo-American liberalism is an acceptable form of government, but not survivable without Christian consensus.”
    Me in 2024: “Throne, Altar and Patriarchy are the pillars of civilization.”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment