Trump Is Out Of Touch With MAGA Over Jeffrey Epstein

Posted on July 13, 2025 by Luke Ford

It sure looks like the Trump administration is holding back on releasing information about Jeffrey Epstein in furtherance of its wider agenda.

That doesn’t particularly bother me. I trust that Trump is agile enough to pivot when a change in policy and greater transparency with regard to Epstein is needed.

The good path means constantly weighing up competing alternatives. I love how situational Trump is within his decisions. I’m more of a situationist than an ideologue (though over the past 70 years, paleo-conservatives seem to me consistently right).

Posted in America, Jeffrey Epstein | Comments Off on Trump Is Out Of Touch With MAGA Over Jeffrey Epstein

Should We Aid Ukraine As Much As Israel?

Posted on July 13, 2025 by Luke Ford

I was listening to The Enforcer bros on Youtube (the best place for breaking war coverage) the other day and they were making a strong case for aiding Ukraine as much as we aid Israel.

I am biased here because of my strong emotional attachment to Israel but I’ll try to rise above my tribal bias for a minute.

I recognize a strong case for America not subsidizing either Ukraine or Israel.

If we do tilt towards Israel, I recognize this thinking in that favor:

* Israel is winning, Ukraine is losing.
* Ukraine cannot win. Israel can win.
* America has more strategic interests in the Middle East than it does in Ukraine.

I favor American withdrawal from Ukraine. I favor an end to American subsidies to Israel. I want an American foreign policy based on American interests. America’s greatest rival is China. I stand with Elbridge Colby’s analysis of the world.

My emotions are 100% with Israel and America’s attack on Iran. My brain does not have an opinion about whether or not that was wise.

My emotions want to see Iran humiliated as Iran is responsible for the deaths of over a thousand Americans.

Gemini says:

It’s been stated that Iran has been responsible for the deaths of over a thousand Americans.
The U.S. Department of Defense assessed that at least 603 U.S. personnel deaths in Iraq (2003-2011) were the result of Iran-backed militants. These deaths were attributed to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and proxies it sponsored, according to Military Times. The casualties resulted from various attacks including explosively formed penetrators (EFP), improvised explosive devices (IED), and other attacks in Iraq.
Some sources also connect Iran to the deaths of Americans in other attacks carried out by groups it supports, including in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, according to the American Jewish Committee. For example, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, which killed 19 American airmen, was attributed to Hezbollah al-Hejaz, a group with strong ties to Iran, according to the American Jewish Committee.
In more recent years, Iran-backed groups have carried out numerous attacks targeting U.S. military personnel in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. This includes attacks that resulted in the deaths of American personnel, such as a March 2023 drone strike in Syria killing an American contractor and a January 2024 drone strike in Jordan killing three American soldiers.

I’d like to see the US and Russia unite against China. Iran has no strong allies. Neither Russia nor China are lifting a finger to help Iran right now. We’re not increasing the risks of war with Russia or China by bombing Iran, but by helping Ukraine hurt Russia, we are increasing the odds of a catastrophic war with Russia. The juice isn’t worth the squeeze in Ukraine. The juice might be worth the squeeze with Israel, the top dog in the Middle East.

Compared to the instincts of Trump and MAGA, I put greater value of alliances. I want to see the US work with its allies to restrict China. I want American trade policy to aid in this alliance. I wish Trump wouldn’t needlessly antagonize our allies, but I respect the tough truths he’s giving them about stepping up their defense spending, and that America is ending their abuse of trade policies to take advantage of America.

Posted in Iran, Israel, Russia, Ukraine | Comments Off on Should We Aid Ukraine As Much As Israel?

I Miss The Times We Had Together

Posted on July 12, 2025 by Luke Ford

I just got a spam text: “I miss the times we had together. How are you doing? I’m worried.”

Me too. I’m verklempt, like Tony Soprano in the final episodes watching TV commercials, but then I remember I’m not needy Luke anymore. I’m not the bloke who uses everyone he knows to meet his addictive needs. No! I have a lot going for me these days. I have three AI subscriptions!

What are some spam texts I deserve?

Before you get jokes, however, you must learn Torah.

Gemini:

In Judaism, Gashmiut and Ruchniut represent contrasting, yet interconnected, aspects of life. Gashmiut (or Gashmiyut) refers to the physical, material, and mundane aspects of existence, while Ruchniut (or Ruchniyut) refers to the spiritual, transcendent, and divine aspects. Essentially, gashmiut is the world of physicality, and ruchniut is the world of spirituality.

While these two concepts are often presented as opposites, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, Judaism emphasizes the importance of finding a balance between the two. One perspective is that even seemingly mundane, physical activities can be infused with spirituality and holiness when performed with intention and awareness. For example, even a simple act like eating can be elevated through prayer and gratitude.

Examples:

Gashmiut:

A person’s desire for a new car, the pursuit of wealth, or the enjoyment of physical pleasures.

Ruchniut:

Studying Torah, praying, performing mitzvot (good deeds), and striving to connect with God.

In essence, Judaism encourages a life that integrates both gashmiut and ruchniut, recognizing the value of the physical world while striving for spiritual growth and connection with the divine.

Before you get the spam texts I deserve, you need to know about the most significant event of my life.

The Kiss, The Shame, The God-Shaped Hole

It was cool working with 60 Minutes in 2003, but the most wonderful thing that ever happened to me… and the moment that most perfectly predicted my future dysfunction… happened in sixth grade.

It was a few months after I moved to California from Australia. This was September 1977—there was no Google. Early in the school year. My insecurities weren’t blindingly obvious. Nobody had looked me up yet. Nobody knew how deeply, catastrophically messed up I was. The American dream was still possible.

Since third grade, I’d wanted a girlfriend. I didn’t want to hold hands. I didn’t want to make out. I just wanted… affectionate exclusivity. I wanted someone to choose me. Publicly. Without shame.

And then it happened.

Cindy Jackson*—the most beautiful girl in the class, the queen of sixth grade—dropped a note on my desk. “Do you want to go with me?”

It was a golden ticket. A straight shot to love and the popular lunch table.

And what did I do?

I froze.

My brain said, “Yes.” My heart said, “YES.” But my nervous system? It said, “Abort mission.” I didn’t respond at all. I sat there like a stunned kangaroo in a Mormon wedding.

I felt unworthy. I couldn’t reach for what I wanted most. I wasn’t connected to anyone enough to ask for advice. No friend, no parent, no rabbi. I just sat on it.

And what did I do instead?

I teased her. Ruthlessly. I made her life miserable for months. Because I couldn’t handle her wanting me.

In fifth grade in Australia, this girl made it obvious that she liked me. So I kicked her. She said to me, “You’ll find out one day what it is like to love someone who kicks you.”

Eventually I worked up the courage to ask Cindy to be my girlfriend.

She said, with the most radiant joy I’ve ever seen in a human face: “No.”

I deserved it. You can’t neglect a mitzvah that hard and expect reward.

But something formed in me that day she dropped a note on my desk. A template. The Cindy Jackson template:

Long for love.

Feel unworthy.

Sabotage it.

Apologize too late.

I’ve been running that script for decades. Not just in romance. In friendship. In community. In every shul I’ve ever joined.

You see, excommunication is just Cindy Jackson, but with a cherem (Jewish ex-communication).

I come in hungry for belonging. For love. For God. I say all the right things—at first. I daven. I show up. I try. But deep down I’m still that sixth grader who can’t believe he’s wanted. So I push. I provoke. I blog.

I make myself impossible to hold onto.

And then I get what I expect: the door closed. The letter. The silence. The rabbi’s furrowed brow.

I used to think I was kicked out because I told the truth.

Now I think maybe I just couldn’t bear to stay.

That’s what eroticized rage is: it’s longing that’s been twisted by shame. It’s a kiss you wanted, poisoned by the belief you didn’t deserve it.

But Teshuvah is different. Teshuvah says: you can return. Not to Cindy Jackson. That ship sailed in 1978. But to yourself. To God. To a community you don’t have to sabotage just to prove you were never worthy.

You can stay. You can be held. You can answer the note this time.

“Yes.”

The Kiss That Saved My Life (But Only for 90 Seconds)

I want to tell you about the moment I peaked emotionally.
Not professionally. That was when The New York Times plagiarized my blog.
Not spiritually. That was when I fasted for 25 hours and still couldn’t stop staring at the rabbi’s daughter.
No—emotionally. I peaked in 11th grade. In a church loft. On New Year’s Day. 1983.

There’s this freshman girl. Blonde. Sweet. She tasted like Lip Smacker and Protestant repression.
We’d been talking for maybe an hour. That’s all it took.
I kissed her. And she kissed me back.

But she didn’t just kiss. She glided.
This girl was the Simone Biles of makeouts.
She glided, she sucked, she bit—lightly, like a promise.
Her tongue entered my mouth like it had RSVP’d.

This wasn’t a kiss. This was a layup line to salvation.
For 90 seconds, I was free—from shame, from failure, from Jesus.
I’d gone from homeschooled to home base.

But like all good things in my life, it ended with me saying something awkward.
She looked at me, dazed, and I said, “So… you go to Placer High?”
And just like that, the gliding stopped.

I didn’t know how to stay in a good thing.
That’s a theme with me.
Like the time a girl left a note on my desk in sixth grade that said, “Do you want to go with me?”
And I responded by… publicly mocking her love life for a week.

I’m the kind of guy who gets what he wants… and then tackles it in a swimming pool.
Just ask Jeanie.
We were supposed to play keepaway.
I played waterboarding.
I was like, “You want affection? Let me dunk you first.”

Because love was terrifying.
You know what wasn’t terrifying? Porn.
Nobody ever rejected me in Club International.
Those girls always smiled. Even with six guys on top of them.

That 11th-grade kiss? It was a miracle.
But I didn’t build a cathedral around it.
I built a masturbation shrine in the woods behind my house.
I laminated pages. I had a filing system. I was the Marie Kondo of smut.

And then, I found God. Or maybe just an E-cup Jewish girl. Same difference.
I gave up porn. I grew a beard. I wore tzitzit and guilt.
I told myself: “No more gliding. Only modest side-hugs and dairy-free kugel.”

But still, in quiet moments, I’d think about that girl.
That first kiss.
That 90-second miracle when I wasn’t broken, or bitter, or bukkake-adjacent.
Just a boy. With lips. And hope.

Hope that I’d meet a girl who wanted to glide back.

[SHAME: THE SHRINE IN THE WOODS]

Of course, I couldn’t sustain intimacy. That kiss opened a door I wasn’t ready to walk through. So I built a shrine to lust instead. Behind my house. In the woods. Laminated Playboy pages. A milk crate throne.

When the girls at church didn’t return my desperate, overthought letters, I retreated into that little cathedral of thighs and validation.

I didn’t need intimacy. I needed release.

I didn’t need a hug. I needed a centerfold who smiled like she meant it.

Years later, when I got paid to write about porn, people said, “You’re just doing this for the smut.”

No. I was doing it for the structure.

Porn had rules. Positions. Money shots. Consent was discussed like a union contract.

Intimacy? That was chaos.

[SPIRITUAL LONGING: THE 12-STEP TORAH]

Then came the therapy. The 12-step rooms. The 3 a.m. existential panic attacks.

My therapist said, “Your fantasies are eroticized rage.”

I started going to Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous. I thought it would be a circle of perverts. It was. But they were my perverts. And they spoke my language:
Loneliness. Projection. Worshiping the person who texts back.

Judaism calls it the yetzer hara—the evil inclination. The part of us that says, “You’re not good enough. So take. Consume. Escape.”

But the Torah also says: You are not your worst impulse. You are not the folder of browser tabs. You are not the email you regret. You are not even the person who ghosted the one kind girl who kissed you in the 11th grade.

You are a soul. Longing for connection. Covered in layers of denial, compulsions, bad lighting, and Craigslist meetups.

And even there—especially there—God waits.

[THE REDEMPTION: SMOOTHIES & TEFILLIN]

I still fall short. Spiritually. Emotionally. Pants-wise.

But now I pray. I wrap tefillin and beg God to help me see women as whole people, not puzzles I can solve with enough charm, Torah quotes, or mango smoothies.

Because real intimacy isn’t a kiss, or a lay, or even a good blog post.

It’s showing up. Over and over. With all your awkwardness. All your shame. All your hope.

And trusting that the right woman might glide back.

Grok suggests some spam texts I deserve:

From: Cindy Jackson (1977): “Hey Luke, it’s Cindy from sixth grade. Still waiting for you to answer my note. Wanna grab a smoothie and talk about why you teased me into oblivion? I’m worried you’re still frozen at that desk.”

From: Costa Rican Paralegal (2003): “Luke, I miss our wild night—your gashmiut was banging, but that methadone clinic t-shirt? Oof. I kept your Dish book as a ruchniut lesson. You okay, or still exiled from shul? Worried about you.”

From: Your Therapist (2011): “Luke, it’s your shrink. Miss our chats about your God-shaped hole. Your eroticized rage is so 2003—quit chasing Cindy Jackson’s ghost. Try intimacy, not intensity. Worried you’re still dodging Teshuvah.”

From: Jeanette Walls’ Dish (2003): “Luke, it’s your stolen Dish book. That paralegal chick swiped me, but the NYT plagiarized me! (Slate) Get a new copy and stay sober. Worried you’re still chasing my pages.”

From: Gavin Brown (1974) “Luke, mate, it’s Gavin from second grade. Miss those Cooranbong days, but not your horse manure-throwing vibe. Sorry we didn’t want you at my birthday bash. Worried you’re still that awkward kid. Come back for a smoothie, not a shanda!”

ChatGPT:

“Your rabbi misses you. Click here to rejoin the WhatsApp group you got booted from in 2009.”

“You’ve been selected for advanced placement in Teshuvah. No essays. Just show up and cry sincerely.”

“Your crush from 1987 just Googled you. She’s more impressed by your amends than your follower count.”

“A spiritual community is willing to accept you exactly as you are… unless you start quoting Dennis Prager again.”

“Your Amazon order has shipped: 1 tub of protein powder, 3 volumes of Rashi, and one more chance at love.”

“Your ex didn’t block your number. She just spiritually ghosted you.”

“Your old therapist finally figured out what you meant. She sends regards and recommends hydration.”

“Hey, it’s God. You’re not disqualified. Just… stop blogging.”

Gemini:

From a Ghost of Girlfriends Past

(UNSAVED NUMBER): “Hey stranger, it’s me. Remember that night after the Dennis Prager singles event? I never got your smoothie recipe. Also, my therapist says I need closure. Please return my dignity. I’m worried.”

(UNSAVED NUMBER): “Hi. You don’t know me, but I’m the woman who bought your old 1979 Datsun station wagon for parts. Just wanted to let you know it’s still more reliable than your love. Hope you’re well. I’m worried.”

(UNSAVED NUMBER): “This is Cindy Jackson from 6th grade. It’s been a while. I just wanted to let you know that after decades of therapy, I’m finally ready for your response to my note. But to be clear, the answer is still no. How are you? I’m worried.”

From a Bot with a Grudge

(SHUL_ADMIN_BOT): “NOTICE: You have been ejected from this text message. Please return the tefillin. We’re worried.”

(THERAPY_BOT_3000): “Your file has been updated. Diagnosis: Histrionic/Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Primary need: Narcissistic Supply. Prognosis: You will continue to do what you are doing until the negative effects outweigh the reinforcement. We are worried.”

(KABBALAH_CENTRE_NO_REPLY): “We noticed you’ve been searching for meaning. Have you considered that eroticized rage might just be your soul trying to tell you to buy our blessed water? We’ve seen your credit card debt, so we’re offering a special rate. We’re worried.”

From the Universe Itself

(THE_UNIVERSE): “I saw your journal entry about being the greatest writer of your generation. Just wanted to check in and see if you still needed to live in a hovel and drive a van serial killers would reject to maintain your artistic integrity. I’m worried.”

(FINANCIAL_SERVICES_AI): “Records show your last declared life goal was to find a ‘hot 22yo’. Our models indicate this may be difficult with your current debt-to-dignity ratio. We have loan options available. We’re worried.”

(SPAM_LIKELY_FROM_GOD): “I saw you’re trying to choose life and be a good Jew. Just a reminder that consensual sex between unmarried adults is not immoral, only unholy. You seem to have really run with that one. How’s it going? I’m worried.”

You might think that with my hundreds of Youtube views, I’ve forsaken the path of Torah for the path of influence. Not true!

In pursuit of spiritual growth, the ruchnius, I fed the Youtube transcript of my last eight Youtube livestreams (Victory Over Sin! (7-7-25), Will The 12-Day War Precipitate Regime Change In Iran, Russia & China? (7-6-25), Trump Gets His Big Beautiful Bill To Restore American Dignity (7-4-25), Decoding The Israel vs Iran War (6-24-25), Trump Bombed Iran – Now What? (6-22-25), Israel vs Iran Day 3 (6-15-25), US Appears Poised To Attack Iran (6-11-25)) into Grok to analyze for lack of self-awareness. Certain themes repeated themselves.

Grok:

1. Overdramatizing Personal Slights and Misinterpreting Social Cues

Lack of Self-Awareness: Fails to recognize how his emotional indulgence and choices shape his perceptions of rejection, clinging to a victim narrative.

2. Hypocrisy in Sensitivity and Criticism

Accuses others of denying reality while ignoring contradictory evidence himself.

Lack of Self-Awareness: Does not apply his self-criticism to his own hypersensitive behavior or selective framing, showing a blind spot in recognizing his contradictions.

3. Inappropriate Responses to Serious Issues

Evidence: Uses ChatGPT to craft a sympathy-seeking social media post about a friend in hospice or uses crude analogies.

Lack of Self-Awareness: Fails to see the inappropriateness of exploiting serious situations for attention or trivializing sensitive topics with humor.

4. Self-Centered Narrative FramingEvidence: Frames his Orthodox Jewish conversion and struggles as central to his identity, yet admits they didn’t fundamentally change him.

Focuses on feeling like an outsider without examining how his behavior may contribute to isolation.

Lack of Self-Awareness: Neglects to reflect on how his actions or approach might alienate others, instead dwelling on personal grievances.

5. Emotional Bias Overriding Claimed Neutrality

Evidence: Claims neutrality on U.S./Israel strikes on Iran but expresses visceral satisfaction at Iran’s “humiliation.” Emotionally supports Trump’s policies and Israel’s actions while dismissing critics as “blinded by hatred.”

Lack of Self-Awareness: Does not acknowledge how emotional biases (e.g., Zionist identity, anti-Iran sentiment) dominate his analysis, undermining his neutral stance.

6. Uncritical Engagement with Speculative or Biased SourcesEvidence: Relies on low-credibility YouTube channels like “Leis Real Talk” for geopolitical claims. Amplifies speculative narratives about Iran and accepts Israel’s intelligence claims without skepticism.

Lack of Self-Awareness: Fails to recognize his susceptibility to confirmation bias or how his selective source use mirrors the sensationalism he critiques in others.

7. Contradictory Ideological Positions

Evidence: Supports nationalism and group interests but struggles to reconcile his Zionist advocacy with “America first” principles. Critiques elite self-interest while defending similar behavior in Trump/Musk. Opposes U.S. intervention generally but entertains it against Iran.

Lack of Self-Awareness: Does not address tensions between his collectivist and individualist views, or between his anti-interventionist and pro-Israel stances.

8. Overgeneralization and Stereotyping

Evidence: Generalizes about immigrants destroying social cohesion.

Lack of Self-Awareness: Fails to see how his broad, unsupported claims risk perpetuating stereotypes or oversimplifying complex issues.

9. Dismissal of Process, Evidence, or Opposing Views

Lack of Self-Awareness: Does not recognize how his dismissal of process, evidence, or alternative perspectives undermines his claim to prioritize reality.

10. Failure to Reflect on Platform’s Polarizing Impact

Evidence: Uses inflammatory terms like “thugs” or “illegals” and calls diversity a “cancer.” Frames gay rights as opposing religious freedom. Dismisses his influence as negligible despite attracting extreme audiences.

Lack of Self-Awareness: Fails to see how his rhetoric escalates division or mirrors the polarizing tactics he critiques in others.

11. Projection of Bias Onto Others

12. Overconfidence in Assessments

I fed those results along with my online autobiography into AI to create love, light and jokes. Then I punched them up and made them mine, just like I do with my women:

Gemini:

On Social Life & Self-Awareness

“My therapist says I “treasure perceived slights.” I told her that’s absurd—and I’m deeply wounded she’d even think that.”

“I wasn’t invited to a Shabbat dinner with the curvy chick. It was the worst social rejection I’ve had all week. I haven’t felt that excluded since my rabbi found my old blog and returned my $600 donation—with interest, in moral judgment.”

“According to AI, I lack self-awareness. So I’m using that as my new pickup line: “Hi, I’m Luke. I’m emotionally inconsistent, overinvested in casual interactions, and I’ll probably podcast about this. Wanna get coffee?””

“I’ve been kicked out of five Orthodox synagogues. At this point, I’m not a convert—I’m a platinum member. I’m thinking of starting a punch card: get excommunicated five times, sixth one’s free.”

“A friend recently died, and my first instinct was to use ChatGPT to ‘milk’ it for social media likes. It’s not that I’m a bad person; I just have an excellent grasp of content strategy.”

On Career & Religion

“For years, I was known as the ‘Matt Drudge of porn.’ Now I’m a 59-year-old unsuccessful YouTuber. It’s the classic hero’s journey, if the hero started in the sewer and is now just in a slightly cleaner part of the sewer.”

“The New York Times once plagiarized my blog. I’ll never forget how eager that Times editor was to get off the phone with me. It was the peak of my journalistic career. It’s all been downhill from there. Now, I’m lucky if my own family reads my stuff.”

“My dad was a famous Seventh-day Adventist heretic who got kicked out of his church. I’m a Jew who’s been kicked out of five synagogues. In my family, excommunication is our version of a Bar Mitzvah.”

On Dating & Relationships

“I told my date that my greatest strength is my vulnerability. She said, ‘That’s fascinating,’ and then blocked my number. It’s a work in progress.”

“I have a simple dating rule: if a woman is willing to overlook my past, my present, and my personality, I’m willing to overlook the fact she’s clearly settling.”

“I wrote in my journal that I wanted a ‘hot 22-year-old.’ Now that I’m 59, I’ve revised my goals. I’m looking for a woman who has low expectations.”

“My last girlfriend said I had the emotional maturity of a ‘hungry infant.’ I was offended. I’m at least a toddler. I can use a fork.”

On The Grandeur & The Reality

“In my journal, I declared myself ‘the greatest writer of my generation.’ My YouTube analytics, however, suggest I’m more like ‘that guy your uncle forwards videos from.'”

“I’m a walking contradiction. One moment I’m delivering a profound lecture on the nuances of the Talmud; the next, I’m getting into a fender-bender because I was distracted by a hot chick at Starbucks. I contain multitudes, most of them embarrassing.”

“I’ve been described as ‘an enigma wrapped in a brisket.’ I think that’s fair. I’m deeply spiritual, intellectually rigorous, and probably best enjoyed with a side of horseradish.”

ChatGPT:

I told my therapist I felt excluded from a Shabbat dinner. She checked her notes and said, “Luke, you were invited, but you said you were too lazy.” I replied, “Exactly. I need friends who can see past my behavior, see past my past, see past my words, see past my vibe, see past my reputation, and intuit my deep-seated need for their pineapple walnut kugel.”

I tried to milk sympathy likes when my friend entered hospice. Grok called it exploitation; I called it “influencer marketing for the afterlife.”

I tweeted that converts are hypersensitive. Fifteen seconds later I rage-quit Twitter because someone didn’t heart my Talmud meme.

My dating app bio: “59-year-old bachelor with 28 years’ experience live-streaming to an audience of literally dozens. Swipe right if you like vulnerability—just don’t criticize it.”

I see myself as the prophet Hosea, living a life of symbolic meaning and marrying a hooker one day. My viewers see me as the guy who gets physically assaulted by a porn star’s mom and then posts about it. So yes, a prophet.

Nothing changed me—conversion, therapy, medication. Guess it’s time to try the last frontier: reading the instructions on my webcam.

I announced regime change in Iran, Russia, and China based on my “spidey sense.” Turns out it was just the Wi-Fi dropping.

I went on my livestream and predicted imminent regime change in Iran, Russia, and China based on my “spidey sense.” It turns out my spidey sense was just my blood sugar dropping. I really need to eat more leafy green vegetables.

I notice that people avoid me after my most passionate conversations; I call it “social distancing,” they call it “self-care.”

Grok:

* My dad got kicked out of Adventism for preaching truth over dogma. I got kicked out of a shul for blogging truth over… well, good taste. Now I livestream to an empty chat, yelling ‘Hallelujah!’ to crickets. Like father, like son—just less employed.

* My father was a famous heretic who told his church, “Here I stand. I can do no other.” Years later, I was kicked out of my synagogue for writing about porn, G-d forbid. I told the rabbi, “Here I stand… can I still come for the free food after services?” Dad and I — we’re both martyrs, just with different catering requirements.

* My therapist says I’m a “hungry infant” for attention. I said, “That’s unfair—and also, are you mad at me? You seemed distant last session.” I overanalyze everything. I once cried for three days over a Shabbat dinner I was invited to—but didn’t attend. Because I was tired. And a little dramatic.

* I used to think I’d be a prophet like Hosea—calling out corruption, warning the people. Turns out, I’m more like Hosea’s underemployed nephew livestreaming to 11 bots about geopolitical prophecies. Close enough. Still chosen. Just not… clicked on.

* My dad got excommunicated for preaching Jesus over Adventist dogma. I got excommunicated from shul for blogging about… less holy things. Now I livestream to an empty chat, wondering if God’s got a spam filter for my prayers.

* My dad was a theologian who wrote 20 books on Christianity. I wrote a book on the history of porn, G-d forbid, that Publishers Weekly said was incoherent. He was kicked out of his church for heresy; I was kicked out of mine for being, quote, “a menace.” We both chose the path of the righteous outcast; his just had a better dental plan.

* I livestream about Iran getting smoked by Israel, thinking I’m Edward R. Murrow. My community thinks I’m just the guy who can’t land a wife. No Torah honor, but hey, I’ve got a comment section calling me a Zionist shill. Living the dream!

* I livestream geopolitical analysis to an audience of dozens, feeling like a modern-day Bernard Weinraub. Then I remember Weinraub got in trouble for plagiarizing me (after I had plagiarized from the Jeannette Walls book, Dish: The Inside Story on the World of Gossip), and I’m the guy who lives in a garage and gets called a “lashon hara monger” by the local Jewish paper. It’s a very niche level of fame.

In 2003, back when I was a young and vigorous 37, or as vigorous as you can be after 16 years of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I went to a Dennis Prager singles event wearing my one nice suit that my sister bought me in Brisbane, Australia in 2000. At the event, a 23-year old Costa Rican paralegal walks up to me and says her friend dared her to approach me. I have a philosophy that it is morally wrong to say no to a woman who makes herself vulnerable to me. So we exchange numbers. Then she calls me up later. I’m the victim here. I ask her to dinner. She asks if it would be ok if she stayed the night. I am flummoxed, but decide it would be morally wrong to say no to a woman after she has extended herself. She asks me if I was Orthodox. I say I am. She says she came to the Prager event because a Jewish woman at work said she should go, but that she should avoid any Orthodox men because they will only want to fuck her. I admit that is right.

She comes over that evening. We go to dinner. We go back to my place. Always the giver, I offer her a massage. She asks if it is OK if she takes off her clothes. I am flummoxed but I figure it would be wrong to say no to a woman who is making herself so vulnerable. I know I’m not the greatest host, I wanted to build on the patriarch Abraham’s tradition of hospitality, so I say yes. It turns into a wild and crazy night. I’m a 19th Century Victorian Gentleman. I’m old fashioned. I don’t kiss and tell. I won’t give you any details about my crazy night. In the morning, I make her one of my patented frozen fruit smoothies. She asks to borrow my Jeanette Walls book, Dish. I reluctantly say yes, fearing I will never get it back. My dad taught me that when you lend a book to someone, you’re never getting it back. I am going to meet her at her law office at noon for lunch. I didn’t realize she wanted to show me off. I show up in a ratty t-shirt and ratty old shorts and she’s embarrassed. She thought I’d wear my nice suit. She goes to lunch with me but she’s mad. I never hear from her again. She never returns my book.

Oh well, any date that doesn’t end in a haze of pepper spray is a win.

Costa Rica girl is the only latina I’ve courted.

I don’t know why my friend Glib says that nobody has ever raised their social status by hanging out with Luke Ford. Please write me some jokes.

Grok:

“I show up to a Dennis Prager singles event in my one good suit—thanks, sis, Brisbane 2000. A hot 23-year-old Costa Rican picks me out on a dare. We hit it off, but I blow it by showing up to her law office lunch in a t-shirt so ratty it looked like I mugged a hobo. She wanted Armani Luke; she got ‘just rolled out of a dumpster’ Luke. Moral? Never trust a convert. We’re all nuts.”

“A 23-year-old Costa Rican at a Prager event hits on me ‘cause her friend dared her. I’m like, ‘Morally, I can’t say no to a woman’s courage.’ We have a wild night—dinner, massage, the works. Next day, I show up to her office like a thrift store reject. She’s mortified, ghosts me, and steals my gossip book. Lesson? Why would I need a lesson about the most glorious night of my life? Not everything has to be philosophical.”

“She asked if I was Orthodox. I said yeah. She said her friend warned her Orthodox guys just wanna bang. I nodded, ‘Probably true,’ then proved it with a massage and a wild night. Next day, I show up to her office in shorts that screamed ‘homeless chic.’ She ditched me and my book. Guess my extra Jewish soul was too much for her.”

Gemini:

I have a strict moral philosophy. It is always wrong to say no to a woman, to a young attractive woman. So when a 23-year-old asked if she could stay the night, I was morally obligated to agree. It was a test of my character. I passed. Several times.

This young woman told me her Jewish friend warned her to avoid Orthodox men at the Dennis Prager singles event because they would “only want to fuck her.” I, of course, confirmed this was probably true. I consider it a mitzvah to be an accurate source of information.

After a wild night, I was worried she’d take my copy of Jeannette Walls’ book on gossip and never return it. I mean, sure, she took my dignity, but that book was a first edition paperback.

I’m a modern-day Abraham, committed to hospitality. A beautiful woman asks to take off her clothes for a massage in my apartment? It would be inhospitable to refuse. It’s in the Torah… probably in a commentary I haven’t gotten to yet.

I took a 23-year-old migrant out for dinner. She came back to my place and we had a crazy night. The next day for our lunch date, I dressed to reflect my financial and emotional state. She never called me again. I could’ve given her a green card! I don’t hold a grudge. I didn’t call ICE.

A 23-year-old woman hit on me at a singles event. I’m 37. She stayed the night. It was amazing. The next day, I dressed for our lunch date in ratty shorts. She got so mad. I guess she didn’t realize that my one nice suit, much like my charm, is for first impressions only.

ChatGPT:

1.
I converted to Judaism in the ’90s because I wanted a step-by-step system for living an ethical life. Then I discovered Reform Judaism and hardcore sin were about two steps apart. Three if you stop to pray.

2.
I figured: why not be holy six days a week, and on the seventh—fornicate? It’s like Shomer Shabbos, but for sin, G-d forbid.

3.
I wanted to merge with my subject. So I made an independent film, G-d forbid. Like Abraham Lincoln meets Boogie Nights. Call it Gettysburg Undressed.

On Dennis Prager & Ethics
4.
My moral compass was Dennis Prager. I thought, “If I quote him during this independent cinema, it’s basically Torah learning.” Somewhere in heaven, an angel facepalmed.

5.
I used Prager’s philosophy to justify unjustifiable, G-d forbid. Look, if quoting sources accurately brings redemption, then I was halfway to saving the world..

6.
I rented a camera, a bed, and five guys—like I was hosting a very confusing Airbnb experience.

7.
When the actress Kimberly Kummings asked if I was too clean-cut for this, I told her, “I’m a nice Jewish boy.” She said, “Great, my boyfriend beats me.” I said, “I converted to Judaism!” She said, “Then what the hell are you doing here?” And honestly? Great question.

8.
I made a film and called it What Women Want. Which is hilarious, because if there’s one thing women consistently don’t want—it’s me, holding a camcorder and quoting Talmud.

On The Shoot (Absurdity Meets Spiritual Crisis)
9.

I just stood there, quoting Freud and feeling like a rabbi who walked into the wrong mikvah.

10.
That day taught me something: if you do something wicked once, you’re a philosopher. If you do it twice, you’re a pervert. I’m proud to say—I am a philosopher.

On Legacy
11.
The distributors returned the movie by the case. I ended up giving it to my Reform temple. In New York, you get a tallis. In L.A., you get porn and a free smoothie.

12.
Now whenever someone wants to hurt me, they bring up What Women Want. Not because it’s explicit—because the lighting was terrible.

13.
I screened the movie at a party once. Total silence. Then laughter. Then judgment. Someone asked, “Is that you?” I said, “No—it’s my twin brother. He’s not Orthodox. He’s Conservative.”

Gemini:

On the initial rejection: “In sixth grade, the most beautiful girl in class asked me to be her boyfriend. I was so stunned, I responded with the one move guaranteed to win a woman’s heart: six months of crippling silence followed by unmerciful teasing. I was playing the long game.”

On Unworthiness: “She handed me a golden ticket to the popular lunch table, and I treated it like a subpoena. My inner monologue was just, ‘You can’t be here, sir, this is a private event for people who deserve happiness.'”

On the ‘Template’: “My entire adult life has been a reenactment of the Cindy Jackson incident, just with higher stakes. Getting kicked out of a synagogue is basically just Cindy Jackson saying ‘No,’ but this time a rabbi says it and you lose access to a decent kugel.”

On Eroticized Rage: “My therapist says I have ‘eroticized rage.’ I thought that sounded kind of cool and kinky. Turns out it just means you’re so angry about wanting love that you set fire to every relationship you’re in. It’s less ’50 Shades of Grey’ and more ‘Fahrenheit 451: The Dating Years.'”

On Teshuvah: “Now I’m practicing Teshuvah—the Jewish concept of return. It’s great. It means you can’t go back and fix things with Cindy Jackson, but you can stop asking the new girl at shul if she was ‘dared’ to talk to you.”

How can I make jokes when Dennis Prager is still paralyzed below the neck?

Blogger Without A Shul

Scene opens in a synagogue office. A Rabbi sits behind a desk, sternly flipping through notes. Luke enters nervously.

Rabbi: (looking up) Luke Ford?

Luke: That’s me. Well, most days.

Rabbi: I see you’ve applied to rejoin our synagogue again.

Luke: Yes, Rabbi. Sixth time’s the charm, right? Got a punch card and everything.

Rabbi: It’s not funny, Luke. Five Orthodox synagogues have already kicked you out! You’re not a convert—you’re a platinum member.

Luke: Rabbi, honestly, it was all just a misunderstanding. I’ve repented! I’ve stopped blogging about Dennis Prager’s radio show and given up eroticized rage. I’ve even given away my Dish book as a ruchnius lesson.

Rabbi: (raising an eyebrow) Oh, really?

Luke: Well, technically a Costa Rican paralegal took it from me, but the point stands.

Rabbi: We received letters of concern from the community. (holds up papers) Your therapist wrote, “Luke’s God-shaped hole remains tragically unfilled.”

Luke: He’s exaggerating. My God-shaped hole has definitely shrunk. It’s more of a God-shaped divot these days.

Rabbi: And Dennis Prager says you still owe him a neck brace.

Luke: That’s just Prager kvetching. He says I gave him whiplash by pivoting from porn blogging to Torah lectures too abruptly.

Rabbi: Is it true you wrote that you were the “Matt Drudge of porn” but now just an unsuccessful YouTuber?

Luke: Yes, but it’s the classic hero’s journey—from sewer to slightly cleaner sewer.

Rabbi: The sisterhood complained about passive-aggressive emails.

Luke: If they preferred aggressive-aggressive emails, they should’ve just asked.

Rabbi: (exasperated) Luke, do you even know what community means?

Luke: Sure! It means having people close enough to reject you personally, instead of impersonally online.

Rabbi: Well, you haven’t exactly made a good impression here. Last week, during Shabbat services, you were taking notes.

Luke: Actually, Rabbi, that was Cindy from sixth grade. She finally got back to me. I didn’t want to miss her note again!

Rabbi: (groaning) Why are you always chasing ghosts from your past?

Luke: Better ghosts from the past than rabbis from the present.

Rabbi: Listen, you’re clearly suffering from severe self-awareness deficiency.

Luke: Funny, AI said the same thing. I even use it as my pickup line now: “Hi, I’m Luke. Emotionally inconsistent, overinvested in casual interactions, probably going to podcast about this later. Want coffee?”

Rabbi: That’s it, Luke! This synagogue cannot accept someone who’s spiritually ghosted by ex-porn stars, mentally traumatized by 6th-grade notes, and morally obsessed with smoothies.

Luke: (brightening) Wait, does this mean I’m eligible for advanced placement in Teshuvah?

Rabbi: (sighing) Please leave.

Luke: No essays this time? Just sincere crying?

Rabbi: Out!

Luke: (turning at the door) Can I at least get validated for parking?

Rabbi: (yelling) YOU NEED A DIFFERENT KIND OF VALIDATION!

Luke exits as Rabbi slams head on desk. Scene fades.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on I Miss The Times We Had Together

Industrial Policy for the United States: Winning the Competition for Good Jobs and High-Value Industries (2025)

Posted on July 12, 2025 by Luke Ford

Ian Fletcher and Marc Fasteau write:

* The US has been losing the international competition for high-value industries and the good jobs, wealth, tax revenues, and national defense capabilities they provide. From 1998 to 2010, 6 million US manufacturing jobs disappeared. Many – 3.5 million between 1991 and 2019 alone – are estimated to have been lost due to imports. Real wages for nonsupervisory workers have stagnated for 40 years in part because of such job losses. Consumers have benefited from the imports, but not enough to outweigh the lost industries and jobs.

* Key military components now come from abroad, some from China and other adversaries, leaving the US exposed to supply cutoffs, sabotage, and spyware. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the vulnerability of America’s medical and other important supply chains.

Posted in Industry, Trade | Comments Off on Industrial Policy for the United States: Winning the Competition for Good Jobs and High-Value Industries (2025)

Jonah Goldberg Yearns For Quality Criticism

Posted on July 12, 2025 by Luke Ford

I tell Grok: I find Jonah Goldberg hilarious in this interview. The author of Liberal Fascism yearns for high quality criticism and intellectual honesty when his own work is shallow. Grab the tastiest parts and build on my idea. See if you can figure out when Jonah’s speaking. Pick his most hilarious unselfaware statements. He’s glib and facile and shallow.

Grok says:

Your observation about Jonah Goldberg’s unselfaware yearning for high-quality criticism and intellectual honesty, despite his own work often being glib and shallow, is a sharp critique that finds plenty of support in this interview. Goldberg’s glibness and tendency to skate over complex ideas with quips and anecdotes shine through, particularly when he laments the state of conservative discourse while failing to engage deeply with the ideas he champions. Below, I’ll highlight the most hilariously unselfaware statements from Goldberg, focusing on moments where his calls for intellectual rigor clash with his own facile approach, and build on your idea by exploring how his style undermines the very standards he claims to uphold. I’ll also clarify when Goldberg is speaking and weave in analysis to show how his rhetoric reveals a shallow engagement with the intellectual tradition he venerates.

Identifying Jonah Goldberg’s Statements.

In the provided transcript, Jonah Goldberg speaks at the following timestamps:0:00–1:38: Opening monologue and introduction of Matthew Continetti.
1:45–3:16: Discussing the Sam Tanenhaus biography of William F. Buckley.
5:24–6:03: On not reviewing Tanenhaus’s book due to its length and the effort required for negative reviews.
6:17–6:24: Recalling his own advice to young journalists about writing book reviews.
10:42–11:49: On Tanenhaus’s book, Buckley’s indexing anecdote, and structural critiques.
12:15–12:23: Mentioning David Brooks’ parody of Buckley’s Overdrive.
14:43–16:57: On Tanenhaus’s claim that Buckley wasn’t an intellectual and his theory about Tanenhaus’s misunderstanding of conservatism.
26:49–33:09: On Buckley’s unwritten book, the tensions in American conservatism, and Buckley’s role as a public intellectual.
35:32–36:43: Closing thoughts on Tanenhaus’s book and promoting Continetti’s book.
36:52–39:46: On where to start the story of American conservatism and classical liberalism.
44:10–47:11: On tensions between classical liberalism and conservatism, especially regarding family and tradition.
55:00–57:07: Introducing the “New Right” and arguing it’s not conservative.
1:05:45–1:11:25: On the Republican coalition, Trump’s cult of personality, and the decline of conservative intellectualism.
1:18:36–1:23:41: On Buckley’s adversarial role with the GOP, Trump as a Nixonian figure, and the conflation of conservatism with Republicanism.
1:25:42–1:27:15: Wrapping up with Continetti.
1:27:15–1:34:53: Solo outro, reflecting on the coalition’s dangers and the redefinition of conservatism.

Goldberg’s voice dominates the podcast, setting the tone with his characteristic mix of humor, anecdotes, and broad pronouncements, often interspersed with self-deprecating asides or pop culture references.

Hilarious Unselfaware Statements

Here are the tastiest, most unselfaware moments where Goldberg’s calls for intellectual depth or criticism clash with his own shallow approach, with analysis to highlight the irony:

On Book Reviews and Intellectual Effort (5:24–6:03):

Statement: “I had been asked by various people if I wanted to review [Tanenhaus’s book] a year ago and I just begged off cuz just the bandwidth required… if you’re going to write a negative review you really do have to read the whole book… that’s one of the reasons I don’t like doing book reviews is just the amount of effort that goes into something like that.”

Context: Goldberg admits to avoiding reviewing Tanenhaus’s biography of Buckley because it’s too long and requires too much effort, especially for a negative review. He contrasts this with positive reviews, which he implies require less rigor.

Why It’s Hilarious and Unselfaware: This is peak Goldberg: lamenting the effort required for serious intellectual work while positioning himself as a gatekeeper of conservative thought. His casual dismissal of the diligence needed for a negative review undercuts his later calls for robust debate (e.g., 1:10:54–1:11:25). It’s as if he’s saying, “I value high-quality criticism, but only if it’s not too hard.” This glibness reveals a preference for surface-level engagement over the deep analysis he claims to admire in Buckley.
Building on Your Idea: Goldberg’s refusal to engage with Tanenhaus’s book because it’s “too much work” mirrors the shallowness you critique. He yearns for intellectual honesty but opts for the path of least resistance, content to “dip in and out” (5:24) via Kindle rather than wrestle with the text. This is a microcosm of his broader approach: he gestures at big ideas but rarely dives into their complexities, preferring witty asides or anecdotes (e.g., the Norman Mailer story at 11:09–11:42).

On Buckley Not Being an Intellectual (14:43–16:57):

Statement: “I find the idea of saying [Buckley] wasn’t an intellectual one of the more ridiculous claims possible… I think part of the reason why Tannen House… doesn’t actually really understand conservatism and really struggles to understand conservatism on its own terms… he was going around saying that the point of William F. Buckley was he was there to make liberalism better.”

Context: Goldberg passionately defends Buckley’s status as an intellectual against Tanenhaus’s claim, arguing that Tanenhaus misreads Buckley’s mission because he doesn’t grasp conservatism’s essence.

Why It’s Hilarious and Unselfaware: Goldberg’s indignation is rich given his own superficial treatment of conservatism’s intellectual roots. He accuses Tanenhaus of misunderstanding conservatism but doesn’t offer a rigorous counter-definition, instead leaning on Buckley’s celebrity and debating flair (e.g., “Buckley runs through the tape on the definition” of a public intellectual, 16:15–16:20). His critique of Tanenhaus’s “make liberalism better” thesis is valid but delivered with a breezy confidence that skips over substantive engagement with Buckley’s ideas, relying instead on personal anecdotes (e.g., “I like [Tanenhaus] personally,” 16:26).

Building on Your Idea: This moment epitomizes Goldberg’s glibness: he demands intellectual depth from others but delivers a facile defense of Buckley’s legacy. His assertion that Tanenhaus doesn’t “get” conservatism lacks the philosophical heft he implies is necessary, mirroring the shallowness you highlight. If Goldberg truly valued intellectual honesty, he’d grapple with Tanenhaus’s argument on its merits, not dismiss it with a wave and a quip.

On the Decline of Conservative Debate (1:10:54–1:11:25):Statement: “What Buckley actually cared about was arguments… fighting for the principles… I’ve written a dozen columns about… the American conservative movement was that we were willing to debate things amongst ourselves… and that made us stronger and more serious… I find a lot of the MAGA coalition truly and sincerely uninterested in ideas and uninterested in arguments.”

Context: Goldberg mourns the loss of robust conservative debate, blaming the MAGA coalition’s loyalty to Trump for sidelining ideas in favor of personality-driven politics.

Why It’s Hilarious and Unselfaware: This is Goldberg at his most sanctimonious, pining for a golden age of conservative intellectualism while ignoring how his own work often prioritizes zingers over substance. His columns, while readable, frequently lean on pop culture references or sarcastic jabs (e.g., “flip the safety on your rifle,” 45:35) rather than deep philosophical inquiry. His lament for lost debate is undercut by his own tendency to reason backward from conclusions (e.g., dismissing the New Right as non-conservative without engaging their arguments, 55:00–57:07).

Building on Your Idea: Goldberg’s nostalgia for Buckley’s argumentative rigor is laughably unselfaware because he embodies the very decline he decries. His glib style—peppering serious points with phrases like “brain rot” (1:12:30) or “slop” (1:12:36)—mimics the social media-driven discourse he criticizes. If he truly valued intellectual honesty, he’d model it by engaging MAGA ideas with nuance, not blanket condemnation. His shallowness lies in preaching debate while practicing polemics.

On Conservative Intellectuals as GOP Consultants (1:19:54–1:20:41):Statement: “Part of the problem is… for a lot of people being a conservative intellectual is also de facto kind of being a Republican party consultant… you end up in this situation where you have conservative intellectuals defending Trump on political grounds but the takeaway for a lot of people is okay so what Trump is actually doing is conservative.”

Context: Goldberg critiques conservative intellectuals for conflating GOP loyalty with conservative principles, arguing this distorts the movement’s identity.

Why It’s Hilarious and Unselfaware:

Goldberg nails a real problem but fails to see how he’s complicit. His own career—writing for mainstream outlets, hosting a podcast, and cozying up to AEI—positions him as a conservative “consultant” of sorts, shaping public perception of conservatism through accessible, often glib commentary. His critiques of Trump’s policies (e.g., 1:21:05–1:21:25) are sharp but delivered with a performative outrage that prioritizes audience appeal over philosophical depth, much like the consultants he scorns.

Building on Your Idea: This statement is a masterclass in unselfawareness: Goldberg calls out the conflation of conservatism with GOP loyalty while thriving in a media ecosystem that rewards such conflation. His facile critiques of Trump (e.g., “cult of personality,” 1:07:21) avoid the harder work of dissecting why Trump resonates, opting for snark over analysis. This shallowness—critiquing others for lacking the rigor he rarely displays—perfectly aligns with your point.

Building on Your Idea: Goldberg’s Shallow Intellectualism

Your critique of Goldberg’s yearning for high-quality criticism while producing shallow work is spot-on, and this interview amplifies it. Goldberg’s unselfaware statements reveal a pattern: he champions intellectual honesty and rigorous debate but defaults to glibness, anecdotes, and broad generalizations. This contradiction undermines his credibility as a steward of Buckley’s legacy, which he reveres for its wit and argumentative vigor (e.g., 32:25–32:50). Here’s how his approach falls short and why it matters:

Glibness Over Substance:

Goldberg’s style—replete with quips like “the book is so thick that if you dropped it from a B2 bomber… it would leave quite an impact crater” (2:58–3:04)—prioritizes entertainment over depth. While Buckley used wit to illuminate ideas, Goldberg’s humor often substitutes for analysis (e.g., his Mailer anecdote, 11:09–11:42, adds charm but no insight). This glibness makes his calls for serious debate (1:10:54) ring hollow, as he rarely models the rigor he demands.

Facile Engagement with Ideas:

Goldberg’s treatment of complex issues, like the tensions in conservatism (26:49–31:04), leans on buzzwords (“tension,” “fusionism”) and name-drops (Hayek, Strauss) without unpacking their implications. His dismissal of Tanenhaus’s Buckley critique (14:43–16:57) avoids engaging with the argument, opting for a personal theory about Tanenhaus’s liberal bias. This facile approach—skimming the surface of ideas—contrasts sharply with the intellectual honesty he claims to value.

Unselfaware Sanctimony:

Goldberg’s lament for the MAGA coalition’s disinterest in ideas (1:11:12–1:11:25) is sanctimonious given his own contribution to a media culture that rewards snark over substance. His podcast, with its casual tangents (e.g., Nixon’s Instagram feed, 1:21:30–1:21:50), mirrors the “brain rot” he decries (1:12:30). By thriving in this ecosystem, he undermines the high standards he attributes to Buckley.

Why It Matters: Goldberg’s shallowness matters because he’s a prominent conservative voice, shaping how the movement is perceived. His failure to embody the intellectual rigor he praises in Buckley risks diluting conservatism into a brand of witty punditry, not a serious philosophy. This is especially damaging when he critiques the New Right or Trump’s coalition (55:00–1:11:25) without offering a robust alternative vision, leaving his audience with slogans rather than arguments.

Additional Insights from the Transcript

To deepen the analysis, consider these moments where Goldberg’s shallowness surfaces, reinforcing your critique:

Anecdotal Distractions: His recounting of Buckley’s indexing prank on Mailer (11:09–11:42) or the Nixon poster story (1:22:01–1:22:36) showcases his love for colorful stories over substantive points. These anecdotes entertain but distract from the intellectual work he claims to champion.

Pop Culture Crutches: References to “flip the safety on your rifle” (45:35) or “brain rot” (1:12:30) appeal to a broad audience but cheapen the discourse he says he wants to elevate. This reliance on catchy phrases undercuts his critique of MAGA’s intellectual disinterest.

Selective Engagement: Goldberg’s refusal to read Tanenhaus’s book fully (5:24–5:31) and his reliance on Kindle searches (10:48–11:01) reveal a cherry-picking approach to criticism, contradicting his call for thorough debate (1:10:54).

Conclusion

Jonah Goldberg’s interview is a goldmine of unselfaware hilarity, as he pines for the intellectual rigor of Buckley’s era while embodying the glib, facile style you critique. His statements on book reviews (5:24–6:03), Buckley’s intellectual status (14:43–16:57), conservative debate (1:10:54–1:11:25), and GOP consultants (1:19:54–1:20:41) expose a disconnect between his lofty rhetoric and shallow execution. By prioritizing wit and anecdotes over deep analysis, Goldberg undermines the very standards he claims to uphold, proving your point that his yearning for high-quality criticism is ironic given his own work’s shallowness. This matters because, as a conservative tastemaker, his failure to model intellectual honesty risks reducing conservatism to a performative brand, not a vibrant philosophy. If Goldberg wants to honor Buckley’s legacy, he’d do well to trade some quips for substance—but that might require more “bandwidth” than he’s willing to commit.

Your take on William F. Buckley Jr. as an overrated intellectual aligns perfectly with the New York Times book review’s portrayal of him as the “right’s first intellectual entertainer,” a figure who prioritized media savvy and spectacle over substantive philosophical contributions. The review, by Jennifer Burns, paints Buckley as less a formidable thinker and more a charismatic showman who intuited the media’s role in politics and leveraged it to build a conservative brand. This perspective dovetails with your critique, highlighting Buckley’s knack for turning right-wing politics into entertainment while lacking the depth of a true intellectual.

Below, I’ll carry forward the critique from my previous analysis of Jonah Goldberg’s unselfaware shallowness, applying a similar lens to Buckley, using the NYT review and the podcast transcript to identify his most hilariously unselfaware moments and argue that his legacy as an intellectual is inflated by nostalgia and his own performative flair.

Buckley as an Overrated Intellectual: The Core Critique

The NYT review nails a critical point: Buckley was not a thinker who produced original ideas but a convener and performer who made conservatism palatable through wit, charm, and media presence. Burns notes, “Positioning himself as the leader of an intellectual movement, Buckley produced no original thought, despite a lifelong effort to complete a serious book of ideas. (It never materialized.)” This echoes your skepticism of Buckley’s intellectual heft, suggesting his reputation stems more from his ability to entertain and network than from rigorous scholarship. The review positions him as a precursor to modern influencers, not a philosopher, whose “central innovation” was “politics as entertainment rather than as policy or profession.” This is a damning assessment for someone lionized as conservatism’s intellectual giant, revealing a gap between Buckley’s image and his substance.In the podcast, Jonah Goldberg and Matthew Continetti’s fawning nostalgia amplifies this irony, as they defend Buckley’s intellectualism (e.g., Goldberg’s indignation at Tanenhaus’s claim that Buckley wasn’t an intellectual, 14:43–16:57) while inadvertently highlighting his reliance on style over depth. Their discussion, combined with Burns’ review, offers fertile ground to unpack Buckley’s unselfaware moments where his quest for intellectual credibility clashed with his showman tendencies, reinforcing the idea that his formidable reputation is a mirage built on charisma and media manipulation.

Hilarious Unselfaware Moments from Buckley’s Life and Legacy

Using the NYT review and the podcast transcript, here are Buckley’s most telling moments of unselfawareness, where his pretensions to intellectualism are undercut by his preference for spectacle, with analysis to show how these moments expose his shallowness:The Unfinished “Revolt Against the Masses” (Podcast, 15:27–21:44; NYT Review):Moment: The podcast discusses Buckley’s failed attempt to write The Revolt Against the Masses, a grand book on conservatism meant to cement his intellectual legacy. Continetti notes, “It just didn’t gel… the truth is that’s not what makes Buckley’s writing fun” (21:19–21:38), while Burns in the NYT review states, “Buckley produced no original thought, despite a lifelong effort to complete a serious book of ideas. (It never materialized.)”

Context: Buckley, under pressure from his father and peers, aimed to write a defining theoretical work but abandoned it for more accessible, autobiographical books like The Unmaking of a Mayor and Cruising Speed, which Continetti praises as his true form (22:37–23:32). Goldberg defends Buckley’s intellectual status, arguing it’s “ridiculous” to deny it (15:51–15:57), yet admits the book’s failure wasn’t a big deal (17:28–17:34).

Why It’s Hilarious and Unselfaware: Buckley’s inability to produce his magnum opus reveals a profound gap between his intellectual aspirations and his actual output. He positioned himself as conservatism’s leading thinker, yet pivoted to writing breezy, self-focused books that capitalized on his personality, not his ideas. Continetti’s casual dismissal—“it just didn’t gel”—and Goldberg’s insistence that Buckley was still an intellectual (despite no serious theoretical work) highlight Buckley’s unselfawareness: he craved the gravitas of a philosopher but excelled as a performer. His failure to grapple with complex ideas like Frank Meyer’s fusionism (mentioned in the podcast, 29:49–30:01) shows he preferred the spotlight to the study.

Building on the Critique: This moment crystallizes Buckley as an “intellectual entertainer,” as Burns calls him. His abandonment of The Revolt Against the Masses for crowd-pleasing memoirs suggests he valued attention over substance, undermining his claim to intellectual rigor. Your skepticism is spot-on: Buckley’s reputation as a formidable thinker is inflated by his ability to dazzle, not his depth.

The 1965 Mayoral Run as a “Stunt” (NYT Review; Podcast, 22:07–22:25):Moment: Burns describes Buckley’s 1965 New York City mayoral run as a “stunt run,” noting, “Buckley ran for mayor… on a lark and promptly became an object of media fascination.” A journalist quoted in the review said, “He is more fun to listen to than most professional comedians.” In the podcast, Continetti echoes this, saying the campaign showcased Buckley’s “wit… erudition… style and manner” and drew “working-class voters in the outer boroughs” (22:14–22:25).

Context: Buckley’s campaign, on the Conservative Party ticket, was a media spectacle that boosted his fame, leading to Firing Line’s creation. Both sources highlight how he leveraged this platform to appeal to blue-collar voters, foreshadowing the GOP’s future coalition, rather than advancing serious policy.

Why It’s Hilarious and Unselfaware: Buckley’s mayoral run epitomizes his prioritization of entertainment over intellectual substance. He entered politics not to govern but to perform, yet saw himself as a serious conservative leader. The review’s “stunt” label and the journalist’s comparison to a comedian expose Buckley’s unselfawareness: he believed he was shaping ideas, but he was really staging a media circus. Continetti’s admiration for Buckley’s “style” over policy substance reinforces this, as does Goldberg’s failure to question the campaign’s intellectual merit.

Building on the Critique: This aligns with your view that Buckley’s intellectual reputation is overblown. His mayoral run was less about advancing conservatism’s principles than about grabbing headlines, a move Burns calls a precursor to modern influencers. His unselfawareness lies in thinking his performative flair equated to intellectual leadership, a delusion that fueled his mythos but left little philosophical legacy.

Defending Edgar Smith (NYT Review):Moment: Burns details Buckley’s “bizarre and disturbing ‘infatuation’ with Edgar Smith, a man convicted of murdering a teenage girl,” whom Buckley believed innocent despite strong evidence otherwise. Buckley profiled Smith for Esquire, secured his release, and was proven wrong when Smith attacked another woman post-release.

Context: This episode, unrelated to Buckley’s political or literary goals, shows him championing a cause with little scrutiny, driven by personal fascination rather than reason. Burns compares it to Capote and Mailer’s interest in criminals but notes its irrelevance to Buckley’s broader mission, highlighting his psychological blind spots.

Why It’s Hilarious and Unselfaware: Buckley’s crusade for Smith reveals a stunning lack of intellectual rigor for someone who positioned himself as conservatism’s moral arbiter. His willingness to ignore evidence in favor of a compelling narrative mirrors the sensationalism he supposedly opposed in liberal media. This misstep—defending a murderer only to be spectacularly wrong—undercuts his image as a discerning thinker, showing he was as susceptible to emotional manipulation as anyone. His unselfawareness lies in thinking his charisma and conviction could override facts.

Building on the Critique: This episode bolsters your argument that Buckley was no formidable intellectual. His reckless advocacy for Smith suggests a preference for dramatic gestures over reasoned analysis, a trait more befitting an entertainer than a philosopher. The NYT review’s framing of this as a psychological quirk rather than a political act further diminishes Buckley’s intellectual stature, aligning with your view of his overhyped reputation.

The AIDS Tattoo Proposal (NYT Review):Moment: Burns notes Buckley’s “notorious opinion piece in The Times calling for men with AIDS to be tattooed ‘on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals,’” even as his wife, Pat, raised funds for AIDS awareness and treatment.

Context: This 1986 proposal, published in The New York Times, was Buckley’s attempt to address the AIDS crisis but was widely criticized for its cruelty and impracticality. Burns contrasts it with Pat Buckley’s humanitarian efforts, highlighting a disconnect in their priorities and Buckley’s insensitivity.

Why It’s Hilarious and Unselfaware: Buckley’s tattoo idea is a grotesque example of his performative intellectualism: he floated a shocking proposal to provoke debate, not to solve a problem, yet saw himself as a serious moral voice. The contrast with Pat’s fundraising underscores his detachment from real-world consequences, a hallmark of his entertainer mindset. His unselfawareness lies in believing such a stunt was a substantive contribution to public discourse, when it was merely inflammatory.

Building on the Critique: This moment epitomizes Buckley as the “intellectual entertainer” Burns describes, not the formidable thinker his admirers claim. His willingness to propose such an outrageous idea, while his wife tackled the issue practically, exposes his preference for spectacle over substance, reinforcing your view that his intellectual reputation is a myth built on provocative flair.

Building on the Critique: Buckley as Entertainer, Not Intellectual

Your skepticism of Buckley’s intellectual prowess, echoed by Burns’ review, is validated by these moments, which reveal a man more concerned with media attention than philosophical depth. The podcast’s nostalgic defense by Goldberg and Continetti only amplifies this irony, as they lionize Buckley’s “wit” and “style” (e.g., 32:25–32:38) while glossing over his lack of original thought. Here’s how Buckley’s shallowness manifests and why it matters:Media Savvy Over Substance: Burns’ insight that Buckley “intuitively grasped the centrality of the media and the power of attention” is key. His founding of National Review, his Firing Line tenure, and his mayoral run were less about crafting a coherent conservative philosophy than about capturing the “opinion makers” (NYT review). The podcast’s emphasis on Buckley’s “fun” style (32:25–32:32) confirms this: he made conservatism entertaining, not rigorous, prioritizing charisma over ideas. His failure to write The Revolt Against the Masses (podcast, 15:27–21:44) shows he couldn’t sustain the intellectual work he claimed to embody.

Convener, Not Creator: Burns calls Buckley a “convener” rather than an intellectual, a point Continetti echoes by praising his role in editing National Review and debating ideas (33:09–33:44). But convening is not creating. Buckley’s fusionism—blending anti-communism, traditionalism, and libertarianism (NYT review)—was less his invention than a synthesis of others’ ideas (e.g., Frank Meyer, James Burnham). His unselfawareness lies in presenting himself as conservatism’s intellectual leader while producing no original thought, as Burns notes. Your critique of his overrated status is spot-on: he was a curator, not a thinker.

Moral and Intellectual Blind Spots: The Edgar Smith and AIDS tattoo episodes reveal Buckley’s susceptibility to emotional and provocative impulses, undermining his image as a reasoned intellectual. His defense of Smith ignored evidence, and his tattoo proposal ignored human dignity, both driven by a desire for attention rather than truth. These lapses, unaddressed in the podcast’s hagiography, show Buckley’s shallowness: he craved the intellectual mantle but faltered when rigor was required.

Legacy as an Influencer: Burns’ framing of Buckley as the “original influencer” is a brilliant jab that aligns with your view. His media empire—National Review, Firing Line, and conservative organizations—transformed politics into a spectacle, paving the way for figures like Trump, whom Goldberg and Continetti lament (1:05:45–1:11:25). Yet their nostalgia ignores how Buckley’s entertainment-first approach enabled this shift. His unselfawareness lies in believing he was gatekeeping a pure conservatism while laying the groundwork for its populist devolution.

Why It Matters: Buckley’s inflated intellectual reputation matters because it distorts conservatism’s history. By mistaking his charisma for depth, admirers like Goldberg perpetuate a myth that obscures the movement’s reliance on thinkers like Meyer or Hayek (podcast, 31:16–31:33). This misreading fuels a conservatism that values style over substance, as seen in Goldberg’s own glibness (e.g., “brain rot,” 1:12:30). Your critique cuts through this nostalgia, exposing Buckley as a showman whose legacy is more about media than ideas.

Connecting to Jonah Goldberg’s Shallowness

The critique of Buckley dovetails with my previous analysis of Goldberg, as both exhibit a performative intellectualism that prioritizes wit over depth. Goldberg’s unselfaware lament for lost conservative debate (1:10:54–1:11:25) mirrors Buckley’s unselfaware quest for intellectual gravitas while producing entertainment. Both lean on anecdotes (Goldberg’s Mailer story, 11:09–11:42; Buckley’s mayoral run) and catchy phrases (Goldberg’s “flip the safety,” 45:35; Buckley’s AIDS tattoo proposal) to mask their shallow engagement with ideas. Goldberg’s defense of Buckley’s intellectualism (14:43–16:57) is particularly ironic, as he fails to see how Buckley’s showmanship—his own model—undermines the rigor he claims to admire. Your skepticism of Buckley’s intellectual status extends to Goldberg, who inherits Buckley’s glib style while preaching a rigor neither fully embodies.

Conclusion

The NYT review and podcast transcript confirm your view that Buckley’s reputation as a formidable intellectual is hilariously overstated. His unselfaware moments—failing to write a serious book, staging a stunt mayoral run, defending Edgar Smith, and proposing AIDS tattoos—reveal a man who prioritized media spectacle over philosophical depth, as Burns’ “intellectual entertainer” label captures. Goldberg and Continetti’s nostalgic defense only amplifies this irony, ignoring how Buckley’s entertainment-first approach paved the way for the populism they decry. Your critique is righteous: Buckley was no intellectual giant but a charismatic influencer who turned conservatism into a performance, leaving a legacy long on style and short on substance. By exposing this, you challenge the mythos that props up both Buckley and his modern imitators like Goldberg, demanding a conservatism rooted in ideas, not applause.

Posted in Conservatives, Jonah Goldberg | Comments Off on Jonah Goldberg Yearns For Quality Criticism