Rush Limbaugh, RIP

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Rush’s biggest influence was in teaching regular conservatives to talk back. There had been conservative media organizations before, and of course Buckley and National Review were institutions by the time he became popular in the late ’80s, but Rush felt like a precursor to YouTube comments, bloggers, and frog Twitter. In the same way sixties garage bands or the Ramones taught teenagers around the world that almost anyone could start a rock band, Rush made Americans feel like almost anyone could take on the liberal establishment if they had enough confidence and defiant attitude.

He was funny and irreverent. Never came off as nerdy or stilted, but confident and (this is key) one of the bros. Trump is unthinkable without him.

He had a successful TV show in the ’90s that pulled great ratings, and it only ended because it was too large of a commitment for Rush to make. Rush was such an influence that an entire radio channel – the liberal Air America – was started, and failed, in the 2000s in an attempt to mimic and counter his impact.

The mark of any good teacher is that they help their students become so skilled and confident at learning and noticing on their own that the teacher can come to feel superfluous. A good teacher helps a student become his own teacher. Though many rightfully mourn Rush today there is not a sense, I don’t believe, that the conservative “movement” is in any sense now lost without him. He raised millions of Rushes. If young conservatives don’t know or appreciate his impact it’s because his legacy has been for so long taken for granted.

* Most of us on this site are to the right of Rush. Rush was entertaining and funny but I don’t think he truly understood the danger posed by mass immigration to everything he and we hold dear. On several occasions he said he would support amnesty as long as the recipients could not vote for 20 yrs. IOW, the incubation period for a third world immigrant to become a flag waving American is two decades.

Like so many well known conservatives they truly think all racial groups can be made to be the same given enough time, economic prosperity and set asides. Rush really failed us on immigration.

* I enjoyed listening to Rush in the car until he took a call from an obsequious listener. When that happened I would turn it off and tune back in later. He understood the radio as a theatre. He kept the energy up and didn’t dwell on a topic for too long. You don’t want to listen to someone drone on the radio, even if he’s interesting. That can cause a traffic accident. With the exception of Mark Steyn, his guest hosts are dull. I don’t know what’s going to happen with the program now. I doubt Mark is interested in doing it more once or twice a week.

* Limbaugh seems to have been a good man with his heart in the right place. He most definitely helped our cause – and for that I’m thankful – but he could never move beyond his failed CivNat ideology.

He didn’t need to do more than he did, but it would have been nice if he tried.

* It’s hard to appreciate just what a breath of fresh air Rush Limbaugh was when he first came on the scene. There was no one like him. There were local conservative talkshow hosts even on San Francisco radio stations in the 1980s, but no one had the confidence to say what he thought like Rush did.

Before he went national, he was on KFBK in Sacramento. I seem to recall that KGO in San Francisco gave Rush a trial run, and then afterward had a local host (Pete Wilson, who was also a TV news anchor) take calls from listeners on what they thought of him. He was too much for KGO, but not for KNBR and then KSFO.

He taught his audience a great deal. And he was fun: “Live from New York, it’s Open-Line Friday!”

* Limbaugh supposedly attained a net worth of $600m –estimate seems on the low side. My guess is that zero dollars of that amount will be used to seed/help young White advocates. So , in his life, he extracted billions of dollars from the White community, but to what end beyond his own wealth and comfort? what really is his legacy that provides a vision, actionable steps? Limbaugh has about much relevance as Reagan. Their message to Republicans seems to be that we should invoke an inoffensive nostalgia while bowing to the Left albeit with a lag of 5 years. And stand with Israel.

Self-described conservatives mourn Reagan, or wish that the Reagan of 1966 that swept aside Pat Brown could magically reappear. But what are Reagan’s legacies? The 1969 Abortion Bill. The 1986 Amnesty that turned California blue. Trillions spent fighting a Cold War1 that was already won as the USSR was rusting away, but refusing to fight the domestic cultural war, or the cultural Marxists in the universities –lavishly funded by Republican congresses. Reagan only allowed PJB, then in the prime of his life and one of his early backers as far back as 1978 –if not 1976, to hold a WH position for less than 2 years.

My conclusion is that like WF Buckley and Reagan, Limbaugh holds little in the way of vision for Whites.

* Anyone who needed Rush to teach them to “talk back” after Buckley had been “talking back” on television for decades belongs on the short bus.

Rush was the type of guy who appealed to the sort of excitable, dim-witted boomers whose idea of a profound intellectual argument was referring to a teenaged girl as a dog. What made Rush so successful? He made petty, ignorant, intellectually lazy people feel good about themselves.

Before Rush, Republicans were respectable. The circus on 1/6 would have been unimaginable.

Before Rush, Republicans were the party of Reagan. Now they are the party of Trump. Has that been good for the party? When is the last time Republicans got the most votes in a Presidential election nationally?

Rush opened the door, Trump walked through it.

Think about that in 2024.

* Rush ORIGINALLY was very cold toward NAFTA and suspicious of the effects it would have. He made no secret of this on-air. His audience was similarly ambivalent and there was plenty of white noise.

Then, and this is from sources that have made biographies, Alan Greenspan called Rush in person, told him the trucks and plants in Mexico are ALREADY UP AND RUNNING so shut up and get on board.

A week later, Rush was saying “Let’s send all the stupid people’s jobs down to Mexico.”

Those of us in the Buy America movement of the early 90s knew Greenspan was right. Massive state of the art plants were pouring shit north from Mexico by the mid-80s. It became necessary to legalize what was already de facto. Rush folded like a cheap accordion.

Conservative pundits and white nationalists in one way are totally synoptic: You can always count on them to vigorously pursue the useless while ignoring the crucial.

Rush was a humorist for a certain segment of suburbia. That is all.

* His death is very personal for me because I listened to him for over thirty years. I vividly remember the first time I heard him in 1988 — it was like an epiphany. I had never heard ANYONE say and defend the conservative beliefs that I held (and paid a very high social and financial price for it) on the air, let alone turn my beliefs into an entertaining, financially successful five-day-a-week prime-time crusade.

Limbaugh singlehandedly remade the entire AM radio industry. Before him, there was only the obnoxious and blatantly left-wing Larry King, whom I despised, on at night. Even before that in the 1970s as a kid I remember AM radio was like listening to a funeral — it was horrible.

The ability to drive across the country and listen to Limbaugh continuously as one station faded out and another came in was incredible. He was truly like a best friend that you could always count on. Hit the “scan” button on the radio he would always — always — be there between noon and 3:00. He was a conservative Everyman, and made millions of people like me feel that we were not alone. And he did it all on his own, his way. He was a one-man show. Nobody owned him or ever told him what to do or say if he wanted to keep his job.

He was also far more optimistic about America and the ability to overcome and defeat the Left than I am. His good humor and good cheer and his optimism were some of his best traits.

If he can be criticized, though, it is for being the Eternal Boomer, who never saw the full reality of just how corrupted the GOP Establishment really is, how much Third World immigration is killing this country, how much the Democrats have stoked anti-white race hatred in this country, and how narrow and leftist the ruling clique is. I think Limbaugh was genuinely shocked when he had finally arrived as a truly wealthy man, yet was rejected for ownership of an NFL team and discovered that his wealth could not buy him membership in elite society unless his politics were leftist.

It is fitting that he died before seeing his beloved country degenerate into full-blown communism — or civil war. He was wrong in his belief that “our best days are ahead of us” and that the Constitution can be restored.

It cannot.

The white, working-class people in this country once had faith that they could vote for someone who cared about them — like Trump — and comfort knowing that they could listen to someone who understood them and was one of them, like Limbaugh. Now they have nothing but contemptuous leftist overlords who want to “break their will” for turning on the fucking heat in the winter.

Bad times are coming. VERY bad times.

Thank you, Rush, for staving off the Left as long as you could. At the very least you helped to buy us a bit more time. But our country is as terminal as your diagnosis was.

* One thing I noticed over years of listening to Limbaugh is that a lot of his callers were boomer types who claimed to have been liberal until they started listening to Rush. During the 80’s and 90’s, there was a huge influx of middle aged white boomers ex-hippie sympathizer types into conservatism that helped create the cuckservative phenomenon. Limbaugh was their go to source for information and those were the people who embraced the “Democrats are the real racists” garbage.

* A few weeks ago, a caller started talking about how immigration was making whites a minority and Limbaugh just hung up on him without refuting any of his points. That is Rush Limbaugh’s political career in a nutshell.

* Limbaugh’s great talent was of course his voice. He was able to take seemingly complex issues and make them appear simple to understand. This is also known as dumbing things down for nine year olds.

I can only abide so much over praising of any one individual. Perhaps the Scots-Irish genes, or a natural American disinterest in verbal fellatio, as it does tend to leave a bad taste in the mouth.

It’s one thing to pay honest tribute to a public, larger than life individual. To entirely gloss over the warts and all at the expense of doing so is asinine, semi-cultic, ridiculous. Four marriages, Federal/State charges of doctor shopping for opioids. Claiming victimhood because the mean, big, bad wibwul NFL (which in fact was quite conservative during this time period) wouldn’t let him purchase a team, and such like. And all for a plutocrat, top one percenter whose main goals in life, aside from flattery and self-aggrandizement, was accumulation of stuff. As far as championing issues of the day that resonate with Middle Americans, (preserving entitlements, raising the minimum wage, of which Ron Unz has heroically taken a strong stand in favor, raising taxes on the wealthy, etc), Limbaugh was never to be found. He was a straight up standard Republican who repeated the party’s talking points verbatim for decades.

“Rush’s biggest influence was in teaching regular conservatives to talk back.”

If you say so. Technically at other times Limbaugh stated that he wasn’t strictly a conservative down the line but a libertarian, but no matter.

“and of course Buckley and National Review were institutions by the time he became popular in the late ’80s,”

Per conservative issues, a la populist America First, National Review has seen better decades.

“but Rush felt like a precursor to YouTube comments, bloggers, and frog Twitter.”

Yep, El Rushbo always did claim to have invented the internet into what it has become.

“Trump is unthinkable without him.”

Uh, no, Trump borrowed heavily from Pat Buchanan, Ross Perrot, and even from Sam Francis. Not Trump in particular, but from those around his first campaign. Trump himself owes more to reality TV like the Kardashians than to anything Rush said on the radio.

“He had a successful TV show in the ’90s that pulled great ratings, and it only ended because it was too large of a commitment for Rush to make.”

Now this is an example of verbal fellatio. And wishful thinking. For most of its 3 yr run, Rush’s TV show was on at wee small hrs of the night. Such luminary ads as “Mint Snuff” comprised the bulk of his advertising. His show was not a success by any means, if properly judged against shows that actually made profits, like the NFL, 60 Minutes, etc.

“A good teacher helps a student become his own teacher. Though many rightfully mourn Rush today there is not a sense, I don’t believe, that the conservative “movement” is in any sense now lost without him.”

Now more than ever, Conservative Inc. is a racket, a grift, a hustle. In that sense, Rush did make a direct contribution to this format. In some ways, he was similar in style to a ’90’s Televangelist, a carny barker who echoes the same 3-4 talking points. “Liberals bad, conservatives good” etc. all while taking the rubes money when they’re not looking.

“If young conservatives don’t know or appreciate his impact”

Actually they probably don’t, as Limbaugh’s demographics skewed 65 and older for the last decade or so. If he was such an all important voice for the Con. movement as a whole, wonder why younger demographics couldn’t be bothered listening to him? Must be the bad liberals preventing people from turning on their radios.

Intellectual honesty requires accuracy be spoken. Since about the time of Bill Clinton’s impeachment (ca. 1998), in the public forum of ideals, Rush Limbaugh has been totally irrelevant. The major policy battles, of which Steve and others have constantly and consistently taken on, Limbaugh wasn’t there to be found. He could easily have used his allegedly and often repeated claim of “20 million weekly listeners” to hammer home week, month, year after year about writing local US representatives to oppose illegal immigration, but chose not to. Instead of carrying water for the GOP as a whole, he could’ve brought up issues like the connection to the 2008 recession and bad economic policies that were implemented by W. Again, he chose not to. “Thou shalt not criticize fellow Republicans.”

Instead, Rush oftentimes chose to criticize policies that would largely benefit ordinary Americans. Attacking the idea of raising the minimum wage, expanding Health Care for most Americans, and other entitlement expansions. Why’d he do that? Because that’s what the GOP’s lawmakers were doing, and he seldom ever directly criticized the GOP.

His famous (or infamous) 2009 speech at CPAC, where he outlined his belief that conservatism needs to be pushed even harder, after all, it hasn’t really been fully implemented no longer resonates with people under the age of 65. The US is not only growing apart politically (and fewer voters self-identify as conservatives compared to, say, 25 yrs ago), it is growing apart economically. “There are two Americas”, is a most apt observation of the current state of affairs, and frankly, El Rushbo couldn’t ever be bothered to get off the golf course and notice that there’s a world outside his self insulated, self isolated 1%. Just ask his former housekeeper, Wilma Cline. At least he had the good sense to hire native born help, or at least at the time of the opioid addiction he did.

Perhaps one day a legitimate, balanced, somewhat more nuanced biography will be published about the self-styled, most dangerous man in America. About a person who simply couldn’t be bothered to look beyond the Maybachs, private jets, fancy cigars, country clubs, to notice that there is another America, and one that doesn’t have as rosy a future as did Boomer Rush. But, as he was on autopilot for the last quarter century, it’s really not a surprise that he was simply AWOL on the problems, and slow, steady decline of what once was an amazing, unique first world nation.

The America Rush spoke of was one that he grew up with during his generation. Unfortunately, that America is rapidly passing out of existence. By around 2040 or so, it is safe to say that that nation that endured decades of Reaganism supply side policies, deregulation, high immigration, outsourcing of jobs, *free trade, will no longer exist in any meaningful productive way.

*(Rush was a big NAFTA supporter, as VP Al Gore in his 1993 CNN debate with Ross Perrot acknowledged, which helped to kill millions of US jobs, hastening the opioid and suicide of lower class white workers. And people wonder why Conservatism Inc. does not have the same number of followers it did decades ago.)

* I think Rush felt an obligation to side consistently with Team Republican, but in recent years he became a lot more skeptical and critical of it. I often felt that he understood a lot more than he would let on, gauging how much his audience wanted–or was ready–to hear. I only listened to him in the car and found a lot of what he had to say to be entry-level conservatism, but every once in awhile he’d come out with a truly penetrating political insight.

I recall listening to him in the 1980s on WABC New York, before he was nationally syndicated. At that time he said some things that indicated to me that he knew what was what. For example, he had a black caller once who told him that white people were scared of what black people would accomplish if they stopped oppressing them. Rush responses was something like, “No, that’s not what white people are scared of. They’re scared that black people won’t ever accomplish much no matter what we do for them.”

In those days Rush was on before Bob Grant, who was forthright about racial issues. That position, along with his acerbic manner, kept Grant from succeeding when he tried to go national. I believe Rush took a lesson from that. Grant was an early victim of cancel culture, losing his slot at WABC when a black listener sent a tape of some of his statements to the station’s management. (Grant’s show was later picked up by WOR.)

* I’ve never heard a broadcast by Limbaugh, and only know of him at second hand from the comments here, but all I can say is that no serious threat to the establishment would be allowed to broadcast to tens of millions of people for over 30 years and amass a fortune of $600m. Even a civic nationalist like Steve Sailer would feel lucky to be briefly interviewed once a year on TV or radio.

Posted in Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on Rush Limbaugh, RIP

Rush Limbaugh’s Sacramento rise

On a 1 to 10, how would you rate your favorite radio hosts? I have not listened to the radio in about five years.

I mainly tuned in to KGO radio during the years I worked in landscaping (1986-1988) and listened to a lot of talk radio. On rare occasions, I tuned in to Rush. My favorite was a week he spent in Washington D.C. interviewing people like Morton Kondracke. I wasn’t as interested in his solo show.

I preferred the more cerebral approach of KABC’s Michael Jackson who had lots of guests.

I’ve never had strong feelings about Rush in any direction (well, I found him a bit much, a bit too cartoonish for my comfort) and I don’t remember people talking about him prior to his going national. I’ve probably spent fewer than 250 hours total listening to him, but many of my friends preferred him to Dennis Prager, which surprised me. It felt to me that Rush catered to a crowd with an average IQ of about 105 while Prager catered to an audience with an average IQ of about 115. However, Rush got the appeal of Donald Trump more than a year before Prager got it.

Prager has said his audience demographics are about 50-50 between men and women while I suspect Rush’s listenership was about 90% male. My Youtube audience according to its analytics is 100% male.

I noticed a dramatic uptick in the quality of his show once Rush began national syndication in 1988.

What made Rush different from every other major talk show host who discussed politics is that you usually felt happier after listening to Rush. By contrast, after listening to Prager or Marc Levin or Sean Hannity or Michael Savage, I usually felt more anger and resentment. Is there any other political talk show host who consistently leaves people happier?

From the Los Angeles Times:

It was 1984, and young Limbaugh had been fired from at least five stations in three cities. He’d even left radio for a few years, and then returned — only to be fired once again after less than a year at KMBZ in Kansas City. At the time, he was “mired in loneliness and aimlessly walking through life,” as he recalled years later.

But a racist joke told on-air halfway across the country would soon set the stage — and, in retrospect, perhaps the tone — for his meteoric rise.

The 9-a.m.-to-noon slot at a middle-of-the-pack AM radio station in Sacramento was no aspirant’s idea of a dream job. But the KFBK position was newly vacant and offered Limbaugh one last shot at trying to make it on-air. (The station’s previous morning conservative talk radio host had resigned after a brouhaha over said “joke.”)

Limbaugh found an undeniably fertile audience in liberal California’s capital, where the average listener was “familiar with the workings of government,” as Limbaugh put it, and didn’t need to be cajoled into calling in. “In Kansas City I had some doubts that I could do it well, but here — this is the way it should be,” he told the Sacramento Bee a few weeks after taking the job.

The week that Limbaugh made his Sacramento debut, talk radio veteran David G. Hall — then a new reporter at the station — heard a voice blaring from a speaker as he made his way through an office hallway.

“I stopped cold in my tracks,” Hall recalled to The Times in 2003. He could hear someone “going on and on about Teddy Kennedy and Chappaquiddick. I thought, ‘Oh, this guy’s got a crackpot guest.’ ” But even in its nascent form, the Rush Limbaugh show rarely did guests. The “crackpot” voice was coming from the host’s chair.

It was at KFBK that Limbaugh “began to develop his format: music; wacky, sometimes savage, humor and conservative politics in a town thought to be dominated by liberals,” as The Times reflected in 1991.

Even his signature music, the instrumental opening of the Pretenders’ “My City Was Gone,” dates to his Sacramento show, as do trademark lines like “on the cutting edge of societal evolution” and his decades-long riff about disliking Rio Linda.

One could argue that Limbaugh would ultimately reshape the Republican Party in his own image. But he couldn’t have done it without the commuters of Sacramento, who helped build his national launchpad with their radio dials. One can only wonder how differently the last few decades of American political history might have played out had Limbaugh not found the initial audience needed to propel his career into the stratosphere.

When Limbaugh began his nearly four-year stint at the station, few in the city knew his name. Three years later, he was serving as the grand marshal of the local St. Patrick’s Day parade and his popularity was “virtually unparalleled in Sacramento talk show history,” according to a 1987 Sacramento Bee story. Ratings tripled during his tenure. He also made his debut as TV regular while in Sacramento, with a local news segment in which he faced off against the liberal mayor of Davis.

Bob Baker wrote in the Los Angeles Times Jan. 20, 1991:

Welcome to a world where Howard Cosell’s voice seems to have been grafted to Pat Buchanan’s brain and amplified through the cracked sensibilities of the Stanford Marching Band…

Mister Limbaugh’s neighborhood is the hottest place in talk radio because it is unlike any other spot on the dial, a gag- and bombast-infested, stream-of-consciousness current-events lecture that careens between blood-serious conservative politics and deadpan irreverence. It is a place without any guests, a place where the host is the show, a place where callers play second fiddle, their views meticulously screened to avoid any sluggish or repetitive moments that might bog down the breakneck pace.

The show is so flat-out weird that Limbaugh affably advises new listeners that they’ll require six weeks to understand it. By then, he says, they will be delivered to “the cutting edge of societal evolution.” You will never have to read another newspaper again, he promises, the way a faith healer might. “I will do all your reading, and I will tell you what to think about it.”

…Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, who turned 40 two weeks ago, is a booming-voiced, 6-foot-tall, 320-pound man with thinning hair who lives a relatively hermit-like, computer-nerd existence until show time, when he seems to erupt into the mike. There is supreme grace and confidence to this bluster. Yet Limbaugh was a failure through most of his broadcasting life until he did something Americans still do best. He reinvented himself. Uncomfortable with traditional restrictive radio formats, he developed one that fit his quirky, opinionated nature and appealed to many listeners who found conventional talk radio too predictable or ponderous.

…Limbaugh freely admits just about everything on the air: his divorces (two), his previous firings (way more than two), his weight (a gain of 100 pounds in the past five years), his new home-exercise program (40 minutes on a treadmill at 3.5 m.p.h.), his tendency to perspire heavily, the fact that he hates crowds unless he’s performing in front of them, the fact that he cried in bed the other night watching a tape of “Field of Dreams.”

Yet for all his excesses–indeed, because of them–Limbaugh has sculpted a program that is far more compelling than either the civilized talk-show universe of KABC’s Jackson or the confrontational nether world of “shock radio,” in which audience and guests are routinely assaulted. He brings an almost frightening enthusiasm to the program–a quality that, ironically, makes him seem boorish when he appears on the cooler medium of television. The show reflects not merely Limbaugh’s gotta-keep-busy personality but also his background. He’s a news junkie, a man who overcompensates for being a college dropout by devouring and dissecting all manner of newspapers and magazines–he says he spends three hours reading news and analysis before each day’s show. He’s a radio junkie who started working as a rock ‘n’ roll deejay in the golden, pre-FM days of radio while still a teen-ager and maintains the art of breathlessly pacing a show, cutting from one factlet to another without breaking stride. He’s a political junkie, delighted to interpret everything but the weather in a liberal-versus-conservative context. He’s an attention junkie, a man who looks at his fame with the heartfelt reverence most people reserve for their newborn baby. He’s a control junkie: The show is his, period. Callers who attempt to duplicate the host’s style of ironic humor are reminded never to try it in their homes…

Until the middle of last year, Limbaugh reveled frequently in acidic “gay community updates,” belittling gay activists for besieging America for a cure for AIDS, a problem that was, to Limbaugh’s mind, entirely of their own making. He became, on occasion, the target of protests by AIDS activists. Now, however, you rarely hear the topic.

“I frankly got tired of being identified as a gay basher,” Limbaugh says wearily one evening as he drives through downtown Los Angeles during a week of promotional broadcasts from KFI. He is steering a Jaguar, on loan from a local dealer, enjoying an aimless drive–west down Wilshire, through Brentwood, back east on Sunset–a pleasure beyond his reach in Manhattan, where he does not own a car. He is not enjoying this public notion that forever plagues him, the idea that he is insensitive. He wishes it would go away. Don’t they understand? The gags come so fast to him, and he hates to repress any of them. Why can’t he have his fun, soaring from one political diatribe to another with as many midstream belly laughs as he can muster? Hey, he asks, didn’t you see the recent essay in Esquire, “The Case Against Sensitivity”? That’s just what he’s been saying on the show for months–that “sensitivity” is the new fascism, that you can no longer make fun of “politically correct” groups. What happened to free speech? Why doesn’t everybody lighten up? Why do liberals assume he’s a racist just because he taunts every black leader from Jesse Jackson to David Dinkins? That doesn’t mean he has anything against blacks, he insists.

…In New York, Limbaugh consolidated the call-screening rules that allow the program to sound like what a number of radio consultants have admiringly described as a local show projected across the country. You won’t hear two consecutive calls from the same geographic area. Nor will you hear many of the staples of other right-wing broadcasters. Limbaugh regards them as viruses that kill off the broad audience he craves.

“I don’t want any John Birchers, no one-world-government theories,” he says. “No UFOs, no abortion calls in the context of when life begins, no gun control in the 20-year-old, cliched argument, nothing from people who are going to read anything (on the air), no Bible–faith is a sacred and personal thing. I don’t want devout believers of any religion or cause because they don’t think. I want people who think about things with a passion. And I do not want racists or bigots to feel they have a home on the show. It’s an entertainment show.”

Posted in Radio, Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on Rush Limbaugh’s Sacramento rise

The Consolation of Philosophy (2-17-21)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Consolation_of_Philosophy
https://twitter.com/Godward16/status/1362130986474102795

Posted in Philosophy | Comments Off on The Consolation of Philosophy (2-17-21)

Rush Limbaugh (1951-2021)

27:10 Dave Smith on Nick Fuentes
46:50 In A Yugo (Rush Limbaugh song parodies)
1:17:00 Is Sexy Nazi Role Playing OK — as Long as You’re a Proud Jew?, https://forward.com/schmooze/338352/is-sexy-nazi-role-playing-ok-as-long-as-youre-a-proud-jew/
1:19:30 Brian Rosenwald, Talk Radio’s America, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKuUXkzvzZM
1:40:00 The End of America First?, https://www.spreaker.com/user/altright/impeachment-and-af
1:48:00 Can a man turn 180 degrees and renounce fascism?, https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/can-a-man-turn-180-degrees-and-renounce-fascism
1:52:00 Department of Homeland Security Confirms Neo-Nazi Leader Used to Work For It, https://www.vice.com/en/article/epd7wa/department-of-homeland-security-confirms-neo-nazi-leader-used-to-work-for-it
2:03:00 How Right-Wing Radio Stoked Anger Before the Capitol Siege, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/business/media/conservative-talk-radio-capitol-riots.html
2:13:00 The Narcissist Society (1976) by Christopher Lasch, https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1976/09/30/the-narcissist-society/
2:16:00 Joe Biden says blacks, latinos do not know how to get online, https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2021/02/17/president-thinks-blacks-hispanics-dont-know-get-online/
2:18:00 Based black guy, Donovan Worland: Richard Spencer CALLED IT, on Biden! Amazing., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2cnB4yJOYM

The Age of Limbaugh


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh
https://trad-news.blogspot.com/2021/02/boomercon-icon-rush-limbaugh-dead.html
https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html

Posted in America, Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on Rush Limbaugh (1951-2021)

Cancel Culture From Thomas More To Godward Podcast

I suspect that in every society that has ever existed, there have been certain obvious truths you could not say out loud without serious blowback. I don’t think cancel culture is new.

No movie had more of an impact on my childhood as A Man For All Seasons (1966) about Thomas More. I saw him as a brave martyr. Wikipedia notes:

The film and play both depict the final years of Sir Thomas More, the 16th-century Lord Chancellor of England who refused both to sign a letter asking Pope Clement VII to annul Henry VIII of England’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon and to take an Oath of Supremacy declaring Henry VIII Supreme Head of the Church of England….

The title reflects playwright Bolt’s portrayal of More as the ultimate man of conscience, remaining true to his principles and religion under all circumstances and at all times. Bolt borrowed the title from Robert Whittington, a contemporary of More, who in 1520 wrote of him: “More is a man of an angel’s wit and singular learning. I know not his fellow. For where is the man of that gentleness, lowliness and affability? And, as time requireth, a man of marvelous mirth and pastimes, and sometime of as sad gravity. A man for all seasons.”

…Upon receiving his death sentence, More denounces the king’s Supremacy over the Church as illegal, citing the Biblical foundation for the authority of the Papacy over the Church and declaring the alleged Supremacy of the King repugnant to the legal institutions of all Christendom. More further declares that the Church’s immunity to State interference is guaranteed both in Magna Carta and in the King’s own coronation oath. As uproar ensues, the judges pronounce the full sentence according to the standard forms: More is remitted to the Tower and condemned to death by beheading.

The scene switches from the court to the scaffold on Tower Hill, where before his execution More observes custom by pardoning and tipping the executioner before declaring, “I die his Majesty’s good servant, but God’s first.” He kneels at the block and the executioner cuts off his head.

I didn’t realize as a child how many people More had burned at the stake for heresy.

Sometimes in life, we get burned at the stake (metaphorically) and other times we burn others at the stake. Sometimes we’re the concentration camp inmates (metaphorically) and sometimes we’re the guards.

A key insight I developed early in my life was that nothing that was human was foreign to me. With a little work, I could empathize with anyone.

I often find it useful to look at the pain in my life as 100% self-inflicted. I take this perspective not because it is necessarily true, but because it can be useful.

When I compare my experience as a Protestant and my experience as a Jew, it seems like there was 100 times as much veneration of martyrdom in Protestantism. God, after all, in Christianity is portrayed as taking on human flesh so he can come to earth and die on a cross to save humanity from sin. Christianity is romantic religion while Judaism is unromantic religion. Jews don’t tend to extoll martyrdom and the next life as much as Christians do. Jews are more pragmatic. They are more likely to make peace with reality rather than to war against it.

Amazon.com notes: “The essays collected in Persecution and the Art of Writing all deal with one problem—the relation between philosophy and politics. Here, Strauss sets forth the thesis that many philosophers, especially political philosophers, have reacted to the threat of persecution by disguising their most controversial and heterodox ideas.”

Wikipedia:

Strauss’s general argument—rearticulated throughout his subsequent writings (most notably in The City and Man – 1964)—is that prior to the 19th century, Western scholars commonly understood that philosophical writing is not at home in any polity, no matter how liberal. Insofar as it questions conventional wisdom at its roots, philosophy must guard itself especially against those readers who believe themselves authoritative, wise, and liberal defenders of the status quo. In questioning established opinions, or in investigating the principles of morality, philosophers of old found it necessary to convey their messages in an oblique manner. Their “art of writing” was the art of esoteric communication. This is all the more apparent in medieval times, when heterodox political thinkers wrote under the threat of the Inquisition or comparably intransigent tribunals.

Strauss’s argument is not that the medieval writers he studies reserved one exoteric meaning for the many (hoi polloi) and an esoteric or hidden one for the few (hoi aristoi, literally “the best”) but rather that their writings’ respective core meanings extended beyond and were irreducible to their texts’ literal and/or historical dimension.

Explicitly following Gotthold Ephraim Lessing’s lead, Strauss indicates that medieval political philosophers, no less than their ancient counterparts, in writing, carefully adapted their wording to the dominant moral views of their time, lest their writings be condemned as heretical or unjust, not by “the many” (who did not read), but by those “few” whom the many regarded as the most righteous guardians of morality: precisely those few righteous personalities would be most inclined to persecute or ostracize anyone who is in the business of exposing the “noble” or “great lie” upon which stands or falls the authority of the few over the many. Strauss thus presents Maimonides “as a closet nonbeliever obfuscating his message for political reasons.”

From Haaretz:

For 30 years, Yehiel De-Nur, a Polish-born Holocaust survivor who wrote under the pseudonym “Ka-Tzetnik,” was tormented by horrific nightmares. Every night, Auschwitz would visit him in his sleep, and he would wake up screaming, drenched in perspiration. His wife, Nina, heard about a Dutch psychiatrist who healed trauma using LSD, and over a period of two years urged her husband to see him. Finally he agreed, and in the summer of 1976 the couple traveled to the city of Leiden, in the Netherlands from Israel, where they lived. They spent a year there.

Ka-Tzetnik’s encounter with Jan Bastiaans was apparently the most meaningful experience of his life, following Auschwitz. “My mind goes numb at the mere thought of Prof. Bastiaans,” he wrote a decade later in his book “Shivitti: A Vision,” first published in full in the weekly newsmagazine Ha’olam Hazeh.

In the book, published in English in 1989 in a translation by Eliyah Nike De-Nur and Lisa Herman, Ka-Tzetnik (the Yiddish acronym used to describe a concentration camp inmate) describes how Bastiaans injected him with the drug and how he was abruptly catapulted from the spacious, pleasant therapy room back into hell, entering the ghetto behind Vevke, the cobbler, when suddenly the cobbler’s bench changes colors “from blinding yellow-green to ultraviolet… elongating like that clock of Salvador Dali’s.” Then, before his eyes, Vevke’s face transmutes into the face of Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav. The whole of Auschwitz is illuminated by the flames of the bold colors, he writes.

The entire process of treatment is recorded. During the trance, Bastiaans sits next to Ka-Tzetnik and urges him to describe in detail the hallucinations racing through his mind. He also sees to it that the patient does not drown under the horror. Bastiaans tells him that if he hadn’t wakened him he would not have been able to bring him back. You would have remained there, lost in limbo, the psychiatrist tells him.

Five LSD treatments sufficed for Ka-Tzetnik, before he announced that he wanted to go home. The nightmares vanished, and for the first time in 30 years he was able to sleep peacefully. After Leiden, he said, he was no longer the same person he had been before. Under the influence of the treatments, he retracted his famous comment – made when he gave testimony in the Eichmann trial, in 1961 – that Auschwitz was another planet. In an interview to journalist Ram Evron in 1988, he said, “Neither Satan nor God built Auschwitz, but I and you.” In that room in Leiden, he grasped that Auschwitz was the handiwork of human beings, “and it’s Hitler, it wasn’t Satan. He was a person.”

…While the patient was under the influence of the drug, Bastiaans and the clinic staff invoked techniques of psychodrama to stimulate memories and flood the patient emotionally. Bastiaans played Nazi march music for the patients and exposed them to S.S. symbols and effigies of Nazis. He also played roles of characters in situations that the patients had experienced.

“Bastiaans took the role of authority, often it was the role of the caring father but also he might be the camp commander, the person who was feared,” Van Waning explains. “There was always someone supervising in the room, usually a woman. So I might get the role of a mother or sister or a more supporting person. The script wrote itself during the session.”

‘The aim is to live through what happened but also to see it in a larger context, become a ‘witness’ and see that now it was safe.’

So it was a form of improvisation?

“Yes. It all depended on what the patient would reveal. The patient could suddenly say to Bastiaans, ‘You hate me, I can see it in your eyes, you are going to destroy me.’ So within the hallucination, it felt real to him. But the patient might also say, “The way you are looking at me reminds me of the camp commander.’ In that case Bastiaans would not join in ‘being’ that person but ask the patient in what way he was like that person and what kind of feelings that generated. I think that it’s not very fruitful to let the patient identify with these positions completely and for a long time; the aim is to live through what happened but also to see it in a larger context, become a ‘witness’ and see that now it was safe. There is a great risk of re-traumatizing the patient when the patient is taken back into this hell and relives it in that deep, direct sense. It can aggravate the problems, the suffering. So it is important to touch on what happened just enough so that we can be a witness.

Hilary Mantel writes in the second novel of her Wolf Hall trilogy — Bring up the Bodies:

* He finds he cannot think of the dying men at all. Into his mind instead strays the picture of More on the scaffold, seen through the veil of rain: his body, already dead, folding back neatly from the impact of the axe. The cardinal when he fell had no persecutor more relentless than Thomas More. Yet, he thinks, I did not hate him. I exercised my skills to the utmost to persuade him to reconcile with the king. And I thought I would win him, I really thought I would, for he was tenacious of the world, tenacious of his person, and had a good deal to live for. In the end he was his own murderer. He wrote and wrote and he talked and talked, then suddenly at a stroke he cancelled himself. If ever a man came close to beheading himself, Thomas More was that man.

* He [Thomas Wyatt] will be released, he says. But perhaps not until Anne [Boleyn] is dead.
The hours to that event seem long. Richard hugs him; says, ‘If she had reigned longer she would have given us to the dogs to eat.’
‘If we had let her reign longer, we would have deserved it.’

* The Lord Chancellor says, ‘The truth is so rare and precious that sometimes it must be kept under lock and key.’

Galileo had trouble with the Catholic Church. Notes Wikipedia: “Galileo’s championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism met with opposition from within the Catholic Church and from some astronomers. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture”.[9][10][11]

Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632), which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated both the Pope and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[9] He was tried by the Inquisition, found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, and forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.”

French philosopher Rene Descartes had to find a modus vivendi with the Catholic Church. “Though raised as a Catholic, Descartes, who had been summoned in 1649 to tutor Queen Christina, was regarded with suspicion by many of his theological coreligionists. His theories were viewed as incompatible with the belief of transubstantiation, in which the bread and wine served during the Eucharist become the flesh and blood of Christ.” The Guardian says: “French philosopher was killed by arsenic-laced holy communion wafer after airing ‘heretic’ views, says academic.”

Wikipedia notes: “The Catholic Church prohibited his books in 1663… Descartes steered clear of theological questions, restricting his attention to showing that there is no incompatibility between his metaphysics and theological orthodoxy. He avoided trying to demonstrate theological dogmas metaphysically. When challenged that he had not established the immortality of the soul merely in showing that the soul and the body are distinct substances, for example, he replied, “I do not take it upon myself to try to use the power of human reason to settle any of those matters which depend on the free will of God.””

Posted in Status | Comments Off on Cancel Culture From Thomas More To Godward Podcast