I suspect Hanania was being sarcastic, given that he previously said "Aid to Ukraine has become the 'structural racism' of the right. Anything bad that happens in the world, it's because of aid to Ukraine", and later in the thread you mention said "Russia isn’t seen as the aggressor in much of the world. Countries without the distorting effect of the western media like Eritrea and North Korea recognize it as a moral champion."
Poe's Law applies here. If someone repeatedly makes breathtakingly stupid/evil statements, then says "only joking" whenever they are called out, should we conclude that they are very bad comedians, or just that they are in fact stupid/evil/
Re "conservatives" - not so sure they are the least bit "conservative. I find their views very radical - they want huge changes to society, economy and governance.
Reactionary or fascist perhaps - but they are all over the place really. Is the problem that we are using old words for a new phenomenon, perhaps?
Don't engage with rightwingers like those mentioned in the OP. Take the least charitable possible interpretation of their position - it will be the correct one.
I'm very interested in your footnote - it helps to address/defeat a proposition or tendency if it can be properly identified and described, and I find labels like "rightwinger" unhelpful, because they mean so little to those who don't engage in political debate frequently. "Conservative" is so misused! Most of those who call themselves conservative, and are called so in turn by the media and lefties, are truly "radical activist authoritarian social engineers" ... but RAASEs (maybe "AASEs" for convenience of pronunciation) is hardly a convenient encapsulation. Feel free to help devise more useful and understandable labels, or subcontract the chore!
I always think “reactionary” is the correct term for most individuals who think of themselves as conservatives. Incidentally, the radical conservative was a familiar figure in 1930s Britain, many of whom, starting with T. S. Eliot, had taken their cue from Nietzsche.
Three bellwethers in US popular culture that might have predicted where it was heading politically:
All the President’s Men - the cartoonish, Machiavellian representation of Deep Throat in the movie, entirely different to the figure in the book, who was just a flustered and disgruntled official, and in no way omniscient. Essentially the precursor to Q.
Bob Roberts - the Right appropriates cultural forms, such as protest singing, previously assumed to be fundamentally left-wing.
Starship Troopers (the movie) - American democracy finds its apotheosis in militarism and Fascism.
I suspect Hanania was being sarcastic, given that he previously said "Aid to Ukraine has become the 'structural racism' of the right. Anything bad that happens in the world, it's because of aid to Ukraine", and later in the thread you mention said "Russia isn’t seen as the aggressor in much of the world. Countries without the distorting effect of the western media like Eritrea and North Korea recognize it as a moral champion."
Poe's Law applies here. If someone repeatedly makes breathtakingly stupid/evil statements, then says "only joking" whenever they are called out, should we conclude that they are very bad comedians, or just that they are in fact stupid/evil/
PS - thank you for a great post.
Re "conservatives" - not so sure they are the least bit "conservative. I find their views very radical - they want huge changes to society, economy and governance.
Reactionary or fascist perhaps - but they are all over the place really. Is the problem that we are using old words for a new phenomenon, perhaps?
Sharing your views about “Conservatives,” I remain puzzled by what who keeps “falling for and what they (we centrists?) should do differently?
Don't engage with rightwingers like those mentioned in the OP. Take the least charitable possible interpretation of their position - it will be the correct one.
I'm very interested in your footnote - it helps to address/defeat a proposition or tendency if it can be properly identified and described, and I find labels like "rightwinger" unhelpful, because they mean so little to those who don't engage in political debate frequently. "Conservative" is so misused! Most of those who call themselves conservative, and are called so in turn by the media and lefties, are truly "radical activist authoritarian social engineers" ... but RAASEs (maybe "AASEs" for convenience of pronunciation) is hardly a convenient encapsulation. Feel free to help devise more useful and understandable labels, or subcontract the chore!
I always think “reactionary” is the correct term for most individuals who think of themselves as conservatives. Incidentally, the radical conservative was a familiar figure in 1930s Britain, many of whom, starting with T. S. Eliot, had taken their cue from Nietzsche.
Three bellwethers in US popular culture that might have predicted where it was heading politically:
All the President’s Men - the cartoonish, Machiavellian representation of Deep Throat in the movie, entirely different to the figure in the book, who was just a flustered and disgruntled official, and in no way omniscient. Essentially the precursor to Q.
Bob Roberts - the Right appropriates cultural forms, such as protest singing, previously assumed to be fundamentally left-wing.
Starship Troopers (the movie) - American democracy finds its apotheosis in militarism and Fascism.