The modern right
9/11 made me
finally break with the left-liberal worldview
and start agreeing with conservatives
on foreign policy
(I had already long ago agreed with the right on economics).
I finally converted from liberal-left
to libertarian-right once I read the latter's arguments
in 2001-02.
What does "right" mean in the modern world?
Let me suggest a definition:
By "right" on this page I mean people that generally support the west
against its enemies.
Not all of the links on this page could be called "right-wing".
(I'm not even necessarily "right-wing" myself.)
But none of these are anti-west.
According to this definition, there are many right-wing groups and individuals
I disagree with and oppose, such as religious conservatives.
There are even self-described "right-wingers" who do not
support the west against its enemies,
such as isolationists and Israel-haters.
For a full discussion see:
Authors
Radio, TV, video
Main blogs I read
- Politics news feeds
- The blogging collective
Pajamas Media /
Open Source Media
- Belmont Club
(formerly here
and here)
by Richard Fernandez
(alias "Wretchard")
- Steven Den Beste
(formerly here)
- Bill Whittle
- Right Wing News
-
Insults Unpunished by
Robert Prather
- Augean Stables by Richard Landes
- Summary of the war, Jan 2007
- "First of all, as a historian of civil society,
of the millennium-long struggle in the West to achieve this extraordinary marvel of the modern world,
this experiment in human freedom, I want to say:
European democratic civilization can fall before the Islamic challenge.
Something similar happened before, in the 5th century, when a culturally superior Roman civilization
fell to a primitive tribal Germanic culture."
- "Second, this is going to get worse before it gets better.
...
Once these movements, which in the past have killed 10s of millions, "take," they are like forest fires.
They cannot be stopped, at best they can be channeled.
We are in for a long and unpleasant conflict"
- "Third, modern media play a critical role in Global Jihad's success.
...
Let me cut to the chase. If this wondrous experiment in human freedom that was launched on both sides of the Atlantic in the late 18th century survives to the middle of the 21st century, historians will look back on the performance of the MSM in the first decade of that century
...
and give the journalists' "first draft of history" an F.
...
when historians look back, I think they will identify the MSM's appalling performance as one of the main sources
of the West's vulnerability to Global Jihad at the beginning of this century"
- John Cox
Dormant blogs
I always liked LGF and Charles Johnson.
He is secular,
pro-science,
classically liberal, and he is hostile to Islamism
because he believes in the Enlightenment.
I always liked him,
at least until his blog war with Robert Spencer and others.
Even then, my problems are not with actual positions he holds
(I agree with him on the European far right)
but rather with his blogging and linking behaviour.
LGF was a great counter-jihad blog from 2001 to 2008.
But after 2008, it started getting progressively more boring.
First came the tedious blog war and linking war.
Then there is the obsession with creationism
(I agree with him on creationism, but it's not what I come here for.
Richard Dawkins does that stuff much better.)
Then, after Obama won, LGF started drifting to the left.
He started to get obsessed with right-wing extremists
and other uninteresting people.
Often when I visit now, I leave within two minutes because every entry is uninteresting.
And it used to be one of the most lively sites on the Internet.
Some days he reads like Andrew Sullivan.
Some days the old LGF comes back, though.
- Little Green Footballs
(and here)
by Charles Johnson
- LGF Endorses Bush,
1st Nov 2004.
- The day before the historic 2004 election,
Charles Johnson and his readers talk of the journey they've been on
away from the left
since 9/11.
Same journey as me
and thousands of others.
- Charles Johnson rarely writes much,
but when he does it's usually good.
Here he
magnificently fisks a useless
Agence France Presse propaganda piece
about the poor impoverished Palestinians:
"People who genuinely want to build a functioning society will start building it.
You can't stop them.
But the Palestinians have proven time and again that destroying the Jewish state takes precedence over creating a hopeful future for their children.
My tears are all dried up when it comes to the plight of the Palestinian people. I'll save my sympathy and support for those who deserve it."
- The LGF Robert Fisk Award for
Idiotarian of the Year:
- 2002
- 2003
- 2004
- 2005
- 2006
- 2007
- 2008
- Anti-Idiotarian of the Year:
There is an ongoing argument between LGF and some other anti-jihad blogs:
The argument began
over the nature of Vlaams Belang
and
the Sweden Democrats.
LGF was pointing out their anti-semitic
and neo-Nazi past (and perhaps present).
Some other counter-jihad blogs were defending them as now reformed allies against the jihad.
This, though, rather reminds me of
the claim that the BNP has "reformed".
I find
the LGF view of these groups
the most convincing.
-
My problems with
the Sweden Democrats can be found here.
-
As for Vlaams Belang,
Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
called it
"a racist, anti-Semitic, extremist party that .. should be outlawed".
-
See also
Robert Spencer
on VB having new links
to the BNP.
Though he later says:
"There is no doubt that the party has changed.
The question is whether or not the change is genuine or not."
-
Summary of the case against Vlaams Belang
makes a good point:
"my conclusion is that allying with Vlaams Belang would be strategically inept while providing little value, and would ... sap support for our anti-Islamofascist efforts.
This is the case whether VB is taking a course to reform or not. There is too much evidence from their own sites, manifestos, statements, party publications, and affiliated groups that their leadership is not distant enough from the stance on collaborators, identity politics, and immature political theater to make any alliance with them sane. Even if they are making whole-hearted honest efforts to reform, the track record is just not long enough. (Some in their leadership are I think, some others aren't.)
...
Associating with Vlaams Belang when they bring so little to the cause while carrying so much bad baggage is not only poorly thought out, it's also politically naive."
In short, it is a waste of energy for anyone on the anti-jihad side to attempt to defend
Vlaams Belang. They should just shrug and say: "I can understand why you don't like them.
I think they're reformed, but I understand if you think differently."
Charles Johnson escalates the dispute:
-
So I find
the LGF view of Vlaams Belang and similar European groups
the most convincing.
I think the blogs that defend Vlaams Belang have made a mistake.
It doesn't mean they are racist
- just that they've made a bad call on allies.
LGF should accept they are wrong but well-meaning,
and they in turn should accept that LGF and others like me
may honestly disagree with them.
- But that's not what happened.
Charles Johnson
dramatically escalated the dispute by refusing to
link to people
who don't think VB are racist (like GoV).
- And then Charles Johnson
escalated further,
by refusing to
link to people who link to people
who don't think VB are racist (like
the great
Robert Spencer).
- Even though I basically agree with LGF about Vlaams Belang (!)
I feel myself migrating away from LGF
because of this escalating link ban policy.
-
I agree with
Robert Spencer
that Charles Johnson's behaviour is absurd.
I think we should just not link to racists themselves, and leave it at that.
-
I plan to carry on linking to
Spencer and LGF
and GoV
as before.
They all have worthwhile things to say on other topics.
None of them are racists.
Charles Johnson looks like he is losing this dispute:
- I cannot think of any major counter-jihad blog
that enthusiastically joins LGF in his war against these blogs.
Most of them are staying out of the way.
LGF links to a lot of left-wing blogs that support him,
but support from any big counter-jihad blogs seems very silent.
When you're in a party of one, it might be a sign that you've got the wrong end of the stick.
- I agree with
The Jawa Report on the LGF war, 30 Apr 2009.
He doesn't necessarily support Robert Spencer on all things, but he says:
"I'm not comfortable with the guilt-by-association accusations ... Robert Spencer may be a lot of things, but his views on liberty don't seem too much different than my own. ... Frankly, I'm not sure I understand the roots of the conflict. But from my vantage point the differences here are not irreconcilable. ... Please stop Charles."
-
The challenge to Charles Johnson from Robert Spencer
nicely expresses my problem with LGF:
"If Charles Johnson really thinks I am a neo-Nazi sympathizer or a racist,
let him produce even one line that I have written to support such a view."
- That is, writings by Spencer himself,
rather than by someone else.
-
If Charles Johnson is ever able to do this,
let me know here.
Miscellaneous blogs
- Andrew Sullivan
(or via here)
- archive
-
Andrew Sullivan
I used to read all the time.
He used to be on my list of
Writers on politics that I like,
before Bush's anti-gay marriage policy drove him mad.
-
I have some sympathy for Sullivan.
I have problems with Bush too.
But Gay Marriage is simply not as important
an issue as the War on Islamist Terror.
Sullivan just can't swallow his pride and accept this.
-
He has abandoned Bush because of this issue,
and is trying to justify it.
Now (2004) he talks as if the Abu Ghraib scandal is important,
as if the WMD intelligence scandal is important,
and so on.
He talks as if the
Swift Boat Veterans For Truth
is Republican dirty tricks, rather than what it is
- 200 people who have hated Kerry for 30 years
and now is their moment.
He has switched sides and is now trying desperately to pretend that Kerry
is strong on defence.
The old Andrew Sullivan
- the one who realised we are in a war to the death
with people who want to exterminate homosexuals
and lots of other groups
- is gone, sadly.
-
Andrew Sullivan v. Christopher Hitchens, Apr 2008:
-
Survey of Andrew Sullivan's readers, Feb 2008.
Despite him claiming to be a "conservative", only affluent left wingers read him now.
"2.5 percent of you describe yourselves as very conservative; 9.6 percent as conservative; 33.3 percent as moderate; 38.1 percent as liberal; and 16.5 percent as very liberal."
"Only 22 percent of you earn $50K or less. Another fifth earn between $50K and $75K. Well over half have household income of over $100K a year."
- Sullivan supported Kerry (Democrat) for President in 2004.
- Sullivan supported Obama (Democrat) for President in 2008.
- And yet he still claims to be a "conservative".
If only there were more conservatives like him,
the Democrats would never be out of office!
- Gays for Bush:
-
In the Middle East, a New World
by Karl Zinsmeister, April/May 2005 issue.
On loyalty, and staying the course:
-
"From the very beginning, of course, the Bush administration's left-wing enemies in the U.S. and Europe
were hysterically opposed to the push for Middle Eastern democracy.
A significant number of right-wing pundits
also proved themselves to be sunshine patriots ...
bailing out of the hard, dirty work of war and cultural transformation as soon as the predictable resistance arose.
But that's politics.
In Washington, if you're looking for a brave and steadfast ally, you need to buy a dog.
Fortunately our warriors battling away in Najaf and Samarra and Anbar province didn't surrender to the Beltway gloom
that defeated most of our media and political elites."
- Israel
- Iraq
- Egypt
- The Big Pharaoh
(Egyptian, Muslim, anti-Islamist, lives in Egypt)
- He attacks the western media
for supporting Islamists and not anti-Islamist Muslims.
"I should be weeping because the Western mainstream media is telling the world that the only true faithful Muslims
are those who wear the stupid cloth on their head (that was nonexistent 30 years ago)
and separate boys and girls in schools. I should be weeping because Time magazine is showing us that only girls
clad in black with no makeup on are the true Muslims who are struggling between
their Islamic and their American identities. Meanwhile, those Muslims who disagree with the head veil,
who think that Islam needs reform a la all major faiths, and who believe that we cannot live like our Muslim brethren
did 1400 years ago are the "lesser Muslims" or the Muslims that are "out of the mainstream"."
- Malta
- Sweden
- Norway
- France
- Germany
- Spain
- Australia
- Stephen Pollard
- Melanie Phillips
(and here)
- Oliver Kamm
(formerly here)
-
Oliver Kamm on Paul Foot
-
One of the rare times when Kamm lets me down:
Oliver Kamm comes out in support of Obama, 16 Oct 2008.
-
Just like
Christopher Hitchens,
he can't stand Sarah Palin.
"Had there been a McCain-Lieberman ticket ... I would have supported it."
But apparently the VP pick (since when are VPs so important??)
means he must support the left-wing defeatist.
He says: "Like Christopher, I'm a single-issue voter",
meaning the war of the West against its enemies.
Yeah, right.
If he was, he would never support the man who opposed the surge.
- There is a beautiful reply in Kamm's own comments section:
"To précis: I'm a single issue voter except when I'm not."
Other good blogs
Dormant or extinct
|
By "right" on this page I mean people that generally support the west
against its enemies,
for lack of a better term.
Not all of the links on this page could be called "right-wing".
(I'm not even necessarily "right-wing" myself.)
But none of these are anti-west.
|
Return to
Politics
page.
