“Hideously embarrassing for the right”
No purges! The farther you get from the “mainstream” right (or left for that matter), the more you are going to have conspiracy theorists. The conspiracy theorists, like the poor, are always with us. There are a lot of people on the “respectable right” who are conspiracy phobic. They seem more concerned about ridding themselves and their movement of any potential taint than they are about advancing the cause. The problem with purging the conspiracy theorist is that you can’t do it without also purging (both actually and practically) those who are not conspiracy theorists, but are more right by degree, farther from the current center (which just so happens to be yesteryear’s far left).
Buckley is credited with “saving” conservatism by purging the Birchers, but at the same time he also neutered it. (If the liberal media and elites praise a conservative for anything, you can bet it didn’t advance conservatism.) But by getting rid of the conspiratorial Birchers, he also got rid of the hard core Constitutionalists. There are a few of the non-conspiratorial aspects of what the Birchers support that I would tweak, but on matters of policy they are almost entirely correct, and much more correct than the mainstream right ever was.
If certain people or websites or organizations or whatever are over-the-top on an issue then that should be pointed out specifically. Purges and other quests for “respectability” will result in a toothless right, guaranteed. They already have.
Buckley is credited with “saving” conservatism by purging the Birchers, but at the same time he also neutered it. (If the liberal media and elites praise a conservative for anything, you can bet it didn’t advance conservatism.) But by getting rid of the conspiratorial Birchers, he also got rid of the hard core Constitutionalists. There are a few of the non-conspiratorial aspects of what the Birchers support that I would tweak, but on matters of policy they are almost entirely correct, and much more correct than the mainstream right ever was.
If certain people or websites or organizations or whatever are over-the-top on an issue then that should be pointed out specifically. Purges and other quests for “respectability” will result in a toothless right, guaranteed. They already have.
I don’t boycott- most of the time it is an exercise in futility, and in our media saturated culture, bad publicity is better than good publicity. Advertisers usually base their budget on what venues give them the best return. If advertising on WND doesn’t profit them, they aren’t likely to spend their marketing dollars to ‘support’ a publication as a ‘ministry’ of sorts. Plus, I think extremism serves a purpose- it keeps the middle in the middle, and thanks to human nature, it is also unavoidable.
I agree with one commenter at WM who said that Joseph Farrah seems credible- and I too wonder about the wackiness of the site. It’s like the Christian version of The Drudge Report meets The National Enquirer.
I agree with one commenter at WM who said that Joseph Farrah seems credible- and I too wonder about the wackiness of the site. It’s like the Christian version of The Drudge Report meets The National Enquirer.
I disagree with Joseph Farrah on several issues, but he is generally a respectable guy with good connections to the mainstream right. I think WND has found a niche for themselves that they are now running with. They are playing to what you might call soft conspiracy types and the easily riled up. Even some of their stuff that is factually correct is overly sensationalistic. But whatever one may think of the Birther issue, concentration camps, the North American Union, etc. they are not on the same level as the Illuminati control the world type stuff, hence what I mean by “soft” conspiracy theories.
Part of the problem with hysterical conspiracy phobia (and yes some of it is quite hysterical) is that you loss discernment and judgment. It is sensationalistic and probably misleading to suggest concentration camps are being set up, but I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not comfortable with the supposedly benign language and intent of the Hastings bill that is being discussed. I would much rather they not build these “national emergency centers” in case of “national emergencies,” and in addition don’t concede their constitutionality, emergency response being a local and state issue.
Ideally wise and thoughtful voices on the right would object in non-sensationalistic language that doesn’t lead with the words “concentration camps,” but the over-reaction on the part of the conspiracy phobics actually inhibits intelligent discussion. It polarizes the debate.
WND is well known for their discussion of the alleged North American Union. Michael Medved, a self-appointed anti-conspiracy thought policer, went ballistic over this and had very harsh things to say about Jerome Corsi. Suggestions that some sort of NAU were just around the corner were sensationalistic, but to believe that there are not internationalists who would like to see an EU style arrangement on the North America continent is foolish. There is documented evidence of this and it is the very nature of some forms of internationalism. So hysterics like Medved inhibit an intelligent conversation about guarding against increased internationalism and loss of national sovereignty.
Part of the problem with hysterical conspiracy phobia (and yes some of it is quite hysterical) is that you loss discernment and judgment. It is sensationalistic and probably misleading to suggest concentration camps are being set up, but I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not comfortable with the supposedly benign language and intent of the Hastings bill that is being discussed. I would much rather they not build these “national emergency centers” in case of “national emergencies,” and in addition don’t concede their constitutionality, emergency response being a local and state issue.
Ideally wise and thoughtful voices on the right would object in non-sensationalistic language that doesn’t lead with the words “concentration camps,” but the over-reaction on the part of the conspiracy phobics actually inhibits intelligent discussion. It polarizes the debate.
WND is well known for their discussion of the alleged North American Union. Michael Medved, a self-appointed anti-conspiracy thought policer, went ballistic over this and had very harsh things to say about Jerome Corsi. Suggestions that some sort of NAU were just around the corner were sensationalistic, but to believe that there are not internationalists who would like to see an EU style arrangement on the North America continent is foolish. There is documented evidence of this and it is the very nature of some forms of internationalism. So hysterics like Medved inhibit an intelligent conversation about guarding against increased internationalism and loss of national sovereignty.
Discussion