Posted on 07/25/2017 5:21:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
Bret Stephens devoted his New York Times column last week to admonishing me for my tweet from two weeks ago and critiquing my follow-up column last week explaining the tweet.
The tweet reads, "The news media in the West pose a far greater danger to Western civilization than Russia does."
Since he wrote the column as a "Dear Dennis" letter to me, I will respond in kind.
Dear Bret: I'll try to respond to the most salient arguments you made. I'll begin with one of the most troubling.
You wrote: "Wiser conservatives -- and I count you among them, Dennis -- also know that when we speak of 'the West,' what we're talking about is a particular strain within it. Marx and Lenin, after all, are also part of the Western tradition, as are Heidegger and Hitler."
I was taken aback that such a serious thinker could write that nihilist communists and nihilist Nazis are all "part of the Western tradition."
That's what the vast majority of professors in the social sciences teach: There's nothing morally superior about Western civilization -- it's as much about Hitler and Lenin as it is about Moses and Thomas Jefferson. And, anyway, Moses never existed and Jefferson was a slaveholding rapist. Among those professors' students are virtually all those who dominate the Western news media.
Am I wrong? Do you think your colleagues at the Times or the Washington Post or Le Monde or BBC believe in the moral superiority of the West?
Of course they don't. Most believe in multiculturalism -- the doctrine that all cultures are equal -- and it is therefore nothing more than white racism to hold that Western civilization is superior. Didn't nearly all of your (nonconservative) colleagues who commented on President Trump's speech in Warsaw call it a dog whistle to white supremacists?
On those grounds alone, my tweet was accurate.
I am surprised that anyone -- especially you -- thinks Vladimir Putin's Russia poses a greater threat to the survival of Western civilization than the Western left. No external force can destroy a civilization as effectively as an internal one -- especially one as powerful and wealthy as the West. The Western left (not Western liberals) is such a force. Western liberals always adored the West.
I was also stunned by your saying, "I'm not sure that Justin Trudeau declaring there is 'no core identity, no mainstream in Canada' counts as a Spenglerian moment in the story of Western decline."
The prime minister of Canada announces with pride that his country has no core identity and you don't think that counts as an example of a declining civilization?
And here's another upsetting sentence: "To suggest that Vladimir Putin is a distant nuisance but Maggie Haberman or David Sanger is an existential threat to our civilization isn't seeing things plain, to put it mildly."
The reason I found that troubling is I never cited Haberman or Sanger, and you well know that no generalization includes every possible example -- that's what makes it a generalization. But I did specifically cite the writers in The Atlantic who equated Western civilization with white supremacy, and your substitution of your New York Times colleagues for The Atlantic commentators allowed you to avoid dealing with The Atlantic writers' and others media attacks on Western civilization.
Despite the fact that neither my tweet nor my column said a word about Trump, you devoted almost half your column to denouncing the president. Yet, as I wrote in the column, my tweet would have been just as accurate had I sent it out during former President Obama's administration or Hillary Clinton's, if she were president.
Bret, to your great credit, you are a lonely voice of strong support for Israel at your newspaper (your readers should see the videos on the Middle East you made for Prager University; they have eight million views for good reason). Doesn't the almost uniform hostility toward Israel in the media and academia trouble you? Does it trouble you that most Democrats in America hold a negative view of Israel? That Jewish students at many American, not to mention European, universities fear expressing support for Israel or just wearing a yarmulke on campus? That so many young American Jews, influenced by the media and their professors, loathe Israel? I am certain all of that greatly troubles you. Is any of that Putin's doing? Or is it all the result of the media and academia?
You mentioned that you will be sending me a birthday gift, a book about Putin's Russia, "Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible" by Peter Pomerantsev. I promise to read it. And I request a promise in return: Read the book I am sending you, "The Strange Death of Europe" by the eminent British thinker Douglas Murray. The book describes Europe's suicide at the hands of its progressive elites -- in particular, its multiculturalism-affirming political leaders and mendacious news media. To the best of my recollection, in describing the death of European civilization, Murray doesn't mention Putin once. (Regarding the mendacious media, read the report published this week in Germany about the dishonesty in the German media, which routinely substitutes left-wing opinion for facts in reporting the immigrant crisis in Germany.)
Perhaps the most troubling part of your response was your penultimate line: "Don't be a hater, Dennis."
Where did that come from? You cite not a single hateful word in my column -- because there are none to cite. And "hater" has become the all-purpose left-wing epithet to dismiss all conservatives. Why would my friend Bret Stephens use it?
>> Bret Stephens is a fake name <<
Yep. I understand that his family originally had some kind of typical Jewish name.
When I was still listening to talk radio while driving, I changed the station to Medved because the radio reception of the talk show host that I was listening to was bad. After a minute or so I changed the station again because that was all I could take from Medved.
More and more the Leftist bent in the “neo” of Bret’s “neoconservative” stance continues to slip out.
So, just to be clear, putting aside the previous discussion about generalizations, in the Middle East conflict, which side is in the right, the Israelis or the Palestians? Or, if I may be so unsophisticated - who are the good guys?
It’s flat out fact and on the video.
Dennis Prager: “I believe bisexual is the norm”.
1:06:18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01yQ30tRo-0&feature=youtu.be
Please defend!
Um, you do realize your post got pulled, right big guy?
I recommend you do the research yourself, but here’s a phrase you may want to look up - “taken out of context”.
“I’m not bovvered” or “I ain’t bovvered” are a pop-culture reference to The Catherine Tate show. It just means bothered.
That’s easy. The good guys are the ones that want a two-state solution with pre-occupation borders. I don’t care if they are Israelis or Palestinians.
I’m out the door now. Have a good day.
I am not familiar with Catherine Tate.
I recommend you do the research yourself, but here’s a phrase you may want to look up - “taken out of context”.
.........................................................
Dennis Prager clearly states that he thinks bisexual is the norm. Please tell me the any possible context where you agree with that statement. Please feel free to send me your explanation via private reply, unless you don’t have one.
Yes you are definitely off topic, as Dennis Prager is not the subject or topic of the ob-ed. The subject/topic is Bret Stephens and the New York Slimes
..........................................................
Yet Micheal Medved had absolutely nothing to do with this article and you seem fine discussing him in this thread.
You was the one who brought him up, not I.
Running away?? what a surprise....
But thanks for confirming what I suspected - you’re just another newbie lib trying to “fake it” on FR.
Enjoy your sure to be short stay here.
Not sure why I am even wasting my time with you, but....
Can you be any more dishonest?? He clearly means it was normal back in pre-biblical times for men (some not all) to be attracted sexually to both males and females. Do you REALLY think this wasn’t/isn’t true???
He then CLEARLY goes on to say THE BIBLE FORBIDS THIS and that sex should be reserved for a married man and woman, WHICH HE AGREES WITH!!!
Please come join us all in the real world.
I suspect that Stephens is no longer at the WSJ because of his own hatred of Religious Conservatives, that was often displayed in his writing.
I can’t say I read a lot of his writing while at the WSJ, but what you say makes sense.
I’m generally not a big fan of using this word, but “neo-con” seems to be an apt title for him.
She’s funny. She was also a companion on Doctor Who. Even if you don’t like my personal opinion on rhetoric give her show a chance if you ever happen across it.
There was nothing “Con” about Bret Stephens, except his defense of Israel. He spent a good bit of his time in Europe, early in his career and was quite happy living as an ex-pat. He continued as an ex-pat in his mind, long after returning to the US.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.