Something's been wrong with Dreher for a long time. I thought his writing was off back in the day when he wrote for NR. His writing about things he didn't agree with always had a nasty edge to it, as if he has no idea how to disagree in an agreeable way. He is an appalling advertisement for Christianity.
The ultimate test of character is how we respond to those with whom we disagree. People for whom disagreement brings out nastiness of any kind are dangerous, unpleasant and unsound.
I completely tuned out Dreher after he mocked those who rallied to protest the 2020 election results and, unforgivably, excoriated murder victim Ashley Babbit as some sort of rabid lunatic.
He was also quick to jump on the approved narrative attacking the Covington Catholic boys.
Dreher seeks nothing more than affirmation from people who despise him. Men like him and David French will debase themselves to no ends in order to live a comfortable life under the new regime.
If you've been down some rabbit holes, you might find it interesting that he was recently photographed with one eye obscured by a bottle of wine.
I’m a little skeptical about all of this recent praise for Musk and his “championing of free speech”. He is upsetting the apple cart right now, and that can only be a good thing. But I think it would be better if we simply cut our reliance on / infatuation with *all* social media platforms. Even when they’re not being used as blatant propaganda machines, they’re still evil.
Doxxing involves denunciation, institutional malice and possibly mob justice. I cannot conceive of anybody of decent character ever doing any such thing, especially under present conditions.
Dreher seeks to ingratiate himself with the powers that be. He pimps his Benedict Option theories to good and honest people frightened of the future, while fortifying the very forces that justify such fears in the first place. I'd expect that Dreher aims, probably only half-way consciously, that he can secure a degree of comfort and safety in which he can play the role of 'trad maudit' while Leviathan remakes the West to suit itself.
Dreher resembles his friend David Brooks, the regime-compliant 'conservative' columnist at the NYT. There is nothing of substance to people like this, which is why they were born for their roles.
The silver lining to this ugly incident is that Dreher is now clearly exposed for what he is, making it easier for people form their own conclusions. I'd trust the good sense of the average dissenter on this one. Dreher will be shunned or dismissed by increasing numbers of the very people he needs to deceive in order to make himself useful to his masters. They'll make an accurate assessment of his value and throw him away without regret when the time comes to do so.
OF COURSE he starts out by posting a picture of...
...David Duke.
The man demonized by the Left for decades. A man who has nothing to do with this case. And he includes the Left's constant attack, that Duke was a member of the KKK for a period when he was young. The Left, here channeled by Dreher, will always stick to one accusation repeated over and over, which the Right won't since the Right thinks "Okay, now we've handled that, let's move on to the most current issue." The Left will always mention that Cernovich "promoted pizzagate" for example. Always. Every time. Dreher has learned.
Dreher's defense is "religion made me do it":
-----------------------
>>>"What do you think the Lord will say when He asks you why you indulged racial hatred, anti-Semitic hatred, and hatred of women, and your response is, "No enemies to the Right"? How can that answer possibly be adequate? It might be reasonable in a worldly sense, if your ultimate goal is to achieve power, or to preserve power. But in the eyes of eternity, it's nothing. Hard as it is for many to believe, it is not worth losing your eternal soul for the sake of owning the libs.
-----------------------
So if Dreher didn't doxx a good man, ruining his life, he would "lose his eternal soul". You get the logic? There is none. He wasn't asked to actively defend someone, he could have simply NOT attacked like he did.
Dreher is what I like to call a "religionut," one who easily twists religion to suit his purposes and then rests on that like a pillow in arguments. Usually with a holier-than-thou attitude. The paragraph above is a perfect example.
But then Dreher goes on and talks about the troubles for Whites living in a mostly-Black neighborhood, and so on. So you realize ruining someone else's life is camouflage for him. It's typical: "HE is the racist! Take him, leftists, not me!" There are unfortunately many cowards like this. David Cole at Takimag, who can pass on some good information, makes it a habit to start his posts by attacking someone on the Right, especially Steve Bannon. THEN he can say something "racist" himself.
“Many…folks can’t be bothered to read something more than a couple paragraphs long.” Virtually no one on the internet seems to be able to read any thing of any length closely. Mostly they take a group of words in like they would approach a pointalist painting, before shaping and filtering their impression through the voices in their heads.
I just spent some time reading Dreher and the link to his self-righteous buddy who ruined that man's life. Let's just say that the bar to hurdle in order to be labeled a racist or anti-semite is approximately 1 mm off the ground.
I hope that when Red Sulla/Caesar/Franco comes, he deals harshly with the likes of Rod Dreher and David French.
Something's been wrong with Dreher for a long time. I thought his writing was off back in the day when he wrote for NR. His writing about things he didn't agree with always had a nasty edge to it, as if he has no idea how to disagree in an agreeable way. He is an appalling advertisement for Christianity.
The ultimate test of character is how we respond to those with whom we disagree. People for whom disagreement brings out nastiness of any kind are dangerous, unpleasant and unsound.
Excellent essay.
I completely tuned out Dreher after he mocked those who rallied to protest the 2020 election results and, unforgivably, excoriated murder victim Ashley Babbit as some sort of rabid lunatic.
He was also quick to jump on the approved narrative attacking the Covington Catholic boys.
Dreher seeks nothing more than affirmation from people who despise him. Men like him and David French will debase themselves to no ends in order to live a comfortable life under the new regime.
If you've been down some rabbit holes, you might find it interesting that he was recently photographed with one eye obscured by a bottle of wine.
I’m a little skeptical about all of this recent praise for Musk and his “championing of free speech”. He is upsetting the apple cart right now, and that can only be a good thing. But I think it would be better if we simply cut our reliance on / infatuation with *all* social media platforms. Even when they’re not being used as blatant propaganda machines, they’re still evil.
Doxxing involves denunciation, institutional malice and possibly mob justice. I cannot conceive of anybody of decent character ever doing any such thing, especially under present conditions.
Dreher seeks to ingratiate himself with the powers that be. He pimps his Benedict Option theories to good and honest people frightened of the future, while fortifying the very forces that justify such fears in the first place. I'd expect that Dreher aims, probably only half-way consciously, that he can secure a degree of comfort and safety in which he can play the role of 'trad maudit' while Leviathan remakes the West to suit itself.
Dreher resembles his friend David Brooks, the regime-compliant 'conservative' columnist at the NYT. There is nothing of substance to people like this, which is why they were born for their roles.
The silver lining to this ugly incident is that Dreher is now clearly exposed for what he is, making it easier for people form their own conclusions. I'd trust the good sense of the average dissenter on this one. Dreher will be shunned or dismissed by increasing numbers of the very people he needs to deceive in order to make himself useful to his masters. They'll make an accurate assessment of his value and throw him away without regret when the time comes to do so.
Here is Rod Dreher excusing his doxxing of a good man.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/no-enemies-to-the-right/
OF COURSE he starts out by posting a picture of...
...David Duke.
The man demonized by the Left for decades. A man who has nothing to do with this case. And he includes the Left's constant attack, that Duke was a member of the KKK for a period when he was young. The Left, here channeled by Dreher, will always stick to one accusation repeated over and over, which the Right won't since the Right thinks "Okay, now we've handled that, let's move on to the most current issue." The Left will always mention that Cernovich "promoted pizzagate" for example. Always. Every time. Dreher has learned.
Dreher's defense is "religion made me do it":
-----------------------
>>>"What do you think the Lord will say when He asks you why you indulged racial hatred, anti-Semitic hatred, and hatred of women, and your response is, "No enemies to the Right"? How can that answer possibly be adequate? It might be reasonable in a worldly sense, if your ultimate goal is to achieve power, or to preserve power. But in the eyes of eternity, it's nothing. Hard as it is for many to believe, it is not worth losing your eternal soul for the sake of owning the libs.
-----------------------
So if Dreher didn't doxx a good man, ruining his life, he would "lose his eternal soul". You get the logic? There is none. He wasn't asked to actively defend someone, he could have simply NOT attacked like he did.
Dreher is what I like to call a "religionut," one who easily twists religion to suit his purposes and then rests on that like a pillow in arguments. Usually with a holier-than-thou attitude. The paragraph above is a perfect example.
But then Dreher goes on and talks about the troubles for Whites living in a mostly-Black neighborhood, and so on. So you realize ruining someone else's life is camouflage for him. It's typical: "HE is the racist! Take him, leftists, not me!" There are unfortunately many cowards like this. David Cole at Takimag, who can pass on some good information, makes it a habit to start his posts by attacking someone on the Right, especially Steve Bannon. THEN he can say something "racist" himself.
“Many…folks can’t be bothered to read something more than a couple paragraphs long.” Virtually no one on the internet seems to be able to read any thing of any length closely. Mostly they take a group of words in like they would approach a pointalist painting, before shaping and filtering their impression through the voices in their heads.
I just spent some time reading Dreher and the link to his self-righteous buddy who ruined that man's life. Let's just say that the bar to hurdle in order to be labeled a racist or anti-semite is approximately 1 mm off the ground.
I hope that when Red Sulla/Caesar/Franco comes, he deals harshly with the likes of Rod Dreher and David French.
clever pun! Love the subtitle