Showing posts with label conservatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservatism. Show all posts

Saturday, August 15, 2026

Trump Countdown Clock: Days Until Our Trump/GOP National Nightmare Ends

 

End of Trumpism, End of MaGAism
End of Toxic Conservatism in Power
End of this Toxic Republican Party
End of America's stupid experiment in Authoritarianism
Someone posted to this that we need action, not just dates.
True, this is merely something to shoot for. Sooner if possible.
But it helps to have a goal. A date. A time.
And then shoot for sooner.
Merely waiting for this to be over, does NOTHING.
Act.

Our national nightmare, on the clock...

Term's End
— — —
until noon, January 20, 2029
The Indictments
— — —
until DOJ leadership no longer answers to him, January 21, 2029

In this tine of "Corporate Thought" meaning no morals, no ethics, profit over all else, disinformation, post-truth, toxic conservatism, etc., our government no longer functions correctly due to having been set up with a consideration that people would not stoop as low as we have seen today's American conservatism and Republicans have. 

Thus, we bow need corrections.

Here's a rundown of the institutional reforms that necessary in a post Trump-era of toxic GOP governance and the current SCOTUS (and some conservative judges) have pushed, organized by branch. 

Presidency / executive power

  • Codify limits on the pardon power for self-dealing or obstructing investigations into the president's own conduct
  • Close the "major questions doctrine" and emergency-powers loopholes that let presidents bypass Congress via executive order
  • Strengthen the Impoundment Control Act so a president can't unilaterally withhold appropriated funds
  • Clarify and narrow presidential immunity after the Trump v. United States ruling, since critics argue it created near-blanket immunity for "official acts"
  • Restore independence of inspectors general and agency heads (FBI, DOJ, intelligence community) with for-cause removal protections that can't be gutted by executive order
  • Tighten the Hatch Act and anti-nepotism/emoluments enforcement with real penalties

Congress

  • Restore the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act gutted by Shelby County v. Holder
  • Pass federal redistricting standards to curb partisan gerrymandering
  • Reform the filibuster for voting rights and basic governance bills (budget, debt ceiling)
  • Tighten conflict-of-interest and stock-trading rules for members of Congress
  • Restore and strengthen congressional oversight tools (subpoena enforcement mechanisms with teeth, since agencies currently can just ignore them)
  • Campaign finance reform addressing Citizens United, likely via a constitutional amendment given the Court's current posture

Supreme Court / judiciary

  • 18-year staggered term limits for justices, ending lifetime tenure
  • A binding, enforceable ethics code (the current one has no enforcement mechanism)
  • Some form of court expansion or jurisdiction-stripping on specific issues, though this is the most contested item even among reform advocates
  • Stricter recusal rules tied to financial disclosures
  • Reversing or legislating around specific rulings (Dobbs, Trump v. United States, Chevron's overturn in Loper Bright) through statute where possible

Broader democratic guardrails

  • Insulate election administration and certification from partisan interference (building on the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022)
  • Statehood or representation reform for DC and territories
  • Independent redistricting commissions as a national standard
I wish us all well going forward once sanity returns and corporate thinking is back under control.

Power to the people, not power to only the powerful few.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Monday, June 8, 2026

"The Man I Warned You About": What William F. Buckley Would Make of Trump and His MaGA Republican Party

I was a fan of William F. Buckley, Jr. decades ago. And of Gore Vidal. The opposites of the Right and Left political thinking in their day, respectively. I still watch Buckley's Firing Line, now in the competent hands of Margaret Hoover. I came across the documentary Best of Enemies - Buckley vs Vidal (2015) on Netflix, that I highly recommend, and it got me thinking. It was about their 10-night ABC network airing during the Republican Convention in 1968 in Miami, Florida which I would love to get a chance to view...all 10 episodes. Even though each segment was only 15 minutes druing each night's 90-minute news show.

What would Buckley make of Pres. #47 Donald J Trump today? Not much I thought. So who is Buckley?

William F. Buckley Jr. was the most influential intellectual architect of modern American conservatism. He founded National Review in 1955 as the movement's flagship journal, hosted Firing Line for 33 years as the longest-running public affairs show in television history, and was widely regarded as the most skilled conservative debater of his generation. Erudite, witty, and relentlessly disciplined, he believed conservatism had to be intellectually serious to be politically durable. He was not a populist. He was the man who defined what the American right was supposed to be.

One of his most consequential acts was purging the John Birch Society from the conservative movement in the early 1960s, on the grounds that conspiratorial, anti-intellectual populism would destroy conservatism's credibility and marginalize it from mainstream American life. That decision shaped the Republican Party's intellectual identity for decades.


What He Actually Said About Trump

Around 2000, when Trump briefly pursued the Reform Party nomination, William F. Buckley wrote critically about him, in National Review, characterizing him as a demagogue whose essential appeal was flattering crowds while offering no substantive ideology beyond self-promotion. He identified Trump's narcissism as the core of his political identity. This was not a passing dismissal. Buckley chose his words with precision, and he used them deliberately.

It was in part reprinted in 2016, again in the National Review.


On MaGA and Populism

The Birch Society purge is the key lens here. MaGA, with its election denialism, conspiracy adjacency, contempt for institutional expertise, and grievance-driven mass politics, would look to Buckley like the Birchers' revenge. He spent decades trying to prevent exactly this kind of movement from capturing the Republican Party. Watching it succeed would have been, for him, a historic failure of conservative nerve.

On Institutions

Buckley was a deeply institutional man. Yale, the CIA, the Church, the Senate, the press. He believed civilization was built on inherited structures that required active defense against both left-wing leveling and right-wing wrecking. Trump's sustained assault on the Justice Department, the electoral system, NATO, and the independent press would not read to Buckley as disruption or strength. It would read as vandalism.

On Trade and Foreign Policy

Buckley was a free trader and a Cold War internationalist who saw the liberal international order as a necessary defense against totalitarianism. Tariff nationalism, America First isolationism, and hostility to alliances would be nearly incomprehensible to him as conservative positions. He would see them as strategic recklessness dressed up as patriotism.

On Style

This matters more than people credit. Buckley believed conservatism should project civilizational confidence, wit, and seriousness. He cared about what the movement looked like to educated people. Trump's rally aesthetic, the vulgarity, the grievance saturation, the contempt for precision and argument, would strike Buckley as not just politically wrong but as an embarrassment to everything he built.

Where It Gets Complicated

Buckley had his own contradictions. His civil rights record was late and troubled. He had an aristocratic streak that could shade into romanticizing hierarchy. And his loathing of the left was bone-deep, which might have made a clean break from the Republican Party psychologically difficult even as he watched it transform into something he didn't recognize.

His most likely posture would have been to call for a conservative reformation from within, probably to diminishing audiences, probably futilely.


The Bottom Line

Buckley would almost certainly argue that MaGA is not conservatism at all. It is a personality cult that has occupied conservatism's institutional infrastructure while gutting its intellectual content. He would place himself, however uncomfortably, alongside people like George Will and David Frum who chose principle over party. And he would reserve his sharpest contempt not for Trump, whom he had already diagnosed clearly in 2000, but for the conservative intellectuals and Republican officials who knew better and said nothing.

The movement he built was taken over by the kind of man he spent his career warning about.

He saw it coming a quarter century ago.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!



JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

Tuesday, May 19, 2026

Remember Trump's famous favorite Bible quote? No? Come on! Really?

Remember Trump's famous favorite Bible quote?

He's got one, right?

So if he does have one, based upon his actions as president, or his decades as a miserable example of a "businessman" over his lifetime, WHAT IS IT?

What might, say...three of his favorite quotes be?

The famous moment: Trump was asked his favorite Bible verse in 2015 and couldn't name one. He later cited "an eye for an eye" as his philosophy -- which is real (Leviticus/Exodus), but notably Jesus specifically repudiates it in Matthew 5:38-39. So his "favorite" is the verse Christ overruled.


Three that actually fit his record:

1. Proverbs 21:6 "A fortune made by a lying tongue is a fleeting vapor and a deadly snare." -- Six bankruptcies, Trump University fraud settlement, inflated asset valuations. The vapor part aged well.

2. Matthew 6:5 "When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others." -- The Lafayette Square Bible photo op, holding it upside down. Scripture as prop.

3. 1 Timothy 6:10 "The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." -- Covers pretty much the entire career arc and the current presidency-as-profit-center Raskin was describing above.

The brutal irony is that "eye for an eye" being his self-chosen verse is actually the most honest thing he's ever said about himself.

Trump's politics are pure Old Testament retribution politics with zero New Testament grace anywhere in sight.

Trump really seems to be an Old Testament guy, though.

Old Testament Trump?

The OT God is frequently wrathful, vengeful, tribal, transactional, and rewards loyalty above almost everything else.

So? Trump IS like the Old Testament, immature, vindictive, jealous "God"?

Punishment is swift and disproportionate. Enemies are smited.

The chosen people are exceptional by definition. 

Outsiders are threats. Sounds kind of like a five-year-old.

But it maps almost perfectly onto Trump's operating psychology.

The transactional covenant thing is key.

OT theology is largely "obey and prosper, disobey and suffer."

Trump runs the same deal -- loyalty is rewarded, disloyalty is destroyed.

It's less a moral framework than a power framework with religious language draped over it.

What Trump actively rejects from the New Testament:

  • Forgiveness of enemies (he never forgives, or apologizes, doubling down, always)
  • Humility ("blessed are the meek" -- not a Trump value)
  • Turning the other cheek (see: "eye for an eye")
  • Care for the poor and stranger (see: every immigration and social policy)
  • The rich man and the needle's eye passage -- genuinely inconvenient for him

The dark irony is that evangelical Christians, who are supposed to be defined by the New Testament and Christ's teachings, have attached themselves to perhaps the most purely Old Testament political figure in American history.

See, white Christian Nationalism. Or the American Taliban.

Allow me... And there it is. The through line.

Why the OT fits WCN perfectly:

White Christian Nationalism isn't really Christianity in any theological sense. It's a tribal identity system that uses Christian iconography as its flag. The Old Testament gives them what they actually want:

A chosen people narrative
A promised land (America as covenant nation)
Divine sanction for conquest and dominance
Clear in-group/out-group boundaries
A wrathful God who punishes enemies
Tribal law over universal grace

The New Testament is genuinely problematic for them because Christ was a Middle Eastern Jew who preached radical inclusion, care for immigrants and outcasts, rejection of wealth and power, and forgiveness of enemies. That's essentially the opposite of the WCN political program.

So they quietly sideline Jesus as a theological figure while keeping the cross as a political symbol. The cross at January 6th wasn't about the Sermon on the Mount.

Trump as OT figure works for them because he's Cyrus -- the flawed pagan king God uses as an instrument anyway. That's literally the theological framework many WCN pastors use. It's clever because it immunizes him against any moral critique.

The deepest irony: They've built a political religion around the parts of the Bible their own Christ specifically came to supersede.

That's not Christianity. That's nationalism wearing Christianity's coat.


While we're on the topic of Trump's nonsense...

The Trump "Weave" Nonsense Unravels: A Decade of Cognitive Decline in Donald Trump's Public Speech

1980s — Coherent, even articulate in interviews; sentences complete, vocabulary precise, stays on topic. Fundamental life view pretty messed up, however. Still capable of hiding that.
1990s — Still functional but shallower; the braggadocio is increasing, substance thinning.
2011 — Filler words measurably increasing in recorded interviews; vague placeholder language creeping in.
2015 — Campaign launch; rambling style rewarded by crowds, masking deterioration with performative energy.
2016 — Tangentiality accelerating but mistaken for authenticity; wins the presidency.
2017 — First STAT linguistic analysis finds his speaking style has already worsened significantly since the 1980s.
2018 — Still capable of structured prepared remarks but unscripted responses increasingly fragmented.
2019 — Repetition of key phrases intensifying; same anecdotes recycled regardless of context.
2020 — Post-election loss triggers emotional constriction; all-or-nothing vocabulary spikes.
2021 — Negative emotional language dominates; "never," "always," "completely" becoming verbal tics.
2022 — Word retrieval errors becoming regular; confabulation harder to distinguish from deliberate lying.
2023 — Haley/Pelosi confusion; uncorrected errors normalizing; digressions no longer return to a point.
2024 — Abrupt unframed topic shifts more than double; changes exceed what stylistic continuity can explain.
2025 — Retrieval failures, disorganized sequencing, errors go uncorrected in real time; the compensating mechanisms are visibly breaking down.
2026 — Currently in office, 79 years old, mentally older, and the public record of any given week supplies fresh examples without having to look hard.

The baseline has shifted to where the episodes are no longer remarkable enough to dominate any news cycle.

By the way?


That normalization may be the most telling data point of all.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.


Tuesday, January 6, 2026

When Conservatism Makes Sense — and When It Holds Us Back

On this anniversary of Donald Trump's January 6th, 2021 insurgency in refusing to leave office as POTUS45, we still have, we again have, that clown in office. Sigh. Give me a break...how is such a clod brain President of the United States, ever, or AGAIN? Now we've enabled him yet again in his this time, foolishly invading another country? Unbelievable. 

I have long held a simple but deeply considered belief, conservatism is simply wrong-minded. That's never been more supported than today, under Donald Trump and whatever the hell this/his GOP is anymore.

Conservatism is most valuable in times of danger, but in times of strength, stability, and prosperity, progress — sometimes bold progress — is what truly moves societies forward.

That belief is not about partisan sorting or emotional preference. It comes from philosophy, history, and watching what actually happens when societies choose fear over possibility, or recklessness over stability. Understanding the difference matters, especially in an era where the word “conservative” is too often used as a costume for something far more chaotic and destructive than traditional conservatism ever intended to be.

So let’s slow the noise. Let’s talk about what conservatism is supposed to be, where it genuinely shines, where progressive governance excels, and why the right approach depends not only on ideology — but on the moment we are living in.


Conservatism Was Built as a Philosophy of Caution

Traditional conservatism — the intellectual kind associated with Edmund Burke, Michael Oakeshott, Russell Kirk, and others — was never about rage politics, enemies lists, or constant cultural warfare. It was about prudence.

Traditional conservatism says:

  • Human institutions are fragile

  • Social orders take generations to build

  • Fast, sweeping change risks unintended harm

  • Stability is a moral good

Conservative thinking performs its best work during unsteady times:

  • when institutions are threatened

  • when social cohesion is fraying

  • when economic foundations feel shaky

  • when the primary danger is collapse rather than stagnation

In those circumstances, slowing down can be wisdom.
Restraint can be virtue.
Continuity can literally save civilizations.

There is real dignity in the idea that not every moment demands upheaval.


But Prosperity Requires More Than Holding Still

There is another truth political conservatives often ignore:

Societies do not grow simply by preserving themselves. They grow by daring.

When a nation is strong — when it has capacity, confidence, economic strength, and resilient institutions — excessive caution becomes paralysis. Conservatism in a time of prosperity can quietly transform into something less virtuous:

  • a defense of entrenched privilege

  • a fear of modernization

  • a refusal to expand rights

  • a distrust of creativity and change

In other words, it stops being about “stability” and becomes about keeping others from advancing too.

History is full of examples of moments where progress didn’t destroy a society — it renewed it:

  • Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal rebuilt economic stability and dignity

  • Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society made rights real rather than theoretical

  • Postwar Europe rebuilt modern social democracies blending capitalism and social protection

  • Civil rights expansions did not break the United States — they fulfilled it more fully

Each of these required risk. Each required the belief that improvement is worth trying for. Progressivism, at its best, is not reckless revolution. It is the conviction that we should keep building a better society while we can — not freeze time out of fear.


Risk Tolerance Is the Real Difference

Strip away the slogans and tribal loyalties and political philosophy eventually comes down to one fundamental question:

How much risk are we willing to accept in pursuit of improvement?

Conservatism answers:
Not much. Stability matters more than improvement. Human systems break easily.

Progressivism answers:
Some risk is necessary. Human systems stagnate without reform.

The truth is not that one is always right and the other always wrong. The truth is that each is situationally wise. Healthy societies need:

  • conservative instincts to keep us from blowing ourselves up

  • progressive instincts to keep us from falling asleep in our comfort

But context matters.


When Conservatism Stops Being Conservatism

There is an additional complication in our moment: much of what calls itself “conservatism” today — especially in its MaGA form — has abandoned conservatism’s core principles entirely.

Traditional conservatism valued:

  • institutions

  • constitutional constraints

  • civic responsibility

  • moral character

  • measured change

MaGA politics often values:

  • disruption for its own sake

  • loyalty to leaders over loyalty to law

  • grievance instead of civic duty

  • chaos disguised as “strength”

  • rejection of expertise, tradition, and restraint

That is not conservatism. It is populist reaction, opportunism, and frequently authoritarian sympathy wrapped in conservative language. Conservatives used to see themselves as guardians of democracy. Today too many embrace rhetoric that treats democracy as legitimate only when their side wins.

So when critics argue against “conservatism,” they often are not arguing against prudence or stability. They are arguing against a movement pretending to be conservative while actively attacking the very institutional and moral principles conservatism was built to protect.


A Healthy Society Needs Forward Motion — and a Steady Hand

The idea I keep returning to is simple:

Conservatism works best when danger threatens collapse.
Progress works best when strength allows ambition.

Neither philosophy is evil. Neither is inherently superior in all times. But a society that forgets how to adapt dies slowly. And a society that abandons stability destroys itself quickly.

The goal should never be permanent revolutionary fever or permanent stagnation. It should be balance — with the wisdom to recognize when we need stability most, and when we should dare to build something better while we are strong enough to do so.

The tragedy of our modern politics is that we treat this as a permanent war rather than an ongoing conversation about timing, context, and responsibility.

The future belongs not to those who cling terrified to the past, and not to those who tear down merely for joy, but to those who understand that preservation and progress are not enemies.

They are tools.
And wise societies know when to use each one.


Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!




Thursday, October 9, 2025

Notes on Books, Brains, and the Strange State of Knowing in America

When Is a Book a “Hit”?

In a country of 340 million people, the raw numbers are misleading. Out of more than a million books released each year, most never sell more than a few hundred copies. For self-published authors, 250 copies lifetime sales is average. Even for traditional publishing, most titles don’t break 1,000–5,000 copies.

So yes, selling 10,000 books is a hit for almost any author outside of the megastar tier. For a small press or indie writer, it’s career-changing. For a Big Five publisher, it’s “respectable,” though not necessarily a bestseller. And if those 10,000 copies sell fast, it can land a book on a list like the New York Times depending on competition that week.

📖 1970s–1980s: A Stronger Midlist

  • Publishing was more consolidated, and midlist authors (those who weren’t blockbusters but sold steadily) could expect 20,000–40,000 copies of a hardcover and more in paperback.

  • Advances were better, and publishers invested in nurturing careers over time.


📖 1990s: Chain Stores and Mass-Market Paperbacks

  • Big-box booksellers (Borders, Barnes & Noble) and huge print runs meant that even “average” titles sold decently.

  • A midlist paperback could still push 10,000–50,000 copies fairly reliably.


📖 2000s: Amazon & Online Disruption

  • Online sales and later eBooks broke the traditional distribution model.

  • Print runs shrank. Shelf space in physical stores became harder to get unless you were already a star.

  • Midlist sales started collapsing — 5,000 copies was becoming the new “solid” number.


📖 2010s: Self-Publishing Boom

  • With Kindle Direct Publishing and other platforms, millions of new titles flooded the market.

  • The average sales curve fell sharply: most books (self-pub or traditional) now sell under 1,000 copies lifetime.

  • “Success” was quietly redefined: selling 5,000 copies was considered strong, and 10,000 made you exceptional in most niches.


📖 2020s: Current Landscape

  • The flood of new titles has only grown — Bowker reported over 4 million ISBNs were registered in 2022.

  • Discoverability is the key issue; competition is massive.

  • Today, even big publishers often count 10,000 sales as a solid win for a debut or midlist book. For indies, 1,000+ is rare and celebrated.


✅ The drop happened gradually between the late 1990s and mid-2010s, as chain stores collapsed, Amazon rewired the market, and self-publishing massively expanded the pool of available titles. What once looked modest now counts as a genuine success because the denominator (number of books competing) exploded while attention spans and shelf space shrank.


Anti-Intellectual Intellectualism

There’s a cultural mindset worth naming: anti-intellectual intellectualism. It shows up in people who are educated enough to argue against education, convinced that skimming daily news headlines makes them better informed than specialists, while resisting the humility deeper study requires.

This is not a lack of intelligence but a rejection of expertise. Credentials are reframed as corruption. Headlines become “evidence.” Skimming stands in for mastery. It’s a way of having just enough education to scorn the very idea of education.


How Many Americans Fit This?

The numbers tell a story.

  • Gallup (2023): only 36% of Americans had confidence in higher education, down from 57% in 2015.

  • Pew: roughly a third of Americans say colleges have a negative effect on the country.

That distrust isn’t limited to the uneducated. A chunk of the college-educated also dismiss higher ed as elitist or ideological, yet present themselves as more insightful than the “ivory tower.”

By rough estimate, about 10–15% of Americans could be described as fitting the “anti-intellectual intellectual” mold. That’s tens of millions of people. A minority, but a noisy and influential one.


The Skim-and-Shout Era

Pew Research has found that many Americans admit they consume news only casually or by skimming, yet describe themselves as “well informed.” Social media rewards confidence over depth, and that turns fragments and memes into strong, immovable positions.

The performance of knowledge replaces knowledge itself.

This actually also gets into the workforce as well as too much available information. When you're working 80 hours a week, or 60, or 40, you have a family, possibly, it's a lot to deal with. We need downtime to process and when we don't get that, we have to do the only thing available to most of us...dumb down.

We are at the point we've been expecting for decades, a need to slow not pick up speed. To work less per week (and per day) not more. Not 6 days a week, not 10 hour days, but 4 day weeks. We NEED at least 3 day weekends. We need at least no more than 6 hour days of work.

We’ve reached the point many of us anticipated decades ago—the moment to slow down, not speed up. The future of work shouldn’t be six-day weeks or ten-hour shifts. It should mean four-day weeks, six-hour days at most, and at least three-day weekends. That’s what we need now. Consider cutting hours by half—it would double the number of jobs available while giving people back their lives.

Even back in the 1970s it was clear this day was coming: automation promised to take on the workload, robots were meant to handle the repetitive jobs, and AI would eventually free us even further—for the higher experiences of being human.

So why haven’t we arrived there? Who’s holding us back from this better life? Toxic capitalism. Corporations clinging to outdated measures of productivity. A culture that confuses exhaustion with virtue. AI and robotics already make a shorter workweek not just possible, but practical—if those in power would open their eyes. The tools to liberate us are already here, yet the will to use them for human benefit has been stolen by leaders who serve shareholders over people. What’s missing isn’t capability—it’s courage.

But enough about that...for now.


A Long American Tradition

Suspicion of higher education isn’t new. Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-Intellectualism in American Life traced how hostility to “book learning” has been a recurring theme in U.S. culture. From religious populism to political movements, there’s always been an undercurrent that treats expertise as a threat rather than a resource.

What’s new today is the speed and scale of amplification. Social media has given anti-intellectual intellectualism a megaphone, letting opinion without study travel further than scholarship with evidence.

Religion and Anti-Intellectualism in America

Religion has always been entwined with American anti-intellectualism, and that’s still true today. For many, faith provides community and meaning, but it can also reinforce suspicion of secular expertise. In the U.S., certain strands of Christianity frame universities as hostile to belief, science as an enemy of scripture, and intellectual inquiry as a distraction from “truth.” 

This doesn’t describe all religious Americans—many scientists, doctors, and educators are devout—but the cultural pull is powerful. It allows congregations to celebrate certainty over questioning, to privilege conviction over evidence, and to treat higher education as dangerous indoctrination rather than a tool for understanding. In this way, religion can act as a cultural amplifier of anti-intellectualism, giving it both moral weight and political force in American life today.


Depth vs. Skimming

In our media-saturated world of skimmers of reality, information, and knowledge, this isn’t just a global problem...in our country of 340 million, it’s magnified. We risk (risk, as in it's coming or it's already here?) becoming (becoming?) a nation that confuses appearances for truth, speed for wisdom, and noise for understanding.

One of the real losses in America isn’t just declining trust in education or expertise — it’s the way we’ve turned into a nation of skimmers. We scroll headlines, half-listen to podcasts, glance at snippets on social media, and convince ourselves we’ve absorbed the whole story. But knowledge has never worked that way. Understanding requires patience, revisiting sources, and wrestling with uncomfortable detail.

It would be good to stop being a country of skimmers and return to being a country of readers, listeners, and thinkers willing to go in-depth.

Skimming through life may give us speed, but depth is what gives us wisdom. 

Yes, we’re deluged with information and taxed for time, but we have to get beyond the Idiocracy of media saturation. Knowing a little about everything is not the same as knowing deeply. The former is good for appearance — for looking “smart” to others, and delusionally to oneself — but it leaves us shallow. 

Opposing views in a room full of the shallow don’t lead to wisdom — they lead to exactly what we’re seeing all around us today: leadership that has submerged itself not in principle or purpose, or even accurate information, but in whatever offers control over to THEM.

What might serve us better is choosing what matters most, and then going further. Knowing less about everything and more about the important things that truly shape our lives, our communities, and our future could do us all much more good.

Books rarely sell in big numbers, but 10,000 copies still matter. Education produces humility when it works, but when rejected, it fuels confidence without comprehension. America is big enough that even a minority who skim and sneer can shape politics and culture. And the old tension between expertise and populism isn’t going away — it just looks different now, in the age of headlines and hashtags.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!


Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Thursday, September 11, 2025

What Was Wrong With Charlie Kirk’s Conservatism?

Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, built his career by marketing conservatism to a new generation. He filled college campuses with fiery speeches, social media clips, and slogans that thrived in the age of outrage. To his supporters, Kirk was an essential bridge between Donald Trump’s populism and younger voters.

But step back, and his “conservatism” looked far less like a continuation of traditional conservative thought and much more like a distortion of it. Here’s why.


Populism Over Principle

Conservatism once emphasized guiding ideas: limited government, fiscal restraint, constitutionalism, and the preservation of order. Kirk’s brand replaced that with populist spectacle. His stagecraft often focused more on owning the libs than defending coherent policies. For many, this turned conservatism into little more than performance art, something viral rather than viable.


Hostility to Democratic Norms

One of the pillars of conservative thought has always been a respect for institutions, from courts to elections. Yet Kirk aligned himself with Donald Trump’s false claims of mass voter fraud after 2020. Instead of strengthening civic trust, he fed the idea that elections could never be trusted unless his side won. That is not conservatism, it is corrosion.


Contradictions With Tradition

Traditional conservatives valued stability, order, and personal responsibility. They pushed free markets, not protectionism. They held leaders accountable, rather than excusing bad behavior as “strength.” Kirk selectively embraced these ideas only when they aligned with Trumpism. His conservatism became less about principles and more about personalities.


Making His Own Party Uneasy

Even within Republican circles, Kirk’s rhetoric sometimes raised alarm. Party elders who valued discipline, order, and electoral strategy worried that his inflammatory comments were alienating swing voters and feeding a culture of conspiracy inside the base. Kirk was not just speaking to the fringe, he was often normalizing it.


A Toxic Influence on Youth

Kirk’s real power came from youth outreach. Turning Point USA offered conservative students community and purpose. But the version of conservatism he gave them was warped, built on anger, distrust, and endless culture war. Many young followers embraced his message with zeal, without realizing how toxic it was compared to the conservatism of earlier generations. Instead of encouraging responsible civic engagement, it bred disillusionment, division, and sometimes outright hostility toward democratic norms.


The Extremist Echo

Kirk also blurred the line between mainstream conservatism and its darker fringes. He was targeted by white nationalist “groypers” who said he was not hardline enough, yet he also shared platforms with conspiracy theorists and culture warriors whose views pushed conservatism further from its roots. This made him both a lightning rod and a gateway for extremism.


The Culture War Obsession

Above all, Kirk defined conservatism as a culture war. On campuses and online, he hammered away at issues like gender identity, immigration, and “wokeness.” Always us versus them. Always battle lines. But in the process, he narrowed conservatism into something smaller, angrier, and less appealing to independents and moderates, the very people conservatives need to persuade in a democracy.


Conclusion: Conservatism, Undermined

What was wrong with Charlie Kirk’s conservatism? It was not conservative. It was reactive, divisive, and personality-driven. Instead of preserving institutions, he attacked them. Instead of broadening appeal, he shrank it. Instead of guiding youth toward principled participation, he pulled them into a delusional and toxic culture war.

Kirk may have built a platform, but in doing so he hollowed out the tradition he claimed to represent and left a generation of conservatives worse off for it.

In the end, no matter how deep our disagreements run, the answer cannot be violence. We do not kill fellow Americans. Our politics should be argued, voted on, and fought with words, not with weapons.

Voltaire was right: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Yet there is more to it than that, isn't there.

We not only have the right, but the mandate, to protect not just the freedom of speech itself, but the health of a nation that remains strong enough, supportive enough, and decent enough to uphold those rights.

Trump’s own view of this principle seems very different. He has repeatedly shown that he values loyalty to himself over the protection of the rights of others. Where Voltaire placed the principle above the person, Trump consistently places himself above the principle. Even when it is left unspoken, it is clearly intended.

The assassin of Charlie Kirk, and this may change as more info emerges, appears to be a conservative American citizen whose anger at Kirk’s orientation and beliefs is justified and understandable, but whose fatal error was turning that anger into the killing of another American.

We do not kill fellow Americans. When Donald Trump mocked the brutal attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, it showed his utter lack of decency and a form of politics that is toxic and should be anathema to all other humans. Most Americans are better than that, and we should prove it.

Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Wednesday, August 27, 2025

When Conservatism Overstays Its Welcome

Conservatism is not, in itself, evil. 

At its best, it is a stabilizing force. In moments of crisis — war, economic collapse, or social upheaval — the conservative instinct to hold steady, preserve what works, and resist rapid change can serve a society well. 

It buys time to regroup and reorient before resuming the forward march of progress.

But as a lifestyle, a way of life, an argued design of one's, of all's reality, it rapidly becomes toxic. 

As we're seeing today...

When conservatism overstays its welcome, it becomes corrosive. It stops being about stability and becomes about fear. And fear, once enthroned as the guiding principle of politics, does not merely stall progress — it corrodes courage, narrows imagination, and breeds submission.


Fear as the Engine

Conservatism in moderation counsels caution. Conservatism in excess weaponizes fear. Instead of meeting new realities with courage, it teaches retreat. It whispers: hold back, trust nothing, cling tighter. What begins as prudence slowly becomes cowardice.

And cowardice demands protection. To maintain its fragile sense of safety, overextended conservatism turns to controlling others. Fear of change becomes laws against new ideas. Fear of difference becomes discrimination. Fear of losing control becomes censorship and authoritarian policing of culture.

When a coward is elevated to office under the guise of providing safety, that safety quickly shrinks to one person: the leader. For everyone else, it becomes restriction.


Conservatism’s Self-Consuming Engine

Conservatives often describe liberals and progressives as reckless dreamers, naïve idealists, or dangerous radicals. They cast themselves as the sober adults in the room, standing guard against chaos. That perception is comforting — but it is also an illusion.

Because when conservatism holds power unchecked, it reveals its true nature. It is not about balance, nor about protecting institutions for the good of all. It is about preserving itself. The engine of conservatism is designed to absorb, consolidate, and restrict — and once in motion, it feeds only on its own desire to survive.

This is why every unchecked conservative movement drifts toward authoritarianism. Fear is the fuel. Control is the method. Self-perpetuation is the goal. It presents itself as restraint, but in practice it consumes freedoms, narrows rights, and hollows out democracy.

Today’s Republican Party is the clearest example. It no longer seeks to conserve the best of America — its democratic ideals, its pluralism, its spirit of innovation. Instead, it devours those very ideals to protect its own survival. In calling liberals reckless, conservatives fool themselves. The recklessness lies not in progress, but in the refusal to move forward.


Why Conservatism Works Best as a Curb

It is better for conservatism to act as a curb to progressive liberalism than the other way around.

Progress is Motion, Conservatism is Resistance
History shows constant forward movement — in science, rights, technology, and social expansion. Progress is the natural engine of society. Conservatism works best as the brake pedal: slowing, checking, and questioning momentum when needed, but not stopping it outright.

Conservatism in Power Consumes
When conservatism is the driver, not the curb, it tends to overprotect the status quo. It hoards power, preserves hierarchies, and chokes adaptation. This self-protective instinct eventually undermines democracy.

Progress Can Absorb Correction; Conservatism Cannot Absorb Growth
Progressive movements can survive conservative restraint — reforms may be delayed or slowed, but they eventually move forward (civil rights, suffrage, labor protections). Conservatism, however, cannot absorb progressive expansion. It collapses under the weight of change it refuses to accept. Hence, it resorts to fear, repression, or authoritarian control.

The Balance
Conservatism is safest when it serves as a curb on progress — applying caution and restraint — rather than progress being forced to act as a curb on conservatism. Because when progress curbs conservatism, the result is outright confrontation. And when conservatism resists too hard, it doesn’t just stall; it risks breaking the very system it claims to protect.


The Slide Toward Authoritarianism

History shows what happens when the conservative spiral accelerates. In 20th-century Europe, movements overwhelmed by fear of modernity embraced authoritarian strongmen who promised protection. Fear became not a defense but a weapon, wielded against outsiders, minorities, and dissenters. Fascism did not arise from courage; it arose from conservatism metastasized into permanent fear.

The danger is not confined to history books. Wherever conservatism becomes the permanent state of governance, it risks the same degeneration. Fear-driven politics invite leaders who thrive on control, offering safety in exchange for obedience. The result is always the same: diminished freedom, hollowed-out democracy, and citizens taught that survival means submission.


Progress as the Antidote

The antidote to fear is not more fear, but courage. And courage is inherently progressive — it seeks solutions, embraces adaptation, and welcomes the new as necessary for survival. America itself was born from a radical act of progressive courage: the rejection of monarchy, hierarchy, and divine right. If the Founders had thought like today’s conservatives, America might never have existed.

So yes, conservatism has a role. It is the pause button in times of distress. But it must never be the default setting. Because when fear becomes the permanent fuel of politics, the engine inevitably drives toward repression.

Conservatism should be the brace in the storm, not the chains that bind us afterward. When it rules by fear, it stops being conservative at all — and becomes the seedbed of fascism.


The Abuse of Conservatism and the Abyss Ahead

In its healthiest form, conservatism is a stabilizing influence. But what we’ve witnessed over the past decades in America is not conservatism in its original sense — it is the abuse of it.

The language of tradition has become a shield for corruption. The appeal to stability has become a justification for stagnation. And fear has become the main tool of control.

Out of this distortion rose Trump — not an anomaly, but the inevitable consequence of a political culture addicted to fear and resentment. His promise was not to conserve anything meaningful, but to tear down democracy itself under the guise of “saving” it.

Millions followed. People who once trusted conservatism as a philosophy of caution were swept into a movement that mocked institutions, undermined truth, and embraced authoritarian instincts. They were told democracy itself was the enemy if it did not bend to their will.

Now, what remains of that movement drifts further into the abyss. It is no longer about limited government or prudent restraint. It is about raw power, loyalty tests, and dismantling the very system that allowed it to rise.

The abuse of conservatism created Trump — and Trump now consumes what’s left of conservatism. 

Those who follow him are not conserving America. They are helping to end it.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!



Compiled with aid of ChatGPT