More phony "conservatives".
Few have heard of the “eco-Right” — so-called conservatives who support the Left’s global warming policies — but it’s arguably the biggest threat to the future of the conservative movement. These groups may call themselves “free market” environmentalists, but they preach the religion of manmade global warming with the same fervor as the left-wing faithful.
So, who's funding these people? Need you ask?
Disturbingly, many of these groups are heavily funded by liberal foundations—raking in millions of dollars from mega-donors like the Hewlett Foundation and billionaire George Soros—to push destructive policies.
The Hewlett Foundation, incidentally, is another creature of the billionaire Left, having been started by William Hewlett, a co-founder of Hewlett-Packard, and his wife Flora, more than 50 years ago. It has always been a teat for progressives on the make, including birth control ghouls and enviro-wackos. This is the reason I never bought Hewlett-Packard products.
4 comments:
Speaking of "conservative" journs remember Rod Dreher the "crunchy conservative", definitely in the running with Allahpundit and Frum for the original cucks.
I haven't read Dreher in ages. I would lament his turn to NeverTrumpism, but he always did seen temperamentally unstable. I seem to recall that he changed his religion a couple of times over the course of two or three years. I believe he converted to Roman Catholicism, and then, when the Church didn't respond quickly enough to the widespread charges of pedophilia to suit him, he turned to one of the Orthodox communions. God only knows (if anyone does) what faith he is professing these days.
AP, on the other hand, never seemed "right" to me. A witty writer long ago, I guess his conservatism didn't extend beyond his fear of Islamic terrorism. In any event, he always gave me the clear impression that he was trolling the base, stirring the pot just to see people get agitated, constantly indulging in a kind of languid cynicism. I have yet to meet a committed cynic who is not, in fact, a disappointed romantic, so I suppose AP at some point became disillusioned with a cause or belief that must have meant a lot to him earlier in life. So now, he's all gall and wormwood. I am convinced that his original positioning as a conservative or libertarian was some kind of accident, or perhaps just mere opportunism. He and others like him would seem to have a dim future. Not pure (or convincing) enough in their ideology ever to be genuinely accepted by progressives, not honest enough in the defense of their election choices ever to be readmitted to the trust of traditional conservatives.
Another factor to consider are those pundits who gained much notoriety in the early days of blogging came to the conclusion that they were much smarter than they really were. Assuming that they didn't have an overinflated ego in the first place. So when they pasted their peak fame (as all celebrities do), they became bitter and cynical. From whence they started their downhill slide.
Whatshisname of LGF fame is an extreme example of that. I stopped reading AP on a regular basis swhen he tarted to chide his readers in a pretty condescending fashion. I still do, but not because AP wrote it. No, I follow the headline, and when I realize from the tone of the article (bitter, cynical, angry, even vicious) that I skipped the byline, I scroll back up and see that, yep, AP is the author. Whereupon I either grab my (metaphorical) salt shaker, or (equally often) just stop reading. Depends on the topic. I appreciate alternate view points, but that doesn't mean I'm going to enjoy them.
One can deal with only so much pain, after all.
Yes, it is probably AP's smarmy condescension that is most offensive.
Post a Comment