Not a fan of Jason Aldean

[Crockett]

But his political opinions from Try That in a Small Town trouble me not. It's a damn shame we pillory folks who express opinions out of alignment with our own. Maybe because i pretty much agree with the sentiments from the song, but the criticism seems shrill, hollow and smells of ********. Contemporary hit country music lacks some of the profound human insight that drew me to the genre in my youth and young adulthood. I don't like the sound or feel much engaged by the repetitious structure and themes.

 

[SabreHorn]

Crockett,

Just for you one of my favorites.

Then there are those two guys from The High Plains who separately told Nashville to stick it and went home to do their music their way. Charles Harden Holley was truly a visionary, and Waylon just refused to allow his music to be bastardized so he came home to become a star.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I've never been a country music fan and never even heard of Jason Aldean before this BS controversy. I listened to the song and watched the video, and the criticism is rank ******** and made entirely in bad faith. Neither the song nor the video have anything to do with race or lynching. It's a condemnation of violence (which came heavily from white progress) and the celebration of the willingness of small town people to stand up for themselves and each other.

 

[theiioftx]

I live in two different small southern towns and the song is spot on. In my beach town, the police, fire and rescue never buy their meals because the locals cover it.

Crime is non-existent. I’m my town south of Nashville, we are starting to get car break ins and it’s always out of town thugs. Our sheriff and DA are about to put the hammer down to put a stop it.

 

[theiioftx]

Sheryl Crow has come out against Aldean. She is against gun violence. Of course, she lives in a highly secure gated estate in the safest part of Tennessee. Hypocrite.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Sheryl Crow has come out against Aldean. She is against gun violence. Of course, she lives in a highly secure gated estate in the safest part of Tennessee. Hypocrite.

She's one of these singers who should be a conservative but isn't. Ditto for Springsteen.

 

[Facing Addiction]

 

[Facing Addiction]

 

[guy4321]

Sheryl Crow has come out against Aldean. She is against gun violence. Of course, she lives in a highly secure gated estate in the safest part of Tennessee. Hypocrite.

She's one of these singers who should be a conservative but isn't. Ditto for Springsteen.

Reports state she may even use two or more pieces of TP these days.

 

[Garmel]

At this point the National Review just needs to go away.

 

[Monahorns]

At this point the National Review just needs to go away.

Never should have existed. I think it was started to gate keep Conservative thought. WFB worked for the CIA.

 

[Run Pincher]

At this point the National Review just needs to go away.

I'm sure they want to hear all those rappa songs about virtue.

 

[Garmel]

Never should have existed. I think it was started to gate keep Conservative thought. WFB worked for the CIA.

For a so-called conservative site they sure as hell seem to parrot the MSM way too often. Seriously, it needs to go away like the Weekly Standard.

 

[Driver 8]

Can someone explain this to me so that I may outrage appropriately, thank you

 

[Hollandtx]

Can someone explain this to me so that I may outrage appropriately, thank you

On the off chance you are being semi-serious, (which I doubt) your wish is my command. I have some liberal friends.
I see nothing wrong with the song, personally. It's got a good beat and you can dance to it.
And, if police are few and far between, and felons will be released in hours, sadly we are headed to a place where we will have defend ourselves.

And of course, there are thousands of songs with lyrics of outright violence against police, white people, the USA, etc that are freely played daily.

(If you haven't seen the video, there are examples taken from camera phones or the media from the last few years, he's not making anything up)

]Lyrics

Sucker punch somebody on a sidewalk
Carjack an old lady at a red light
Pull a gun on the owner of a liquor store
Ya think it's cool, well, act a fool if ya like
Cuss out a cop, spit in his face
Stomp on the flag and light it up
Yeah, ya think you're tough
Well, try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won't take long
For you to find out, I recommend you don't
Try that in a small town
Got a gun that my granddad gave me
They say one day they're gonna round up
Well, that **** might fly in the city, good luck
Try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won't take long
For you to find out, I recommend you don't
Try that in a small town
Full of good ol' boys, raised up right
If you're looking for a fight
Try that in a small town
Try that in a small town
Try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won't take long
For you to find out, I recommend you don't
Try that in a small town
Try that in a small town
Ooh-ooh
Try that in a small town

Outrage talking points:
* so, what will you do to us if we try any of these things in your small town?
* You filmed in front of a courthouse ( often use in a few movies) where a black man was lynched in 1927
* so your answer to this is to shoot peaceful protesters?
and of course, You're a RACIST!

Cut this out, memorize the points, chew and swallow it. You will be a bonafide SJW.

 

[SabreHorn]

Holland,

Thank you.

My question for the complainers is when was the last time they had a "peaceful protest" or does this teach me that "looting is peaceful"

 

[Mr. Deez]

At this point the National Review just needs to go away.

I'm a NR subscriber, and this is ********. Defending one's family and community from lawless actors is virtuous. In fact, few things are more virtuous.

 

[guy4321]

I'm a NR subscriber, and this is ********. Defending one's family and community from lawless actors is virtuous. In fact, few things are more virtuous.

Have you or are you preparing a letter to the editor to describe as much and/or canceling your subscription?

 

[Garmel]

Deez, please quit reading that rag. Seriously.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Have you or are you preparing a letter to the editor to describe as much and/or canceling your subscription?

Deez, please quit reading that rag. Seriously.

I (along with many others) condemned it on their Twitter account. However, I'm not going to cancel my subscription because they published something I disagree with. I'm just not that fragile. 90+ percent of their content is solid stuff that neither of you would disagree with. And what other publication would I support? Nobody's going to agree with me all the time, and I don't expect them too.

 

[Garmel]

The National Review represents the establishment in our party, which IMHO is the problem in our party.

 

[Monahorns]

The National Review represents the establishment in our party, which IMHO is the problem in our party.

They have superintended conservatives losing every major political, economic, and cultural battle since WW2. They will write supportive pieces for the conservative viewpoint. But they will attack anyone on the right who has the will, power, or plan to actually defeat Progressivism.

Buckley publicly stated that we had to build a totalitarian system in the US in order to defeat the totalitarian system in the USSR. We are suffering under that reality today.

 

[Mr. Deez]

They have superintended conservatives losing every major political, economic, and cultural battle since WW2. They will write supportive pieces for the conservative viewpoint. But they will attack anyone on the right who has the will, power, or plan to actually defeat Progressivism.

Buckley publicly stated that we had to build a totalitarian system in the US in order to defeat the totalitarian system in the USSR. We are suffering under that reality today.

Buckley (and NR in general) had a broad and profound disagreement with you on foreign policy. That alone is going to make them at odds with you.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The National Review represents the establishment in our party, which IMHO is the problem in our party.

Not entirely. They break with the establishment wing on illegal immigration (where the establishment is pro-open borders) and on social and cultural issues (where the establishment is basically indifferent). However, I get your point. They mostly are not of the populist wing and are hostile to Trump. But isn't their position largely where I am?

 

[Monahorns]

Buckley (and NR in general) had a broad and profound disagreement with you on foreign policy. That alone is going to make them at odds with you.

I realize that. I admit.

But the main problem that continues today is how they police conservatives/libertarians who dare to really fight against the Progressive movement. I don't think it is any coincidence that the culture and government has slid left at break neck pace since the 50s when NR started. They weren't the ones pushing Leftist policy, but they did gate keep those on the right who were willing to truly fight it. Then they protected the Left's gains once they occurred. Conservative Inc is more than just one org now, but playbook started and spread under National Review and WFB Jr.

It is no coincidence either that he has noted CIA ties. As my understanding of the CIA increases my opinion of them decreases.

 

[Garmel]

Not entirely. They break with the establishment wing on illegal immigration (where the establishment is pro-open borders) and on social and cultural issues (where the establishment is basically indifferent). However, I get your point. They mostly are not of the populist wing and are hostile to Trump. But isn't their position largely where I am?

Yes, but the problem is that NR and other Establishment thought is like Mona has correctly stated that it's not on the side of what is is right. Our society has done nothing but die a slow death with them in charge fighting the left. Yet, they'll handcuff not only Trump but anyone who fights the left because that person isn't somehow perfect in their eyes. They've enabled the left to corrupt the schools, science, the legal system and yes even our election systems even though the latter they can't seem to figure out despite warning signs everywhere.

I hope you eventually dump these losers, man because for the life of me I can't see their appeal.

 

[Monahorns]

Yes, but the problem is that NR and other Establishment thought is like Mona has correctly stated that it's not on the side of what is is right. Our society has done nothing but die a slow death with them in charge fighting the left. Yet, they'll handcuff not only Trump but anyone who fights the left because that person isn't somehow perfect in their eyes. They've enabled the left to corrupt the schools, science, the legal system and yes even our election systems even though the latter they can't seem to figure out despite warning signs everywhere.

I hope you eventually dump these losers, man because for the life of me I can't see their appeal.

Garmel, I have to admit. I came to NR late. When I started reading them I thought it was awesome. Couldn't imagine how any conservative wasn't 100% behind what they were about. But then when Trump came on the scene. A couple of them completely flipped out. They made good arguments for why he wasn't that great. But then flipped out. Then as I started reading other conservative/libertarian sites. I started to realize that they did soft pedal things subtly. They allowed out and out Keynesians, establishmentarians, and Progressives write there without any criticism from the other writers. I still thought WFB Jr was great for quite a while too. But then I started reading many of the people he blacklisted. He got really good conservatives kicked out of other organizations too. He used the same labels the Left uses today. Racist. Sexist. Mean. Radical. Crazy. Etc.

I've read several of them. They aren't racist. They are courageous enough to speak truth. Even when that means an antebellum, slave owning Southerner was correct and the Northern Unionist was wrong. They never justify slavery or racism. But they aren't afraid to say, even if a guy in the 19th century was racist, he had the right political theory. It is also important to understand that based on 21st Centrury view points, everyone was racist. Democrat. Republican. South. North. Urban. Rural. So the label can literally be thrown at anybody of that time. I think the more prudent option is to label no one but agree with the good, true, and beautiful things they did hold to. The bad stuff can be acknowledged and moved aside.

 

[Mr. Deez]

But the main problem that continues today is how they police conservatives/libertarians who dare to really fight against the Progressive movement.

Whom have they policed or attacked because they "really" fought the progressive movement?

Our society has done nothing but die a slow death with them in charge fighting the left. Yet, they'll handcuff not only Trump but anyone who fights the left because that person isn't somehow perfect in their eyes. They've enabled the left to corrupt the schools, science, the legal system and yes even our election systems even though the latter they can't seem to figure out despite warning signs everywhere.

A few points here. First, remember that although NR is associated with the party establishment, that's only because they helped defeat the previous establishment, which was dominated by the Rockefeller wing of the party, who would make the current GOP establishment look like David Duke. It was basically social liberals who liked big business (especially banks) and didn't like unions as much as Democrats did. (Think Jacob Javits, Lowell Weicker, and John Lindsay.)

Second, I think you overstate their significance. They're a facet of the conservative movement, but they're not that powerful. They certainly aren't powerful enough to blame them for all those institutions being taken over by the Left.

Third, NR actively fought the corruption of schools, science, and the legal system. Those institutions got corrupted largely because the Right walked away from them while the Left prioritized them. Conservative parents told their kids to turn into accountants, doctors, stockbrokers, and businessmen and make money. Liberal parents told their kids to become teachers, lawyers, journalists, and college professors and "make a difference." Repeat that cycle millions of times over several decades, and you get the total capture of education, science, and the legal system (though far less so than the others) by the Left. That happened in spite of NR, which encouraged the Right to do the opposite.

I hope you eventually dump these losers, man because for the life of me I can't see their appeal.

Here's their appeal (at least to me). For starters, they largely embrace a Reagan-oriented conservatism. It's the conservatism I grew up under and became politically engaged and active under, so I'm ideologically close to them even if they aren't right all the time. Second, their writers are knowledgeable and write well. A lot of material I see in other publications (even big media outlets, which should have the best people) simply isn't very high quality. Third, they prioritize persuasion and advocacy and make an intellectual case for conservatism. We don't see anywhere near enough of that, and I appreciate it when I do see it.

 

[Monahorns]

Whom have they policed or attacked because they "really" fought the progressive movement?

Let me clarify. I likened fighting to holding noncompromising stances and declaring extremely harsh criticism against progressivism. Nobody has truly fought with force against the leftist march through the institutions. But let me list some names that Buckley black listed over the years for being right wing radicals. Paul Gottfried. Sam Francis. James Burnham. Murray Rothbard. Clyde Wilson. The John Birch Society. Peter Brimelow. Joe Sobran. John Derbershire. All but two of those were off the top of my head.

You may disagree with these guys or at least part of what they taught. I do too. But they were all voices on the right that were much more radical and were pushing for much more uncompromising policies to protect American culture and the American constitutional order.

 

[Monahorns]

If you want to know the nature of conservativism before the world wars versus after.

The Betrayal of the American Right | Murray N. Rothbard