Brilliant and solid essay, Hector. Arrogance and distain are not virtues, and so never virtues in a victor. Those who revile wokism for its implacable pitiless perversions of fairness and reality would do well to be kind, bold, fair and patient. And resolute, not rash.
I think you are confused, being a liberal who says he is a conservative, but still an authoritarian. You write assuming that Hamas and Putin are the bad guys, and Israel, the US (government), and Ukraine are the good guys. They are all bad guys. World leadership has betrayed their people.
US foreign policy has been a destabilizing disaster, not a world saving force for good. Bad actors within the US government did stage a color revolution in Ukraine, threatened Russia, and the Russian invasion was a largely defensive move. The Middle East has gone from functioning dictatorships to bombed out disaster areas overrun with terrorists through US involvement.
Russia doesn't have Gulags any more.
You seem to hold as unquestioningly foundational the idea that not accepting pat historical narratives is lunacy. The communist governments after WWII turned out to be worse than Hitler, killing over 200 million of their own people. There are a disproportionate number of Jews in positions of influence and power, and their overwhelmingly progressive agenda has been a disaster for the US middle class. It's becoming ok to notice these things.
I don't think you understand conservatism, liberalism, or libertarianism, and are pretentiously claiming the label of conservative in order to derail it.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I’m not sure you realize it, but you’ve done an excellent job illustrating most of the claims I made. Let’s walk through them, shall we?
1. You open by accusing me of being an authoritarian for… disagreeing?
Everyone is free to think what they like, and I’m free to point out where I think they’re wrong. You’re clearly exercising your free speech, but you seem to criticize me for exercising mine. Furthermore, you fall into the same leftist strategy I described: calling anyone who disagrees with you some form of authoritarian, its or phobe.
2. You collapse moral categories by treating democracies and terror states as morally equivalent.
Saying “they’re all bad guys”—the U.S., Russia, Hamas—ignores crucial differences:
• Israel is a flawed democracy defending itself from literal terrorist organizations that rape and burn civilians.
• Ukraine is defending its sovereignty from an authoritarian invader.
• Hamas and Putin are aggressors who intentionally target civilians.
• Moral confusion arises when you treat imperfection in democracies as equivalent to deliberate evil.
• This is precisely the Chomskyan moral nihilism that has plagued the left for decades.
3. You claim the Russian invasion was “defensive.”
A “defensive invasion” is an oxymoron. If we apply that principle universally, it would justify any authoritarian aggression. This mirrors the Cold War-era justifications I heard firsthand, framing Soviet expansionism as “defensive.”
4. You claim “Russia doesn’t have Gulags anymore.”
While technically accurate, the machinery of repression is alive and well. Russia jails political dissidents (just ask Navalny—oh wait, you can’t, because he died in prison), crushes protests, and shuts down free media. Again, this echoes the historical revisionism I heard during the Cold War from leftists trying to downplay Soviet abuses.
5. You reduce Middle Eastern instability entirely to U.S. actions.
The instability in the Middle East is a complex mix of internal revolutions, regional rivalries, tribal conflicts, and yes, disastrous Western interventions. But reducing the entire collapse of the region to American involvement strips agency from millions who elected Islamofascist governments on their own. Ironically, this infantilization of non-Western peoples is another habit the progressive left perfected long ago—seeing non-Westerners only as passive victims, never active agents.
6. You frame commitment to historical accuracy as “unquestioning acceptance of narratives.”
I’m not objecting to skepticism per se. I’m objecting to fact-free, motivated rewriting of history. There’s a difference between measured skepticism and participating in the demolition of reality—something exemplified by The 1619 Project. Nikole Hannah-Jones makes arguments almost identical to yours.
7. You claim it’s becoming “okay to notice” Jewish influence.
First, “disproportionality” is meaningless without showing malicious intent. Again, same arguments when racialist mention how CEO offices are disproportionally white and male.
Second, reducing cultural and political movements to an ethnic conspiracy is not “noticing”—it’s a shortcut to dangerous, historically bloody ideologies.
Third, the “noticing” seems hyperfocused on “the Jeeeeewwws” while ignoring far greater foreign influences—like the CCP and Qatari money pouring into Western universities and politics. Once again, excusing communists and Islamists—just like the left.
Finally, you’re lumping the majority of Jews into a progressive monolith, which is factually incorrect. Almost 100% of practicing Jews—the ones who hold God, Torah, and Israel as bedrocks—are conservative by definition. And they span North African, Middle Eastern, and European lineages. Reality is a little more complicated than the caricature you’re trying to picture.
Lastly, you accuse me of “pretending” to be a conservative to derail conservatism. But what I defend—tradition, ordered liberty, rational limits, historical fidelity—is precisely the foundation conservatism. I’m trying to defend conservatism from a first principles position, not from the blind populist rage and conspiratorial thinking that characterized the left through the last few decades.
You’re free to believe whatever you want.
But mirroring the left’s worst habits will do far more damage to the conservative movement than anything I’ve written here.
I appreciate your thoughts, and I apologize for the slow reply. I am a fabricator, builder, and mechanic. This time of year has long days outside.
1. I accuse you of being an authoritarian, not for disagreeing, and not for exercising your free speech, but because the policies that you implicitly support require authoritarian implementation. Leftist strategy is not based on calling opponents authoritarian, it is based on appeals to authority ahead of being based on facts, logic, or reason. Authoritarianism is foundational to leftism. The essence of leftism is central planning by experts.
2&3. Democracies can just as easily be terror states as places governed in other ways. Hitler was democratically elected for crying out loud.
Israel is carrying out mass murder of an antagonistic people that are their intractable enemies. Tell me, is it better to be murdered and starved to death by Israeli action, or raped and tortured by Arabs? There are no good guys in that fight. The US government should stop all aid to Israel, and all foreign aid anywhere.
Ukraine is a failed state being used as a sock puppet by US warmongers to generate arms sale revenue, launder money, and harass Russia. The victims are the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian and Russian soldiers, the US taxpayers, and the perps are those feeding off the conflict. There are no good guys there either. When the USSR tried to put nuclear missile in Cuba, the US Government stopped it. When the US is trying to establish military bases in Ukraine, Russia is stopping it. Same dynamic.
Moral confusion is when you condemn the same action in others that you condone in yourself.
4. The US has the largest prison population in the world, not only per capita but in raw numbers. As a conservative I have been targeted by he IRS and my mother was politically targeted by the Biden DOJ. You are absolutely kidding yourself that it doesn't happen here. I suppose you think that Epstein committed suicide?
5. I did not reduce Middle East instability to US actions. I correctly attributed US actions as the cause of horrible destruction in Middle East. The entire region has not collapsed yet, only the parts where the collapse was US caused and funded.
6. I used to accept "historical accuracy" as you do. I'm not a historian, but I can evaluate historical analysis, and I find inconsistencies. Do you believe the historical accuracy of the 911 narrative? The Iraq WMD's? The necessity of Covid lockdowns and masks? Much of the WWII story is a similar can of worms.
7. Noticing is noticing. Noticing is not a call to genocide the Jews. Disproportionate is in relation to percentage of population. It has nothing to do with malicious intent, it is an observable fact. Of course most Jews are decent human beings. Most people are and most Jews are too. Doesn't change the facts.
I am saying that government leaders and progressives in media, banking, entertainment, and education are fundamentally different than the people they lead/oppress.
Over 90% of college professors and journalists are Democrats. This is also disproportionate. It does not require malicious intent.
I in no way excuse the communists, either foreign or domestic. I think communism, leftism, liberalism, and socialism all operate on the same basic idea of central authoritarian control. I think it is diseased thinking, and that is what I am accusing you of.
How do you propose to defend your "rational limits" if not through authoritarian means? Who gets to decide if your liberty is "ordered liberty" or disordered liberty, and if your "rational limits" are rational?
Thanks for taking the time to respond—and no need to apologize for the delay. I appreciate that you’re engaging seriously. But I have to say, many of your objections misread what I actually wrote. In places, it feels like you skimmed the piece rather than engaging with its core arguments.
I’ll keep it brief, because I think we probably agree on more than you realize—and where we differ, I want to focus on the actual ideas, not straw men.
But first, let me say this plainly: most of your arguments rest on moral equivocation—the idea that all actors are essentially the same, and that the intentions or actions of one side are interchangeable with those of its opponent. That’s a dangerous game. If one believes in objective moral truths, then one must be able to distinguish between fundamentally different regimes. The U.S. and the USSR, for example, were not two sides of the same coin. They operated from radically different moral and ideological starting points. One of them was evil. I’m not afraid to say that.
OK… On to the meat of the argument. You claim I’m “authoritarian” because I supposedly support policies that would require authoritarian enforcement. But at no point in the essay do I propose any policy—authoritarian or otherwise. The piece is a moral and philosophical critique of ideological drift and rhetorical mimicry, especially how segments of the right are beginning to mirror the very tendencies on the left.
You seem to be confusing disagreement with silencing. I’m not calling for censorship, suppression, or centralized enforcement. I’m calling for conservatives to exercise personal judgment—to resist tribalism, moral collapse, and conspiracy thinking. That’s bottom-up, not top-down.
So let me ask you:
Do you believe authoritarianism can only come from the left?
Because that belief—ironically—is itself a mirror of leftist thinking (just flipped). You can argue, as I would, that liberalism contains authoritarian tendencies in its foundations, and that conservatism does not. But that’s exactly why conservatives need to hold firm to our principles. If we abandon them in a fit of political rage, we will drift toward tyranny—because that’s what human nature does when unmoored.
You also suggest that I’m naive about the West’s capacity for tyranny. I’m not. I know it can happen here—on the left or the right. That’s why I insist on foundational principles as a bulwark against it.
I believe government is a necessary evil that must be constrained and constantly monitored by the people. That’s why the first and second amendments are so vital. Nowhere else in the world do you have such robust protection of rights than in the US.
You mentioned your mother being targeted by the Biden administration. I’m sorry to hear that. I’ve lived in three and a half different countries over my life. I’ve seen tyranny up close—from my father’s friends being assassinated in the 1970s by the Mexican government, to Trudeau invoking emergency powers and freezing bank accounts, to a journalist friend of mine recently having her bank account frozen for running as a populist candidate.
But that experience also gives me perspective: not all governments are the same. As flawed as America is, its founding principles are still better than anything else on offer. So when someone says “America is corrupt and broken,” I always ask:
Compared to what?
On Gaza, I’ll keep it brief, though the topic deserves more. I lay most—if not all—of the civilian casualties at the feet of Hamas. They’ve built military installations inside schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings. That’s not a theory—it’s a documented war crime.
If they had returned the hostages (including Americans) on October 8th, the war likely would’ve ended that week.
It baffles me that some people assume Israel is lying (which is always possible) but take Hamas—an openly jihadist regime—as honest brokers. You either trust governments’ war messaging or you don’t. So I’ll ask:
What criteria do you use to trust one and not the other?
You also compared the U.S. response during the Cuban Missile Crisis to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Let’s get specific. The U.S. imposed a blockade and engaged in high-stakes diplomacy. It didn’t launch a full-scale ground invasion of Cuba.
Meanwhile, Russia has adopted an explicitly imperialist doctrine—Russkiy Mir—backed by officials who’ve said things like “the Russian world has no borders” and “Russia must expand in all directions.”
If the US/NATO presence near Russias borders is the issue, then where does that stop? Norway, Finland, Latvia, Estonia or Poland? All countries with US of NATO military bases all bordering Russia. So no… Not the same dynamic.
A few more questions for you:
Which country would you rather live in—China, Saudi Arabia, Canada?
There’s a reason you and millions of others choose America. It’s not perfect, but it’s not equal to the rest. It’s better.
On history—do you accept the 1619 Project’s view of America’s founding?
If not, then ask yourself: what criteria do you use to reject that revisionism while accepting others?
All historical narratives are told by someone. So yes, we should be skeptical—but also discerning. Just because one version has flaws doesn’t mean we should jump to its opposite. Painting Churchill as the villain of WWII and Hitler as the misunderstood victim isn’t historical revision—it’s delusion.
You can criticize Churchill as much as you want. He’s not a god. He was a flawed man, but in the aggregate the world is better because of his choices.
Not all ideas are equally worthy of our attention. It’s up to the individual to decide if some deserve a spotlight, others a passing glance, and some a raised eyebrow and a red flag.
Now, regarding your point on “noticing progressive Jewish influence” in elite institutions:
You’re right that it’s not wrong to acknowledge patterns. What is wrong is focusing on the “Jewish” part rather than the progressive part.
If I pointed out that many elite progressives are white and Christian (which they are), would it be fair to say “white Christian influence” is the problem?
Of course not. The issue is the progressive ideology, not the ethnic or religious background. Conflating the two isn’t noticing—it’s scapegoating.
And lastly, you misinterpret my calls for “rational limits” and “ordered liberty” as if I’m calling for some central authority to enforce them. I’m not. Quite the opposite.
I’m saying individuals must set those limits within themselves—through personal discipline, tradition, faith, and reason. That’s what conservatism means: internal restraint guided by enduring principles. If we don’t cultivate that within ourselves, we will get authoritarianism from somewhere. Because politics is downstream of culture. How do you think the left got to where it is? By believing they were immune to it and by being so blind to not recognize it when it took over completely.
If we don’t live out our principles, we shouldn’t be surprised when our politics collapse.
Thank you so much for the conversation, I really enjoyed it.
Thanks again for your writing! I think we may be talking past each other. I have pasted some quotes and replied below. I will try to be clear.
"most of your arguments rest on moral equivocation—the idea that all actors are essentially the same"
That is not what moral equivocation means, but I do believe that we are all equal under the eyes of God. An action is moral or immoral based on the action, not on who does it. Do you think otherwise?
So, do you think it is better for civilians to be murdered and starved to death by the IDF or raped and tortured by Hamas?
You wrote more on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I will say that I do not think they can live in peace together. I think the only long-term solution is the historical method of expulsion. Israel has built a strong country and made the desert bloom, and the Palestinians have not done well regardless of where they are living. If there is to be only one people in the area, it would be better if it were the Jews. It would not be the first Jewish genocide.
"But at no point in the essay do I propose any policy—authoritarian or otherwise."
Of course you don't. That would require that you take a position that you would have to defend. Instead, the authoritarianism is implicit. What you ask for can only be implemented through powerful coercive authority. It can be almost impossible for a person who thinks they are on the side of the good guys to see this.
"I’m calling for conservatives to exercise personal judgment—to resist tribalism, moral collapse, and conspiracy thinking."
What, exactly, do you mean by tribalism, moral collapse, and conspiracy thinking? Race realism, cultural defense, and denying mainstream lies?
So, do you think Epstein committed suicide? Do you believe there were no controlled demolitions in the 911 attacks? Do you think Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election? Do you think Iraq had WMD's?
"Do you believe authoritarianism can only come from the left?"
No. I think authoritarianism is essential to the left and to the extent it invades the right, the right becomes left. This is where you have a point about the horseshoe theory.
"I believe government is a necessary evil that must be constrained and constantly monitored by the people." and "not all governments are the same."
All governments are the same in essence. Some are more constrained than others. They are a mostly unavoidable evil. Like theft and murder, they should be minimized as fully as possible. Where government begins, civil society ends. Civil society is cooperation, government is coercion.
"You either trust governments’ war messaging or you don’t. So I’ll ask: What criteria do you use to trust one and not the other?"
I don't trust any war messaging. The question is, why do you believe this one: “Russia must expand in all directions.”
"Which country would you rather live in—China, Saudi Arabia, Canada?"
Kind of a pointless question. Maybe I should love it or leave it? I don't speak Mandarin, Arabic, or French, don't care for long, dark winters, and I was born in America.
"You can criticize Churchill as much as you want. He’s not a god. He was a flawed man, but in the aggregate the world is better because of his choices."
Nope, don't think so. The facts do not support your conclusion.
"If I pointed out that many elite progressives are white and Christian (which they are), would it be fair to say “white Christian influence” is the problem?"
I honestly don't know why there has been so much Jewish leadership in communism, predatory banking, and progressive media. Is it coincidence? Is it racial? Is it cultural? Is it religious? I don't dwell on it because it is not that interesting to me, but when is sounds plausible I'm not afraid to lend credence to those who do.
I will make a comment comparing Christianity to Islam: To the extent that a Christian conforms to his religion, he is being good, to the extent that a Muslim conforms to his, he is not. Perhaps there is a religious component to Jewish progressivism?
"And lastly, you misinterpret my calls for “rational limits” and “ordered liberty” as if I’m calling for some central authority to enforce them. I’m not. Quite the opposite.
"I’m saying individuals must set those limits within themselves—through personal discipline, tradition, faith, and reason. That’s what conservatism means: internal restraint guided by enduring principles. If we don’t cultivate that within ourselves, we will get authoritarianism from somewhere. Because politics is downstream of culture."
Hector, I get you man. However I think you are missing the greater points - freedom of expression and freedom of having different points of view. In a free society, I still have the ability to discern and to think what I want. Listening to multiple hours of Darryl's content doesn't change me into a automaton - it makes me think as a free man what I want (or not) to think.
Thanks for the comment. I know what you’re saying and I struggled with it while writing this piece. I agree with you that free expression is paramount and it’s up to the individual to discern and make up their own mind.
I’ve raged against people like Sam Harris who’s calls for deplatforming have been so hypocritical and blind to the fact that he benefited immensely from the freedom to have unpopular voices on his show.
That’s also why I’m not calling for Darryl—or anyone I mentioned—to be censored. I don’t even believe Darryl is an antisemite. I just think he’s deeply mistaken on that particular issue, and the way he frames history is, in my view, demsotrably flawed.
Candace Owens has been a difficult disappointment for me as I was an early supporter of her message, but I don’t want her off YouTube or Rumble. I just don’t watch her anymore.
I still watch Tucker even though I’m worried and can’t understand some of his conclusions.
I’m calling for us, the right and specially conservatives to be thoughtful when consuming information and avoid the traps of the left.
Free speech is vital—and I’m a staunch defender of it. But part of that freedom also means the freedom to challenge other people and to point out where they’re wrong, whether because they’ve made a mistake, don’t have the expertise or are acting in bad faith.
I’d also add that a healthy culture—and especially a conservative one—shouldn’t just defend speech, but help us triage our attention. Not all ideas are equally worthy of it. Some deserve a spotlight, others a passing glance, and some a raised eyebrow and a red flag.
To use a metaphor - I see online content as an open buffet on a cruise ship. I can eat only the junk food that I recognize and like, eat all the shrimp off the table, or eat what I think is reasonable to eat. My issue is with Aunt Karen telling me to eat only the kale, or with Uncle Billy Bob telling me to only eat french fries and ice cream. 🤣
I truly enjoy reading your posts and encourage you to continue doing such a fine work!
My own political journey has been from pretend socialist (mainly for the drugs and hot chicks) to libertarian to grumpy old man fed up with the whole damned lot of them. It may be perverse, but it is delightful to see Never Trumpers and NeoCons wringing their hands at Trump. For too long the Republicans have been willing to go along in order to get good tee times and be invited to the good parties, while the country continues its descent into Hell. While I agree dissent on the right is sometimes healthy, it's starting to look like we've crossed the line into chaos. I hope I'm wrong, because I'd like to see President Trump have a truly successful and transformative second term. There are aspects to his foreign policy that I find quite disturbing. He's playing a fool's game if he thinks he can play Russia against China, and negotiating with Iran seems futile. I tell myself: it's early, and maybe it will ultimately make sense. But celebrate? In this game victory is too fleeting. (As I thought about the above post, I was trying to remember a quote by H.L. Mencken, ostensibly on "Democracy", that I thought might bear on this notion of becoming what you find distasteful in an opponent. I looked it up, and am back to include it here.) " What I admire most in any man is a serene spirit, a steady freedom from mental indignation, an all-embracing tolerance--in brief, what is commonly called good sportsmanship. Such a man is not to be taken for one who shirks the hard knocks of life. On the contrary, he is frequently an eager gladiator, vastly enjoying opposition. But when he fights he fights in the manner of a gentleman fighting a duel, not that of a longshoreman clearing out a waterfront saloon. That is to say, he carefully guards his amour propre by assuming his opponent is as decent a man as he is, and just as honest--and perhaps, after all, right. Such an attitude is palpably impossible to a democrat." I'm not always successful, but that is the attitude I try to cultivate when discussing politics--at least up until COVID and cancel culture cast us into chaos and confusion.
Brilliant and solid essay, Hector. Arrogance and distain are not virtues, and so never virtues in a victor. Those who revile wokism for its implacable pitiless perversions of fairness and reality would do well to be kind, bold, fair and patient. And resolute, not rash.
I think you are confused, being a liberal who says he is a conservative, but still an authoritarian. You write assuming that Hamas and Putin are the bad guys, and Israel, the US (government), and Ukraine are the good guys. They are all bad guys. World leadership has betrayed their people.
US foreign policy has been a destabilizing disaster, not a world saving force for good. Bad actors within the US government did stage a color revolution in Ukraine, threatened Russia, and the Russian invasion was a largely defensive move. The Middle East has gone from functioning dictatorships to bombed out disaster areas overrun with terrorists through US involvement.
Russia doesn't have Gulags any more.
You seem to hold as unquestioningly foundational the idea that not accepting pat historical narratives is lunacy. The communist governments after WWII turned out to be worse than Hitler, killing over 200 million of their own people. There are a disproportionate number of Jews in positions of influence and power, and their overwhelmingly progressive agenda has been a disaster for the US middle class. It's becoming ok to notice these things.
I don't think you understand conservatism, liberalism, or libertarianism, and are pretentiously claiming the label of conservative in order to derail it.
Hi Joel,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I’m not sure you realize it, but you’ve done an excellent job illustrating most of the claims I made. Let’s walk through them, shall we?
1. You open by accusing me of being an authoritarian for… disagreeing?
Everyone is free to think what they like, and I’m free to point out where I think they’re wrong. You’re clearly exercising your free speech, but you seem to criticize me for exercising mine. Furthermore, you fall into the same leftist strategy I described: calling anyone who disagrees with you some form of authoritarian, its or phobe.
2. You collapse moral categories by treating democracies and terror states as morally equivalent.
Saying “they’re all bad guys”—the U.S., Russia, Hamas—ignores crucial differences:
• Israel is a flawed democracy defending itself from literal terrorist organizations that rape and burn civilians.
• Ukraine is defending its sovereignty from an authoritarian invader.
• Hamas and Putin are aggressors who intentionally target civilians.
• Moral confusion arises when you treat imperfection in democracies as equivalent to deliberate evil.
• This is precisely the Chomskyan moral nihilism that has plagued the left for decades.
3. You claim the Russian invasion was “defensive.”
A “defensive invasion” is an oxymoron. If we apply that principle universally, it would justify any authoritarian aggression. This mirrors the Cold War-era justifications I heard firsthand, framing Soviet expansionism as “defensive.”
4. You claim “Russia doesn’t have Gulags anymore.”
While technically accurate, the machinery of repression is alive and well. Russia jails political dissidents (just ask Navalny—oh wait, you can’t, because he died in prison), crushes protests, and shuts down free media. Again, this echoes the historical revisionism I heard during the Cold War from leftists trying to downplay Soviet abuses.
5. You reduce Middle Eastern instability entirely to U.S. actions.
The instability in the Middle East is a complex mix of internal revolutions, regional rivalries, tribal conflicts, and yes, disastrous Western interventions. But reducing the entire collapse of the region to American involvement strips agency from millions who elected Islamofascist governments on their own. Ironically, this infantilization of non-Western peoples is another habit the progressive left perfected long ago—seeing non-Westerners only as passive victims, never active agents.
6. You frame commitment to historical accuracy as “unquestioning acceptance of narratives.”
I’m not objecting to skepticism per se. I’m objecting to fact-free, motivated rewriting of history. There’s a difference between measured skepticism and participating in the demolition of reality—something exemplified by The 1619 Project. Nikole Hannah-Jones makes arguments almost identical to yours.
7. You claim it’s becoming “okay to notice” Jewish influence.
First, “disproportionality” is meaningless without showing malicious intent. Again, same arguments when racialist mention how CEO offices are disproportionally white and male.
Second, reducing cultural and political movements to an ethnic conspiracy is not “noticing”—it’s a shortcut to dangerous, historically bloody ideologies.
Third, the “noticing” seems hyperfocused on “the Jeeeeewwws” while ignoring far greater foreign influences—like the CCP and Qatari money pouring into Western universities and politics. Once again, excusing communists and Islamists—just like the left.
Finally, you’re lumping the majority of Jews into a progressive monolith, which is factually incorrect. Almost 100% of practicing Jews—the ones who hold God, Torah, and Israel as bedrocks—are conservative by definition. And they span North African, Middle Eastern, and European lineages. Reality is a little more complicated than the caricature you’re trying to picture.
Lastly, you accuse me of “pretending” to be a conservative to derail conservatism. But what I defend—tradition, ordered liberty, rational limits, historical fidelity—is precisely the foundation conservatism. I’m trying to defend conservatism from a first principles position, not from the blind populist rage and conspiratorial thinking that characterized the left through the last few decades.
You’re free to believe whatever you want.
But mirroring the left’s worst habits will do far more damage to the conservative movement than anything I’ve written here.
Best,
Hector
Hi Hector,
I appreciate your thoughts, and I apologize for the slow reply. I am a fabricator, builder, and mechanic. This time of year has long days outside.
1. I accuse you of being an authoritarian, not for disagreeing, and not for exercising your free speech, but because the policies that you implicitly support require authoritarian implementation. Leftist strategy is not based on calling opponents authoritarian, it is based on appeals to authority ahead of being based on facts, logic, or reason. Authoritarianism is foundational to leftism. The essence of leftism is central planning by experts.
2&3. Democracies can just as easily be terror states as places governed in other ways. Hitler was democratically elected for crying out loud.
Israel is carrying out mass murder of an antagonistic people that are their intractable enemies. Tell me, is it better to be murdered and starved to death by Israeli action, or raped and tortured by Arabs? There are no good guys in that fight. The US government should stop all aid to Israel, and all foreign aid anywhere.
Ukraine is a failed state being used as a sock puppet by US warmongers to generate arms sale revenue, launder money, and harass Russia. The victims are the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian and Russian soldiers, the US taxpayers, and the perps are those feeding off the conflict. There are no good guys there either. When the USSR tried to put nuclear missile in Cuba, the US Government stopped it. When the US is trying to establish military bases in Ukraine, Russia is stopping it. Same dynamic.
Moral confusion is when you condemn the same action in others that you condone in yourself.
4. The US has the largest prison population in the world, not only per capita but in raw numbers. As a conservative I have been targeted by he IRS and my mother was politically targeted by the Biden DOJ. You are absolutely kidding yourself that it doesn't happen here. I suppose you think that Epstein committed suicide?
5. I did not reduce Middle East instability to US actions. I correctly attributed US actions as the cause of horrible destruction in Middle East. The entire region has not collapsed yet, only the parts where the collapse was US caused and funded.
6. I used to accept "historical accuracy" as you do. I'm not a historian, but I can evaluate historical analysis, and I find inconsistencies. Do you believe the historical accuracy of the 911 narrative? The Iraq WMD's? The necessity of Covid lockdowns and masks? Much of the WWII story is a similar can of worms.
7. Noticing is noticing. Noticing is not a call to genocide the Jews. Disproportionate is in relation to percentage of population. It has nothing to do with malicious intent, it is an observable fact. Of course most Jews are decent human beings. Most people are and most Jews are too. Doesn't change the facts.
I am saying that government leaders and progressives in media, banking, entertainment, and education are fundamentally different than the people they lead/oppress.
Over 90% of college professors and journalists are Democrats. This is also disproportionate. It does not require malicious intent.
I in no way excuse the communists, either foreign or domestic. I think communism, leftism, liberalism, and socialism all operate on the same basic idea of central authoritarian control. I think it is diseased thinking, and that is what I am accusing you of.
How do you propose to defend your "rational limits" if not through authoritarian means? Who gets to decide if your liberty is "ordered liberty" or disordered liberty, and if your "rational limits" are rational?
Best,
Joel
Hi Joel,
Thanks for taking the time to respond—and no need to apologize for the delay. I appreciate that you’re engaging seriously. But I have to say, many of your objections misread what I actually wrote. In places, it feels like you skimmed the piece rather than engaging with its core arguments.
I’ll keep it brief, because I think we probably agree on more than you realize—and where we differ, I want to focus on the actual ideas, not straw men.
But first, let me say this plainly: most of your arguments rest on moral equivocation—the idea that all actors are essentially the same, and that the intentions or actions of one side are interchangeable with those of its opponent. That’s a dangerous game. If one believes in objective moral truths, then one must be able to distinguish between fundamentally different regimes. The U.S. and the USSR, for example, were not two sides of the same coin. They operated from radically different moral and ideological starting points. One of them was evil. I’m not afraid to say that.
OK… On to the meat of the argument. You claim I’m “authoritarian” because I supposedly support policies that would require authoritarian enforcement. But at no point in the essay do I propose any policy—authoritarian or otherwise. The piece is a moral and philosophical critique of ideological drift and rhetorical mimicry, especially how segments of the right are beginning to mirror the very tendencies on the left.
You seem to be confusing disagreement with silencing. I’m not calling for censorship, suppression, or centralized enforcement. I’m calling for conservatives to exercise personal judgment—to resist tribalism, moral collapse, and conspiracy thinking. That’s bottom-up, not top-down.
So let me ask you:
Do you believe authoritarianism can only come from the left?
Because that belief—ironically—is itself a mirror of leftist thinking (just flipped). You can argue, as I would, that liberalism contains authoritarian tendencies in its foundations, and that conservatism does not. But that’s exactly why conservatives need to hold firm to our principles. If we abandon them in a fit of political rage, we will drift toward tyranny—because that’s what human nature does when unmoored.
You also suggest that I’m naive about the West’s capacity for tyranny. I’m not. I know it can happen here—on the left or the right. That’s why I insist on foundational principles as a bulwark against it.
I believe government is a necessary evil that must be constrained and constantly monitored by the people. That’s why the first and second amendments are so vital. Nowhere else in the world do you have such robust protection of rights than in the US.
You mentioned your mother being targeted by the Biden administration. I’m sorry to hear that. I’ve lived in three and a half different countries over my life. I’ve seen tyranny up close—from my father’s friends being assassinated in the 1970s by the Mexican government, to Trudeau invoking emergency powers and freezing bank accounts, to a journalist friend of mine recently having her bank account frozen for running as a populist candidate.
But that experience also gives me perspective: not all governments are the same. As flawed as America is, its founding principles are still better than anything else on offer. So when someone says “America is corrupt and broken,” I always ask:
Compared to what?
On Gaza, I’ll keep it brief, though the topic deserves more. I lay most—if not all—of the civilian casualties at the feet of Hamas. They’ve built military installations inside schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings. That’s not a theory—it’s a documented war crime.
If they had returned the hostages (including Americans) on October 8th, the war likely would’ve ended that week.
It baffles me that some people assume Israel is lying (which is always possible) but take Hamas—an openly jihadist regime—as honest brokers. You either trust governments’ war messaging or you don’t. So I’ll ask:
What criteria do you use to trust one and not the other?
You also compared the U.S. response during the Cuban Missile Crisis to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Let’s get specific. The U.S. imposed a blockade and engaged in high-stakes diplomacy. It didn’t launch a full-scale ground invasion of Cuba.
Meanwhile, Russia has adopted an explicitly imperialist doctrine—Russkiy Mir—backed by officials who’ve said things like “the Russian world has no borders” and “Russia must expand in all directions.”
If the US/NATO presence near Russias borders is the issue, then where does that stop? Norway, Finland, Latvia, Estonia or Poland? All countries with US of NATO military bases all bordering Russia. So no… Not the same dynamic.
A few more questions for you:
Which country would you rather live in—China, Saudi Arabia, Canada?
There’s a reason you and millions of others choose America. It’s not perfect, but it’s not equal to the rest. It’s better.
On history—do you accept the 1619 Project’s view of America’s founding?
If not, then ask yourself: what criteria do you use to reject that revisionism while accepting others?
All historical narratives are told by someone. So yes, we should be skeptical—but also discerning. Just because one version has flaws doesn’t mean we should jump to its opposite. Painting Churchill as the villain of WWII and Hitler as the misunderstood victim isn’t historical revision—it’s delusion.
You can criticize Churchill as much as you want. He’s not a god. He was a flawed man, but in the aggregate the world is better because of his choices.
Not all ideas are equally worthy of our attention. It’s up to the individual to decide if some deserve a spotlight, others a passing glance, and some a raised eyebrow and a red flag.
Now, regarding your point on “noticing progressive Jewish influence” in elite institutions:
You’re right that it’s not wrong to acknowledge patterns. What is wrong is focusing on the “Jewish” part rather than the progressive part.
If I pointed out that many elite progressives are white and Christian (which they are), would it be fair to say “white Christian influence” is the problem?
Of course not. The issue is the progressive ideology, not the ethnic or religious background. Conflating the two isn’t noticing—it’s scapegoating.
And lastly, you misinterpret my calls for “rational limits” and “ordered liberty” as if I’m calling for some central authority to enforce them. I’m not. Quite the opposite.
I’m saying individuals must set those limits within themselves—through personal discipline, tradition, faith, and reason. That’s what conservatism means: internal restraint guided by enduring principles. If we don’t cultivate that within ourselves, we will get authoritarianism from somewhere. Because politics is downstream of culture. How do you think the left got to where it is? By believing they were immune to it and by being so blind to not recognize it when it took over completely.
If we don’t live out our principles, we shouldn’t be surprised when our politics collapse.
Thank you so much for the conversation, I really enjoyed it.
Hector
Hi Hector,
Thanks again for your writing! I think we may be talking past each other. I have pasted some quotes and replied below. I will try to be clear.
"most of your arguments rest on moral equivocation—the idea that all actors are essentially the same"
That is not what moral equivocation means, but I do believe that we are all equal under the eyes of God. An action is moral or immoral based on the action, not on who does it. Do you think otherwise?
So, do you think it is better for civilians to be murdered and starved to death by the IDF or raped and tortured by Hamas?
You wrote more on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I will say that I do not think they can live in peace together. I think the only long-term solution is the historical method of expulsion. Israel has built a strong country and made the desert bloom, and the Palestinians have not done well regardless of where they are living. If there is to be only one people in the area, it would be better if it were the Jews. It would not be the first Jewish genocide.
"But at no point in the essay do I propose any policy—authoritarian or otherwise."
Of course you don't. That would require that you take a position that you would have to defend. Instead, the authoritarianism is implicit. What you ask for can only be implemented through powerful coercive authority. It can be almost impossible for a person who thinks they are on the side of the good guys to see this.
"I’m calling for conservatives to exercise personal judgment—to resist tribalism, moral collapse, and conspiracy thinking."
What, exactly, do you mean by tribalism, moral collapse, and conspiracy thinking? Race realism, cultural defense, and denying mainstream lies?
So, do you think Epstein committed suicide? Do you believe there were no controlled demolitions in the 911 attacks? Do you think Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election? Do you think Iraq had WMD's?
"Do you believe authoritarianism can only come from the left?"
No. I think authoritarianism is essential to the left and to the extent it invades the right, the right becomes left. This is where you have a point about the horseshoe theory.
"I believe government is a necessary evil that must be constrained and constantly monitored by the people." and "not all governments are the same."
All governments are the same in essence. Some are more constrained than others. They are a mostly unavoidable evil. Like theft and murder, they should be minimized as fully as possible. Where government begins, civil society ends. Civil society is cooperation, government is coercion.
"You either trust governments’ war messaging or you don’t. So I’ll ask: What criteria do you use to trust one and not the other?"
I don't trust any war messaging. The question is, why do you believe this one: “Russia must expand in all directions.”
"Which country would you rather live in—China, Saudi Arabia, Canada?"
Kind of a pointless question. Maybe I should love it or leave it? I don't speak Mandarin, Arabic, or French, don't care for long, dark winters, and I was born in America.
"You can criticize Churchill as much as you want. He’s not a god. He was a flawed man, but in the aggregate the world is better because of his choices."
Nope, don't think so. The facts do not support your conclusion.
"If I pointed out that many elite progressives are white and Christian (which they are), would it be fair to say “white Christian influence” is the problem?"
I honestly don't know why there has been so much Jewish leadership in communism, predatory banking, and progressive media. Is it coincidence? Is it racial? Is it cultural? Is it religious? I don't dwell on it because it is not that interesting to me, but when is sounds plausible I'm not afraid to lend credence to those who do.
I will make a comment comparing Christianity to Islam: To the extent that a Christian conforms to his religion, he is being good, to the extent that a Muslim conforms to his, he is not. Perhaps there is a religious component to Jewish progressivism?
"And lastly, you misinterpret my calls for “rational limits” and “ordered liberty” as if I’m calling for some central authority to enforce them. I’m not. Quite the opposite.
"I’m saying individuals must set those limits within themselves—through personal discipline, tradition, faith, and reason. That’s what conservatism means: internal restraint guided by enduring principles. If we don’t cultivate that within ourselves, we will get authoritarianism from somewhere. Because politics is downstream of culture."
This is reassuring. I'll try to believe you.
Regards,
Joel
Hector, I get you man. However I think you are missing the greater points - freedom of expression and freedom of having different points of view. In a free society, I still have the ability to discern and to think what I want. Listening to multiple hours of Darryl's content doesn't change me into a automaton - it makes me think as a free man what I want (or not) to think.
Hi Dallas,
Thanks for the comment. I know what you’re saying and I struggled with it while writing this piece. I agree with you that free expression is paramount and it’s up to the individual to discern and make up their own mind.
I’ve raged against people like Sam Harris who’s calls for deplatforming have been so hypocritical and blind to the fact that he benefited immensely from the freedom to have unpopular voices on his show.
That’s also why I’m not calling for Darryl—or anyone I mentioned—to be censored. I don’t even believe Darryl is an antisemite. I just think he’s deeply mistaken on that particular issue, and the way he frames history is, in my view, demsotrably flawed.
Candace Owens has been a difficult disappointment for me as I was an early supporter of her message, but I don’t want her off YouTube or Rumble. I just don’t watch her anymore.
I still watch Tucker even though I’m worried and can’t understand some of his conclusions.
I’m calling for us, the right and specially conservatives to be thoughtful when consuming information and avoid the traps of the left.
Free speech is vital—and I’m a staunch defender of it. But part of that freedom also means the freedom to challenge other people and to point out where they’re wrong, whether because they’ve made a mistake, don’t have the expertise or are acting in bad faith.
I’d also add that a healthy culture—and especially a conservative one—shouldn’t just defend speech, but help us triage our attention. Not all ideas are equally worthy of it. Some deserve a spotlight, others a passing glance, and some a raised eyebrow and a red flag.
Thanks again for reading. I really appreciate it.
Thanks for your reply.
To use a metaphor - I see online content as an open buffet on a cruise ship. I can eat only the junk food that I recognize and like, eat all the shrimp off the table, or eat what I think is reasonable to eat. My issue is with Aunt Karen telling me to eat only the kale, or with Uncle Billy Bob telling me to only eat french fries and ice cream. 🤣
I truly enjoy reading your posts and encourage you to continue doing such a fine work!
My own political journey has been from pretend socialist (mainly for the drugs and hot chicks) to libertarian to grumpy old man fed up with the whole damned lot of them. It may be perverse, but it is delightful to see Never Trumpers and NeoCons wringing their hands at Trump. For too long the Republicans have been willing to go along in order to get good tee times and be invited to the good parties, while the country continues its descent into Hell. While I agree dissent on the right is sometimes healthy, it's starting to look like we've crossed the line into chaos. I hope I'm wrong, because I'd like to see President Trump have a truly successful and transformative second term. There are aspects to his foreign policy that I find quite disturbing. He's playing a fool's game if he thinks he can play Russia against China, and negotiating with Iran seems futile. I tell myself: it's early, and maybe it will ultimately make sense. But celebrate? In this game victory is too fleeting. (As I thought about the above post, I was trying to remember a quote by H.L. Mencken, ostensibly on "Democracy", that I thought might bear on this notion of becoming what you find distasteful in an opponent. I looked it up, and am back to include it here.) " What I admire most in any man is a serene spirit, a steady freedom from mental indignation, an all-embracing tolerance--in brief, what is commonly called good sportsmanship. Such a man is not to be taken for one who shirks the hard knocks of life. On the contrary, he is frequently an eager gladiator, vastly enjoying opposition. But when he fights he fights in the manner of a gentleman fighting a duel, not that of a longshoreman clearing out a waterfront saloon. That is to say, he carefully guards his amour propre by assuming his opponent is as decent a man as he is, and just as honest--and perhaps, after all, right. Such an attitude is palpably impossible to a democrat." I'm not always successful, but that is the attitude I try to cultivate when discussing politics--at least up until COVID and cancel culture cast us into chaos and confusion.