You can find the article here. I don't know much at all about that site, "The Free Press". Seems like a normal site for its ilk.
Here I am going to react to his article paragraph by paragraph until I get bored or my points become redundant. A friend sent the article to me—a good friend. My criticism must be harsh then. Otherwise he'll think I was lazy and didn't read and consider it.
****
P1 "the cold war we're in—the second one"
-the very problem with the Left is they believe they can "manifest", like Yahweh. Thankfully, they cannot. Are we in a second cold war? For that to be true, I, ol' Pete, would have to agree. And I don't. My most killer point is that there really is no "we" in the sense that there was during the real Cold War which we could read about if we so chose. Even in Bari's intro to this article, she mentions that Niall is a voice in the "cultural battle". If there is an actual cultural battle within America, then America cannot be a coherent enough group to partake in a cold war.
P2 "back in 2018"
-how much of my day shall I sacrifice to you, O Knight!? Hyperlink's are fun and easy, but seriously, I have read many books and many articles. It is possible to just plainly write what you mean now, today and for it to be clear and tenable. Please do so.
P3 "[China] is a military rival"
-I will not fear. And, even within the non-we, I trust Nebraska, Kansas, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and most other states of the Union to produce warriors that can win more than I trust China.
P4 "in this new Cold War, we"
-you haven't persuaded me on either point here. I don't see a cold war, and there is no "we." Now I have to peruse at least one of your links, otherwise there is no point in continuing since I don't buy your "definitions". Back. The two linked articles are on pay sites. Oh well. I'll do my best to continue as if I was informed and undecided.
P4 "the immortal question"
-the immortal question is moral. "Bad" is a moral semantic domain. That's why the clip is funny. The question is, "how do I know that killing this man is the moral thing to do?" The question has nothing to do with observation and nomenclature. Also, Sir Ferguson, perhaps you have written it elsewhere, but what exactly is gained by this naming convention "cold war two"? I actually kinda cared to learn some history and even through college we didn't get past WW2. So while I know the phrase, I am certain that hardly anyone alive in the "we" has a clue what the Cold War was and now you want to persuade us/them to adopt Cold War 2? What you're asking is worse than a copy of a copy. You are attempting to name a copy of a blank sheet of paper. This article itself contains little more than debatable content about the Cold War which can then bolster your claim about Cold War 2. Sand. It's all sand.
P5 "two American Sailors"
-so, big difference between the SS and the US Navy is the US Navy is not immoral.
P6 "I know"
-let's find out.
P7 "world of difference"
-so…you don't know. The joke in the clip you link to is about WW2 bad guys being surprised, upon consideration, to conclude that they were immoral—something which many believe should be universally announced by one's own conscience, and before the kill.
P8 "resources…consumer goods…equipment"
-these nouns are too general. They do not persuade. A bait and switch could be right around the corner.
P9 "quintile"
-i don't understand. Are you educated or street? Sometimes you use a common vocabulary, but here you switch to a very pointed statistical term, and then qualify it further, before bringing up a new measure (infant mortality) which you do not pin down—late Soviet Union" vs. 2021. Huh? And Mississippi Delta and Appalachia are identical? You're asking for far too much trust. I don't even know you.
P10 "risible"
-who can define this word? (comment below if you didn't need to look it up)
P11 "closer look"
-not really interested, thank you.
P12 "system?"
-a question mark is necessary for a question, but it doesn't automatically make clear what you are asking. At this point I am over it. Whatever you are doing, whatever your goal, it isn't written for me. Try again some other day, maybe when you have something to say.
In sum: 37 links. I once chatted with an excitable old man who had a book "with a bibliography over one hundred". Before I knew it, I had accepted his gift of the book—for the low price of $10 to cover, the, you know… When it arrived, I gave it the old college try, it was like he thought a long bibliography was what truth was based on. In reality, the opposite is likely the case. The masses are duped, ignorant, lazy, common, and uninteresting.
Nothing in Sir Fergusons's article redeems the false premise. No, we are not in another "cold war". That phrase was a one-off and will not apply ever again. Furthermore, we are not the Soviets. This is mostly because America is an incredibly difficult thing to "be" anymore, and also because, and I have learned this the hard way, the "land" does have something to do with the question. And this isn't Russian soil that I live on.
No comments:
Post a Comment