Et tu, Megyn? – battles on right and left
This isn’t really primarily about Megyn Kelly, but I mention her because she’s somehow gotten herself involved in the entire Fuentes/Owens/Carlson/Shapiro brouhaha. It’s hard to write about any of this without sounding like a junior high school gossip – “he said then she said then he said then they said then he lied and she lied and he attacked her and she attacked her and he denied … ” or something like that.
So I won’t go into the Megyn Kelly part in any detail except to say that she seems to be taking the tack of “I have no responsibility to say anything bad about Owens or Carlson – but hey, that Shapiro is quite the liar” – when he really is not. If you want to get up to speed on it, just watch (to take one example) this video, which goes into the ins and outs. Suffice to say that Kelly has been either disingenuous, uninformed, or downright mendacious – or some combination of those things.
As I said, I’m not getting into the details here. My point in writing this post is that lately I’ve been pondering whether I’ve been surprised at the feet of clay of so many pundits on the right, such as Carlson and Kelly and Owens (there are others). The answer is: no. They are not people I’ve ever especially admired or looked up to, or trusted. I certainly used to think more highly of them than I do now – but trust? No.
That thought made me wonder which people, among the pundit class, I do trust – if anyone. Both of the names which immediately came to mind are (or were) also in academia: Thomas Sowell and Victor Davis Hanson. I assume they have said things in their lives with which I might disagree, but if they have I can’t think of it offhand. They have earned my respect over the years and seem to be people not just of extremely high intelligence, but of integrity. The same cannot be said for Carlson, Kelly, and Owens, although I don’t think they are dumb. But they are in the influence business and in the click business, and that doesn’t bode well.
There is a war of ideas and propaganda going on in both parties. On the Democrat side, it seems almost finished, and the extremists on the left have won in the sense of driving out moderates. On the right, we’re in the middle of a battle that rears up periodically – the last time featuring Pat Buchanan. On the right, it hasn’t been resolved – and probably won’t ever be resolved in the permanent sense.
These things are part of politics and of human nature. It’s interesting, also, that a tool of the extremists on both sides is Jew-hatred – this time, clothed in the disguise of Israel-hatred and double standards. Jew-hatred is an old old story, too.
NOTE: Here’s another video worth watching, with James Lindsay – who apparently foresaw the battle on the right before it was apparent to most people.
Wow, do you really believe that there is a Western way of war such that American soldiers have some mystical essence in common with Greek hoplites and Roman legionaries and medieval knights and the Napoleonic legions but it’s not shared by Russian or Chinese infantrymen?
But they are in the influence business and in the click business, and that doesn’t bode well.
For sure. I was going to say about the Carlson Part III post that my guess as to motivation would be attention seeking behavior, and more vaguely; the appearance to me that our whole society is in a downward trend towards serious crassness. The latter is maybe/probably fueled by social media, generally.
Here is a tiny thought experiment, that might not have any literal validity: Imagine a guy like Tucker decides to do a sizeable number of long interviews with a broad spectrum of guests. He might have imagined a viewership response with something like a bell curve, with the most interest centering on some of the intelligent mainstream guests. Then to his surprise, somebody like Ownes or Fuentes gets a huge positive response.
I’m wondering about Robert Pirsig and The Zen of Motorcycle Maintenance. He seemed to think that there was innate propensity of all young humans to appreciate excellence in art or most anything. I now think he must have been living in a bubble of generally excellent parenting. In my experience, most people like a lot of stupid crap. (To be fair, sometimes I do too. But I think I still realize that it is stupid crap when I like it, and weight it accordingly.)
ey81:
You may note that I wrote, “I assume they have said things in their lives with which I might disagree, but if they have I can’t think of it offhand.”
Not having read VDH on that military affinity question, I have no idea what he actually says and whether or not I agree. But I might indeed agree, since those classical cultures have had more of an influence on the US than they’ve had on Russia or China.
TommyJay:
Well, there’s stupid crap – which I sometimes also like – and then there’s evil crap. Tucker and especially Owens have gone in heavily for the evil crap, and apparently a lot of people are drawn to it.
It might or might not be relevant that both Sowell and VDH were known as writers before they became known as speakers.
@y81, oh sorry I mean @ey81, because I am oh so sure you are very separate people and not one former regular turned malicious troll trying to get around some kind of ban.
I can’t speak for Neo, but I can speak for both VDH and myself (and we disagree a fair bit), but we do believe there is a great deal of shared essence, even if there is nothing mystical about it. VDH talks of a Western Way of War favoring the free infantryman and cavalryman, learned and increasingly literate officers and NCOs, and pursuit of decisive battle. I am not entirely convinced. But one thing that is undeniable is interest in institutional knowledge and learned, literate NCOs and junior officers. This has ancient roots back to the Greek Hoplites and skirmishers consisted of levied citizen-soldiers from generally the urban and small farmer populaces, meaning you had a middle heavy populace that lent itself to being educated, decently independent, and able to think outside the box, as well as retaining experience and knowledge from generation to generation (sometimes with catastrophic effects but sometimes with stellar ones). This reached an early apogee with the Roman Legions after Marius, in the form of one of the first professional armies in world history, and the model for the West throughout its history even into the knightly era.
Modern military organizations the world over derive from the work of a bunch of Renaissance Europeans that loved Rome aping the Roman Legions and Allae system adjusted to the rise of gunpowder and pikes. It is a major reason why the West is the way it is and the all but unprecedented role career soldiers and especially senior NCOs have.
There is no comparison with Chinese or Russian infantry. Russia has been a top down command system for its entire history, centered first on aristocratic warbands derived from the Vikings and then on the Grand Prince’s levies, modeled partially after their experience before and partially on the Mongols (though notably without most of the structures and precedent that allowed Mongol commanders to operate independently, in part due to Moscow’s leaders wanting to avoid the risk of rebellion or civil war like what plagues the Mongols). The vectors most likely to emerge for independent junior officers or senior enlisted – the Cossack hosts and urban militias – were destroyed by the Tsars and had their independence and autonomy crushed so they would not rock the boat. This is the reason why you basically have no classes of career NCOs or culture of independent thought in their militaries, hence the high dependence on authoritarian, rigid leadership and high officers. Hence the need to have lots of colonels and generals near the front, and truly heinous cultures of hazing among the enlisted.
China has been around for exponentially longer than Russia and so has varied all over the place. However it *generally* tends to default to either extremely top down, authoritarian, militarized and centralized systems like Russia, or extremely top down, authoritarian, and *demilitarized* systems under the methodical oversight (often over-oversight) of civilian scholar bureaucrats and/or calcified and usually hereditary military aristocrats. Which tended to result in staggering corruption and underfunding.
So basically you had periods where the Chinese are like Russia today (among – esp early Ming -, Qing, Qin, Yuan) and periods where they are like an even more openly authoritarian Trudeauean Canada (Sung/Song, Zhou, Late Tang, High Ming, the Sima led Jin Dynasty). And under either circumstance you generally not only don’t have the creation of reasonably independent career soldiers or middle class NCOs/senior enlisted, but you rarely see people able to climb the ranks from military service in the entire Sinosphere’s history. There certainly have been exceptions with happy mediums (like the High Tang), but it generally shows why the military tended to atrophy unless the Emperors directly favored it against the headwinds of Confucian bureaucrats. Indeed, people rising through military service tends to be associated with *the onset of warlord periods* in the Sinosphere, and deeply suspicious. So much so it had knock on effects in Chinese culture and literature, where in Wushe/Wuxia martial arts stories it is taken as part of the code of honor that martial artists should not use their often supernatural skills to seek power in the government or mundane world. And also why governments in crisis tended to rely on local militias or those to the side of the normal “military” chain of command; one reason Shaolin Temple echoes so far is because it was an accomplished Buddhist monastery that was famed for training people in polearm fighting during the collapse period of the late Ming, meaning you could send veterans for remedial training or new recruits in the famously corruption ridden and weakened army, they would give them a good basic training in the most common of weapons, and send them off to be ready to serve. Because it was a temple it was under imperial authority but managed by departments separate from those overseeing most of the military, so you could get around a lot of problems.
Today China kind of suffers from the worst of both worlds, inheriting the highly authoritarian and militarized system of the Soviet Union modified from Maoist and Chinese characteristics, but also the extremely invasive meddling of the CCP and its ideological commissars, as shown by the recent purge of leading officers by Xi. And I think is a late indicator of the answer to the seeming paradox of why one of the oldest and historically most literate and technologically advanced civilizations – with literally thousands of years of military literature – has so often struggled with military comptence
This also manifests in how both Russia and China are world famous for dreadful maintenance and damage control in sharp contrast to the US’s golden standard (or at least what was so) and the political paralysis that comes from military leaders, as well as the tendency of conscripts to try and dodge service or get out of to ASAP.
Again, this is brutal oversimplifications and a lot of problems were not unique to China or Russia (famously there’s only ever been one Private-to-Field-Marshal in British history), and China and Russia were not always this bad. But it is a pretty good rule of thumb. And they are now struggling to adjust with that.
And I could go on. But I get the feeling it would be wasted on your dishonest, incompetent rear end. As much as I disagree with VDH, I admire him because he is legitimately accomplished and explains his arguments, in sharp contrast to “Trust me Bro”, “Real Academic” Cochrane you championed. And I have no reason to believe you are able to engage with this honestly and intelligently. I believe you took this petty snipe because you thought you could dunk on Neo as part of your mysterious and frankly petty vendetta.
You are not worthy of polishing her apple or VDH’s shoes.
Turtler, that’s one awesome rant! My commenter hat is off to you!!
As a catholic I believe that the enduring world hostility to the Jews is indeed demonic. As the chosen people of the God he hates of course they will be the targets of Satan and his demons.
VDH on the—currently—Western way of war:
https://newcriterion.com/article/leukophobia-other-obsessions/
Why would one expect a significant performance difference between Left “opinionaters” and Right “opinionaters”? They’re both in the business of selling opinions, just from a different perspective, and from my experience, not significantly different from each other.
It’s when they employ verifiable facts to support their opinions that I see a difference. But it’s still a “wheat vs chaff” issue, and having to wade through the opinions masking the facts to get the facts seems more trouble than it’s worth.
Cavendish,
I think a major and important distinction between Left and Right “opinionaters” is the Right operates in a truth seeking paradigm, whereas the Left operates in a power seeking paradigm. Bill Maher is the only major figure on the Left I can think of who will openly criticize his side and point out their flaws.
Van Jones does this sometimes, as do David Axelrod and James Carville. However all three of them seem to only do it when they sense speaking up will help win a particular election; in other words, gain power. And all three are in the business of helping Democrat candidates win elections.
It has become a bit of a joke that the Right often spends more time criticizing its own side than criticizing the Left. You can see it here in this series of posts by neo, her clip of Megyn Kelly and Ben Shapiro (who are good friends, and will likely remain good friends)… It seems every political podcast I listen to has focused on Carlson in the past two weeks.
We all know few people on the Left think trans men should compete in women’s sports or hang out in women’s locker rooms. Even fewer folks who vote Democrat believe that. Chuck Schumer doesn’t believe it. The majority of Democrat voters don’t think we should let people cross our borders freely. Yet, how many “opinionaters” on the Left even admit this? At best they obfuscate or flat out change the subject when it comes up.
One certainly doesn’t see open battles like this among the Left. Especially when it risks them losing influence and power.
Western Way of War?
Well I can think of one difference. The US and the IDF build trust in their soldiers instilling in them that other things being equal that you don’t leave anyone behind. The wounded are taken care of, so they are not captured. Look up the rescue at Cabanatuan at the end of WWII in the Philippines. The US didn’t have to do this but it did.
The Soviets and now the Russians under Putin think of their soldiers as entirely expendable. The British and the French General staffs weren’t much better with their idiotic over the top charges of machine guns for 4 years in WWI. They certainly didn’t seem to give a damn.
Remember the Iraq/Iran War? The Ayatollah regime had little children walk through minefields and clear them by blowing themselves up by the thousands. Hamas purposefully used civilian casualties in its propaganda war.
Tucker, who never served his country, craps all over the IDF and the Israeli’s but is utterly incapable of “reporting” these differences because to me he is an evil liar and a shirker.
Tucker went to St. George’s Prep School in RI. He could have served like a lot of their graduates but he didn’t. I went to that same prep school. I served four years beginning at 18 in the US Army. I like to think I learned a great deal more at St. George’s and in the military for 4 years each than he did.
I’d think more of TC if he’d had a stint in the military. However, time in the military among his cohort was quite atypical (as we speak, I think < 8% of each male cohort is enlisting). When he was in his late adolescent / young adult years, the Cold War was winding down and the military was beginning to shed personnel. At the time the WTC was attacked, he was 32 years old and had dependent children. Same deal with Max Boot.
I’m not on board with VDH, not on military matters. (I do think The Other Greeks a great book.) His “push of spears” model just doesn’t work. It would entail melees of disordered sort, in which the pikes of the hoplites just aren’t the right weapon. The Roman gladius would be better.
He also really doesn’t seem to like to consider cavalry enough. His hatred for Alexander may come into play here. Similarly he doesn’t seem to want to discuss the Mongols, who are the opposite of all he advocates. (And he is, like most classicists, extremely ignorant of, and biased against, the Middle Ages. The “Renaissance” way of war dates much earlier than the Renaissance.)
And, to turn to much later, VDH quite simply has no grasp of modern naval combat. None. He makes elementary errors, even to thinking the fleet Japan attacked at Pearl was “The 7th Fleet”. That wasn’t a one-time slip; he’s said it many times.
I don’t say I have no use for him. But to endow him with the level of trust you will give to Sowell is mistaken. He likes to impose models on the facts, in the Procrustean way.
EEyore:
Regarding classical Greek warfare and the phalanx, why did Alexander’s troops use pike much longer than their Greek opponents (to reach out and stab them). VDH is very clear that the Greek phalanx style of warfare was highly dependent on the terrane of the engagement (gee that hasn’t changed, has it). Even on the water wind, light conditions, currents, proximity of land or shallows matter; location, location, location.
I’ll take VDH and his analysis of ancient warfare.
When it comes to recent (post civil war) warfare he is less an authority but still has valuable insights.
this is who I was thinking of
https://www.amazon.com/Lords-Sea-Story-Athenian-Democracy/dp/0143117688
hanson takes the broader view of the rise and fall of republics, something it didn’t seem to occur to bob kagan, based on his father donald, (his monograph on thucydides was illuminating) maybe check on the syracuse expedition*
*once upon a time, he had dismissed that comparison, but seeing the impact of that intervention and the rise of the islamic state, well maybe should reconsider,
as to the Chinese Army in combat, it really hasn’t had much confrontation except for the battle of Tienanmen, not a fair fight, the counter-
insurgency in East Turkestan,
My wife pointed this out to me.
When challenged by Ben Shapiro, Megyn Kelly claimed she doesn’t consume content from Candace Owens and isn’t familiar with what she says. Megyn also says she listens to every one of Tucker’s shows. Those clips of Tucker and Candace in an earlier post pretty clearly showcase Candace’s position on the “demonic” state of Israel.
I’ve been a huge fan of Megyn’s for years. I’m disappointed in her duplicity.
Another creep on the Right is the execrable Matt Gaetz who thaks to Qatari money has become a huge antisemite in addition to being a pervert withunder aged girls. Donald Trump orignially picked him to be the United states attorney General we dodged a bullet and more proof if you needed one that Trump is not the best judge of character.
People (pundits) on the Right that I trust besides Thomas Sowell and Victor Davis Hanson are the great Douglas Murray and Scott Jennings.
Something always seemed to me to be a bit off about Tucker Carlson. I always suspected that his views on Isreal were of the paleocon variety. He never mentioned Israel when he was on Fox probably because he knew that his audience would strongly disagree. He also was a kook with his UFO obssession. Carlson spends his time now promoting crazy conspiracy theories as well as pimping for Putin, Mamdani, Maduro, Iran, and Qatar and antisemitic/anti American nutjobs.
Btw Neo – Candace Owens really is dumb!!!
Another creep on the Right is the execrable Matt Gaetz who thaks to Qatari money has become a huge antisemite in addition to being a pervert withunder aged girls.
==
You should avoid saying things that might be actionable.
BrooklynBoy:
I wish Owens was dumb. I think she’s very smart and very pernicious.
om on November 16, 2025 at 6:15 pm said:
EEyore:
Regarding classical Greek warfare and the phalanx, why did Alexander’s troops use pike much longer than their Greek opponents (to reach out and stab them). VDH is very clear that the Greek phalanx style of warfare was highly dependent on the terrane of the engagement (gee that hasn’t changed, has it). Even on the water wind, light conditions, currents, proximity of land or shallows matter; location, location, location.
I’ll take VDH and his analysis of ancient warfare.
When it comes to recent (post civil war) warfare he is less an authority but still has valuable insights.
________
You mistake the point, and really should go back and reread Hanson’s description of hoplite warfare. As he tells it, the lead soldier in each file would end up chest to chest with his opposing number. And all those behind him would be chest to back with those ahead of them. This would make for something like a rugby scrum; hardly a situation for long spears.
That is why I don’t buy it. Obviously, form it’s success, the Macedonian phalanx must have been an improvement. And the length of the spears would be a disability in the case I describe above. Therefore that description must be wrong.
Note also that Hanson is usually quite hostile to combined arms (missile units, cavalry, the like), which Alexander used extensively. That is one reason he had less trouble with different terrain. His typical smaller battlegroup would involve Companion cavalry, hypaspists, some Cretan archers, and Agrian skirmishers (javelins), along with a unit of phalangists.
My other problem with him is he tries to paint it as free western soldiers against non-western subjects. But he uses “free” so flexibly and loosely as to make me think he’s just shoehorning it in where it fits the narrative. Spanish tercios? Prussian grenadiers? When it suits him he paints Macedon as an oligarchy ruled by a despot, OR a semi-Grecian “consent based” society. (Just yesterday I heard him saying the only element of “consent” in Medieval Europe was Magna Carta. Really, such charters were a dime a dozen in Western Europe at the time. The sole unique feature about the MC was that it was national.)
The problem is he’s just careless. And I started as a big fan, until the decline started with Carnage and Culture.