William F. Buckley is Dead
At 82. He died in his study in Connecticut.
We would like you to remember him through a post we made in December about Noam Chomsky kicking his ass:
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I can’t sleep soundly knowing that Buckley and his buddies are responsible for absurd amounts of death in a huge chunk of the world (read: “Not America or Western Europe”).
I want to say “Despite this apparent…” but the real beginning of the next sentence is “Because of this objectively observable…” SO!
Because of this objectively observable propensity for wanton money/power genocide, misappropriation of guilt, and outright denial of even potential wrongdoing that so typifies America, Buckley will be annul-ized for perpetuity or whatever.
How that could make anyone sleep soundly is — and I’m trying my best to understand the feeling expressed — depressing in the extreme.
AND ANOTHER THING!
Only the most outrageous jingoist could remember Chomsky as “twisted” or “paranoid.”
I understand and cede “fringe,” but that is the nature of dissent: when one speaks against the way things are going, it’s unlikely he will be supported by the majority: the majority being those who perpetuate “the norms” in every action.
“Twisted” and “paranoid” are outright libel.
“Anarchist” seems to be the only thing ever said about Chomsky. That demarcation as intended denigration expresses either: an ineptitude on the part of the speaker (in this case, patrick ford) or it shows how lowly the speaker (patrick ford) holds his audience (yes, even here, we are an audience).
For elaboration on what the above paragraph means: Chomsky is not an ANARCHIST!!!!! though he expresses support of anarcho-syndicalism, Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist.
Wait Chomsky is not fringe at all.
He has been voted the world’s most public intellectual. Between 1980 and 1992 he was cited more times than any living scholar, and the
8th most of any scholar ever. Needless to say there’s pretty solid academic and public recognition of his work.
Buckley’s a minor figure. Once this generation of readers dies he’ll be forgotten,, or at least relegated to the footnotes of 21st-century history texts.
Ron Paul reads his political ideology like religious gospel. At that point it doesn’t matter what his ideology is, he’s undemocratic.
Though I find it hard to begin to address the broad generalizations made by Kirk in his post, he displays a deep misunderstanding of Buckley’s personal character which, considering the circumstances, should be what we are discussing.
Even amongst his greatest enemies (including but not limited to Arthur Schlessinger Jr. and Norman Mailer) he was held in the highest esteem as a great intellect and a gentleman. It’s unfortunate that his life is nothing but a symbol for some to shoot cliche-ridden barbs at. I know you guys are supposed to be funny, but I know Buckley would find even more enjoyment in your vain and misguided attacks than I am.
As to his patent paranoia, I believe his labeling of the American press as the “bought priesthood” of the government and his characterization of wage earners as “wage slaves” earns him that distinction.
The last thing I meant to do was turn this into a debate on Chomsky. I would at least ask that folks at the Colonialist afford the man the respect that he earned through a life of brilliant writing and thinking.
robertcarver,
Yes, exactly.
Patrick,
My clichè-ridden barbs are generalized, but material descriptions of concrete actions; yours are vague gestures at ambiguities posed as politic.
Can you really write “It’s unfortunate that his life is nothing but a symbol for some to shoot clichè-ridden barbs at” without choking on your keyboard?
Your reasoning for calling Chomsky paranoid is the strangest thing I’ve read in a while. “Wage slave” was not invented by Chomsky, but the worker/world structure it implies is almost undeniable.
Patrick, without money, one can’t buy food, shelter, etcetera; without those, one can’t live. One accrues money via sacrificing a significant percentage of his/her life in order to be able to live. Thus, one is slavishly tied to wages.
Bought priesthood?
This isn’t Chomsky’s, but it is a potential definition of “bought priesthood”:
The American press — by virtue of the fact that each individual press product needs money to come into being — sells itself to advertisers. The advertisers have bought the American press. Okay, that’s over with.
So then who are the priests?
Buckley & Co.
Why?
The whole deal was getting paid for maintaining the status quo (I hadn’t used a clichè in so long! And advertisers love the status quo! it means the right people have money*) and he did so via syndicated columns, which establishes a nongeographic discipleship of believers in this bought priest. Bought because of the wages he needs to earn as wage slave.
See how everything comes together?
I say “Let him be celebrated for his wit, his ‘personal character,’ his goofy eyes, his crazy accent, whatever. No amount of strangeness in presentation or gentlemanly comportment can erase what Buckley espoused at bottom: elitism, smokescreening, racism, power, hegemony, &c., &c.”
*by “the right people have money” I mean, “the people that had money still have money and the other people don’t” Advertisers like that situation because it means the demographics haven’t changed much (makes the job easier).
the goose,
Poignant, I like it.
anonymous,
Yes, good point. I should’ve mentioned that.
anonymous,
Cheer up!
Patrick,
That’s upsetting. I’ve done something wrong. I don’t want you to think you can’t express your opinion here and I don’t want you to think this is a comedy blog.
My apologies.
The Colonialist is intended to foster discourse and interchange of ideas.
Don’t stop expressing yourself here.
-Kirk
I can sleep soundly knowing that Buckley will be remembered as the foremost intellectual in a major political movement and Chomsky will be remembered as a fringe, twisted, and paranoid anarchist.