It’s ironic Charles, given that our admiration for Glenn was how you and I first connected way back when. I’ve watched his steady decline over the last year or so with a certain wistful nostalgia thinking back to when he was at his prime as a sociopolitical commentator. And for a good stretch, he was pretty solid. I think there’s a little bit of audience capture factored in here, as well as somewhat of a slavish devotion to always maintaining himself outside of some perceived box (funny, those two things seem sort of contrapuntal). But really, I think he just spread himself too thin outside the lanes of his expertise. In any case, it’s been pretty sad for me to watch go down as well :(
Hi Scotty, it really is sad to watch him become this caricature. If I held out any hope for him, it's all gone now. But at least he did one great lasting thing, he connected you and I.
Everyone is free to disagree with anyone, any idea, any position they want. Loury happens to disagree and is willing to publicly critique many of the positions of the Left.
It’s fine if you want to critique his stance and ideas, but you’ll have more credibility and in the long run will likely convince more people of the validity of your position if you’re able to present better ideas in an attempt to counter what you consider bad ideas…rather than name-calling and character smearing.
The liberal vs. conservative bifurcation of reality is mostly a distraction. Best if intelligent people such as yourself don’t fall for the tried-and-true smoke-and-mirrors tricks of the ruling elite.
Ideas grounded in truth backed by facts and evidence will take all of humanity much further toward collective thriving than partisan sniping and bitchy rug pulling.
Glenn Loury has ideologically bobbed and weaved throughout his career, seldom letting any tribe feel too comfortable for too long. When I studied with him he was at his most left-leaning, when his primary focus was mass incarceration, and he was a darling of Brown's campus left. There was a ton of overreach from the illiberal left over the past 10-15 years that he reacted to critically, and I expect he will now react to MAGA excesses equally critically. I understand disagreeing with Loury, he is mercurial, but he's still an absolute giant.
When someone claims you have TDS it is a compliment. It also means the person should not be validated by taking them seriously or appeasing them. These types are authoritarians
Being deranged is not usually a compliment. It points to a mental illness in which a person cannot think reasonably. In Germany at one time not too long ago, there were a lot of people with JDS - a Jew Derangement Syndrome. It is a very dangerous illness.
Nicholas, where in this comment section did anyone accuse anyone else of have TDS? All I noticed was Charles commenting that somebody had “reverse TDS”…whatever the heck that means.
My gosh Charles! Your critique of Glenn is simply a thinly veiled reflection of your own TDS. Let’s talk about Ukraine. There is no doubt that Putin is a bully and truly bad guy. He attacked Ukraine based on the ideological belief that Ukraine’s desire to enter NATO posed a threat to Russia’s security . This is a debatable point.
Well known economist, Jeffrey Sachs, argues that at the end of the Cold War there was an agreement between the former combatants that membership in NATO would be limited and that Ukraine would not be invited to join. This is a debatable point and is open to historical analysis—but it is a legitimate point to explore.
A simple thought experience makes the point: Iran decides to form an economic, military and military alliance with Mexico. Given that Iran has loudly called for the destruction of America—what do you believe would be or should be the response. Putin, others such as Sachs, argue the only purpose for NATO since the end of the Cold War is to oppose Russia. In reality this may be a legitimate goal but Russia’s concerns are not fanciful.
The Ukraine war however shows that Russia is formidable but no longer a decisive military or political force. Ukraine has proven to be a stubborn opponent. However, without the material snd military support of the USA Ukraine doesn’t have a prayer of defeating Putin’s Russia. Trump in his usual in-artful and crude manner made that clear. Continuing to fight even with American aide is a slow motion defeat and prolonging the unbelievable death and destruction for the Ukrainian people.
You seem to be criticizing Professor Loury because he finds that he can’t argue against the basic reality of the war. From a policy standpoint you can disagree with the president on the war. There is an argument that America should continue to provide military support until the last Ukrainian—after all, we are harassing Russia on the cheap (some would say not so cheap in treasure) while allowing Ukrainians to die while not risking USA lives. Some might argue that this is perverse. Our president has said in short I do not support a war where the only outcome is going to be continued death and destruction.
You seem to be crosswise with Professor Loury because he clearly sees and is able to state the president’s policy preferences—whether or not he agrees with them. Your argument seems to be that Glenn should be joining the chorus of those who denounce the president as a pagan unfit for the presidency. You like too many on the left seem unable to accept that the majority of the American electorate voted not just for Trump but for his policies.
Glenn has argued that because you don’t like the policies or the man that doesn’t mean he is an illegitimate president. He was elected by the American people and the American people will be the final arbiter of his policies and his success as president. You seem to expect that to prove his intellectual bonafides, professor Loury must share your opinion of the president and your policy preferences—this of course is ridiculous.
If you disapprove of the president’s policies stand up and make a cogent argument against those along with your alternative. Attacking professor Loury because he doesn’t reflexively denounce our president rather than make your own criticisms seem a bit, I’m sorry to say, intellectually immature, even cowardly.
At this point, invoking TDS unironically in a sentence is quite intellectually lazy. It’s a shallow attempt to psychologise legitimate complaints. But to return the favour, people like Loury are caught in the MAGA reality distortion field, a mystical force where the subject frequently move goalposts to post-hoc rationalise poorly thought through ideas and contradiction. Covfefe.
While I certainly dont agree that Loury is a lost cause, on this issue he is just plain wrong. He seems to entertain some vulgar version of the security dilemma, which has been exhausted way beyond its purport at this point. Anyone that is remotely familiar with the conflict explicitly remembers the Budapest memorandum, where Ukraine gave their nuclear weapons—their one deterrent, away in exchange for recognition of its sovereignty. Zelensky is well within his right to demand security guarantees given the poor track record they have had with Russia.
I do not doubt that you are making these arguments in good faith, but those of us that are Europeans have seen this movie before. Like Chamberlain you want ‘peace in our time’ while those of us that are Russias neighbour have our borders security challenged by a revisionary power—that includes my native Norway.
It is not that he is MAGA, rather the fact that he makes embarrassing, glaring concessions to the executive overreach on his side. Hence under the influence of the distortion field. Mcwhorter on the other hand, always managed to have a critical distance to the extreme wing of his preferred party. That is, Mcwhorter is heterodox and anti-woke, Loury is just an incoherent rightwinger, brilliant in his field but lacks good judgement.
You mentioned a lot of "debatable points" which shows clearly Putin'd justification for this war is suspect, but that aside, I already answered your question about what Russia should do seeing Ukraine being admitted into NATO is a security threat to Russia.
Lets even assume there was such an agreement not to admit Ukraine into NATO. Did Ukraine sign that agreement? If not, why is Russia not taking up it's grievances with the guilty party, NATO? Why Ukraine?
Second, Putin's motivation is self preservation in power, he revealed how shallow his justification for invasion was in his interview with Tucker, where he essentially claimed Ukraine is Russia and that there is no Ukraine, that they're one people. Even if Russians and Ukrainians are one people, they don't have to be one country. The Swiss and Austrians are ethnic Germans, they exist perfectly as separately independent states, why not Ukraine
If Iran forms an alliance with Mexico and proposes to put Iranian missiles in Mexico given it's rhetoric against the US, I expect the US to take it up with it's enemy, Iran. The US or Russia has no right to determine the geopolitical alliances of their neighbours.
Lastly, both Trump and Loury are making silly demands, asking Zelensky to stop the war. How is he going to do that? Without even asking the terms of cessation of hostilies from Russia, you're asking the one being invaded to stop the war? What if Russia rejects the ceasefire deal as they indeed have, should Ukraine simply let Putin takeover Ukraine?
If you watched my video, I explained all this. It isn't up to Ukraine to cease hostilies. How about NATO which the US is a part of NATO proposes to Russia that as part of the ceasefire is to sign a deal this time to never admit Ukraine into NATO? How about making that offer to Putin?
But you expect Zelensky to agree to unconditional ceasefire without security guarantees, without assurances from Russia that the fighting would stop. If the US was Ukraine would you stop fighting?
Talking about breaking deals, Russia have Ukraine guarantees of independence if it gave up it's nukes, Russia since 2014 has broken that agreement, Ukraine hasn't broken any agreement with Russia.
It's easy to accuse someone of TDS, because you can dismiss what they said. I accused Loury of being a lost cause, and I proved my point.
Listen you need to spend some time looking at world history. Unfortunately, the creation of entangling alliances has always been a motivation for war. The fact that you and others on both the left and right assert that Russia has no reason to be concerned about its neighbor Ukraine on its border allying itself with Russia’s traditional adversaries is not an argument against Russia’d invasion.
WWI was started precisely because the various combatants chose to create a series of sensitive alliances that were perceived as threats. I don’t agree with the Russian invasion but I cannot dismiss it out of hand without looking at the Russian perspective.
Moreover, the risk that the conflict will draw in a wider set of actors that could lead to a worldwide conflagration is real given all the allies involved—NATO and the USA on one hand and Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran—just to name a few. Simply saying Putin is a bad guy and we should oppose him is not a viable military or political strategy. How do we assure Putin that the west’s overtures to Ukraine are not a long term threat to Russia? It is possible that the west may have to stand up militarily to Putin’s aggression, but first recognize and accept that confrontation with Russia carries significant geopolitical and military risk.
Suggesting that the losing side in a conflict is not going to be required to make concessions is silly and ahistorical. Zelensky can certainly choose to continue fighting but Ukraine is losing and as such the destruction and death on both sides will continue. I agree that Trump is not a very sympathetic diplomat but his basic understanding of the conflict is correct.
While he certainly doesn’t need my assistance I object to your attempting to denigrate Professor Loury by arguing that his analysis of the situation on the ground is too similar to our president’s—a president you object to—ridiculous. A more useful critique is to present your policy preferences for either stopping or continuing the Ukraine war; along with alternatives and potential outcomes.
John, don't misunderstand my argument. I am not arguing that NATO's actions is not a perceived threat to Russia, ofcourse it is. My argument is on principle, this is a much civilised world than 80 or 100 years ago, the way geopolitics is done needs to change. If you recall I kept saying Russia should attack the guilty party, NATO, not Ukraine. Ukraine has nothing to do with this. It's all NATO's fault.
Russia has justification for feeling threatened, but they don't have justification for attacking an independent country who by the way hasn't even joined NATO.
Let me use an analogy, if someone starts insulting your mother to your face, that's a provocation, but if you punch them and as a result they broke their necks, the judge isn't just going to let you walk because they provoked you, but in this instance, person A provoked Russia and Russia took it out on his friend instead.
I'm arguing on principle. If we're going repeat history and use it as justification for anything today, we might as well bring back colonialism and slavery and women being second class citizens, there are plenty of historical precedent for all that.
If the USA decided to attack Mexico because Mexico makes a military alliance with Russia, you bet i would be screaming just as loud as I am now that México is a sovereign country and it's not the US business how they run their alliances.
This politics of power needs to stop, it leads to an unstable world. If I were the leader of a small country at this point there is nothing that would stop me from acquiring nuclear weapons as a safety measure to guarantee my sovereignty. If you want the world to be a more stable place, power politics must stop
Ok! In some ideal world where you are omnipotent it might be possible to achieve the outcomes you prefer—everyone likes everyone; the strong do not abuse the weak; there are rainbows and puppies for everyone. You describe your idea of a just and principled world—but that is not the world we live in. In this world China gobbles up Tibet and Mongolia and Hong Kong on its borders commits genocide against the Uyghurs and threatens war against Taiwan. Putin believes that fall of the Soviet Union was a historical mistake that should be corrected. Is he strong enough to pull off his belief that the former members of the former Soviet empire should be reunited under Russian rule? This is an empirical question. The point is that the world you describe doesn’t and never has existed—and if it did exist I’m not sure I would want to live in it. In all cases historically the imposition of particular vision of order and peace has always involved the application of force by the strong upon those who are weaker. Russia, more precisely, Putin is a bully. You can fight the bully —sometimes you win sometimes you lose. Or you can accommodate the bully. But that is the truth of it.
Let me start from the bottom up. "You can fight the bully, sometimes you win, sometimes you don't"
Your quote above invalidates your earlier points, if you can fight the bully and sometimes win then why do you have an issue with Ukraine fighting the bully in the hopes that it can win?
You wouldn't want to live in a just world? That's telling.
Back to the top. There is no ideal world, we make of the world what we want of it, that's literally the story of mankind from using stone tools to being so advanced enough to go to the moon. The "real" world is for man to have never developed beyond being a caveman.
In the real world, slavery is the order of the day, misogyny is fundamental, in the real world there would be no need to change all that. But people saw an ideal and fought for it, but here you are saying in so many words that that should not have happened, accept fate, because progress is an ideal that can never be reached.
It may make me come across as naive but I will never stop advocating for justice and what is right now matter how difficult it is to obtain. Difficult does not mean impossible. Nothing good comes easy.
Just like Charles you confuse your preferences for what is right or wrong or legitimate. I found Charles comment and frankly your response intellectually lazy. I used TDS unironically because rather than share a cogent critique of policies he disagrees with Charles unfairly attacks Professor Loury because he doesn’t share his perspective on President Trump and his policies. Folks like you and Charles simply dismiss the president and his policies and his millions of supporters
It's clear you didn't watch my video. I don't know how anyone could watch that and come off with I didnt provide a cogent critique of policies I disagree with 🤦
I don't get it! Glenn Loury is as reasonable as can be! Trump was handed this mess by a mentally deranged Joe Biden. There are not a lot of options at this point. Either come to some kind of solution that neither side will be totally happy with, as Trump is trying to negotiate, or keep on killing each other's citizens and destroying property indefinitely, hoping it doesn't develop into WWIII.
The lost cause inhabits your mirror. This is frequently identified as cognitive dissonance. Late Admissions contains several examples of Glenn changing his position based on new information or new perspective. Can you give examples of when you have changed your opinion?
If you cared to comprehend what I wrote, you would find ample evidence of me changing my mind in the face of compelling evidence. A clear example staring you in the face is I used to think highly of Glenn until new information showed me just how shallow he is. You can go back to my substack and YouTube history to see how much I've changed my mind. That being said, what is the relevance of changing one's mind to the points I raise in this article?
Jamal X, What is the point? Why are you and Charles obsessing over Glenn Loury like you are both 12 years old? Do you have something intelligent to say on the matter or are you on Substack to talk shit in an attempt to diminish the value of an otherwise invaluable platform?
Seriously, you read as mentally disturbed with your race-baiting and childish comments.
We're the ones obsessing over Loury? SMH. If you don't like our critique of Loury, that's your problem. It's a free world, Loury gave his commentary on an issue, I am giving my commentary on his commentary and trying to minimise that without addressing the arguments I've made shows you have nothing, you don't have a rebuttal, so you resort to tactics like this
In his book, "Black Labor White Wealth", Dr. Claud Anderson states, " By mouthing off the social and economic views of white conservatives, black conservatives convert confusion of the personal racial identity to confusion in the minds of black people about the real issue facing them. Black conservatives operate under misleading colors. As an old farmer said, 'They run with the hounds while pretending friendship and brotherhood with the rabbits.' The confusion caused by their schizophrenia behavior provides a public cover for anti-black attitudes and activities and makes them appear nothing more than white racist black-face minstrel makeup.
Becoming a conservative has historically provided personal rewards to individual blacks, with few downsides, because of the powerlessness of the black community to hold accountable those members who turn against it. Blacks found that it was not difficult to establish beneficial relations with whites once they accepted a subordinate position and committed themselves to place the welfare of the white class first. Once that was agreed upon, tacitly or otherwise, blacks were then entitled to various forms of paternalistic protection, Christian charity, and meritorious recognition.
White conservatives then conferred special status and recognition of conservative blacks as exceptional as acceptable. Accordingly, black conservatives who place their advancemeynt above the welfare of their race often gain significant personal and financial benefits, recognition, and access to power. They are anointed by whites as [leaders] and touted as role models. In political and social situations, a black conservative resembles Sambo in Harriet Beecher Stowe's [Uncle Tom's Cabin]. In a historical context, a Sambo was black America's worst nightmare. The stereotypical Sambo was more than a minstrel man, a buffoon, and a plantation [darkie]. Sambo represented the extraordinary success of social control, which was the ultimate goal of a slavery conditioning process that transplanted a white mindset into a black personality
While Glenn Loury was busy out there in the 80s pepetuating violence in the hood and Black mass prison incarceration with his crack cocaine addiction, I had several crack heads like him on my prison caseload. I also interviewd many crack cocaine related convicted felons for prison. Furthermore, Glenn should be ashamed of himself with his active sex addiction while cheating on his terminally ill wife.
Glenn Loury is a Black conservative grifter who owns and controls nothing of significant value (eg., factories, transportation systems, or financial institutions) to help assist working class Black people putting food on the table and a descent roof over their heads. The same goes for Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and other notorious Black conservative grifters.
Insofar as mental health diagnosis, the DMS-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders) is used by board cerified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists to evaluate for for specific mental disorders. BTW, did your mother breast feed you? Did uncle bubba inappropriately touch you? Lol!
The phrase "race-baiting" has become a favorite tool for some to undermine those who have the nerve to talk about racism in America. During the Obama years, right-wing pundits grabbed onto this buzzword like a lifebuoy tossed into choppy waters, using it against Black voices who dare to raise these crucial issues.
Media powerhouses like the Drudge Report, Fox News, and the National Review have taken "race-baiting" for a joyride, flaunting it like a badge of honor. Drudge, in particular, has curated a delightful collection of its usage for anyone looking to indulge in the latest hot takes.
Even when these outlets sidestep the term "race-baiting," they’ve mastered the art of insinuation, steering the conversation away from the meat of the matter and into a land of distraction and misdirection.
One thing that stands out is your statement about the US invading Iraq after 9/11.
You state as a rhetorical question: “When 911 happened and Iraq was invaded didn't people make money off that war? Should the US not have responded because some elites were going to make money? Such a silly argument.”
Well, Charles, in answer to that “question”…no, the US shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. Why?
Because Sadaam Hussein and the Iraqi population had no involvement in 9/11.
Also, your assertion that US taxpayer money going to fund arms sales will benefit the American people economically demonstrates your utter ignorance on these matters.
I suggest you take a break from obsessing over Glenn Loury and read some history and economic books, my good man.
Ofcourse the US shouldnt have invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussain had nothing to do with it, but tell that to the American people who wanted blood and revenge after 911. Hindsight is always 2020.
Making assertions without backing them up. Explain how military aid works and whose economy it benefits. Oh wait you need to go and consult a history book written by Thomas Sowell.
Lastly, you can stop obsessing over me too. If you don't like my commentary on Glenn Loury, you're free to stop commenting. Why the obsession?
Charles, I will not claim to be a scholar of Russian history, but it seems very likely that the push to keep funding Ukraine is little more than a money laundering operation with the intent of putting more absurd profits into the pockets of arms manufacturers and their investors aka the global elites. Zelenskyy can only account for a mere fraction of the $150 Billion already given to Ukraine by American taxpayers. What happened to all that dough?
Are you and your buddy Jamal X going to be fighting the Russians? Pretty easy to sit back with your dicks in your hands and talk about the need for other individuals to go fight a war.
As to your adolescent comments about reverse TDS, etc…I have zero interest in those type of trolling teenager comments and will not be entangled by such ridiculous ant-intellectual traps.
Stick to actual ideas and free and open dialogue. Is that too much to ask for from other adults?
You're clearly not a scholar of any sort never mind Russian history. That is very apparent with your statement "....but it seems very likely that the push to keep funding Ukraine is little more than a money laundering operation with the intent of putting more absurd profits into the pockets of arms manufacturers and their investors aka the global elites"
Whether the global elites are making money off this war is irrelevant to the fact that Ukraine was invaded by Russia and needs to defend itself. People always make money off war. When 911 happened and Iraq was invaded didn't people make money off that war? Should the US not have responded because some elites were going to make money? Such a silly argument.
It's easy to seat down with your dick in your hands and say Ukraine should not be supported because it's not your country being invaded. Let's see how well you seat with dick in hand if the US ever gets invaded. Luckily the people of Ukraine are not cowards who would let another country invade and destroy them without putting up a fight. You think people don't'die in war? You think Hitler was defeated without soldiers dying. All those soldiers should have simply let Hitler take over the world because hey, that would kill people. American selfishness is so infuriating, you are asking Ukraine to accept a condition (being invaded) that no American would accept if it happens to the US.
Where did you get the analysis to show how much Zelensky can account for in the 150 billion dollar aid so far? Can you provide a credible source? Did you also know that the majority of this aid is not in direct cash transfer but in the form of weapons and military hardware that is feeding the American economy as US weapons manufacturers are making money off said weapons manufacture?
Zelensky is not accountable to you, he is an ally, not a vassal. If he decides to launder funds that should help him prosecute a war, he's only hurting himself. It's fine if the US doesn't want to support Ukraine militarily, it's the US money, they can decide what to do with it, but this mora posturing is nonsensical. Trump threatened to cut off aid, Zelensky called his bluff and he's back providing the same aid. SMH.
In all of this, not once have you condemned Russia for invading, not once have requested pull back its forces or cease fighting, but its the people defending their homeland who you have all the smokes for.
Lastly, stop pretending you're interested in any serious intellectual discussion, you're only interested in ideological discussions that fit your narrative.
I am currently undertaking preparations to defend myself against aggressive individuals affiliated with white supremacist ideologies. At present, I am in my workshop, where I am crafting custom AR-15 and AK-47 firearms, as well as ammunition.
It’s ironic Charles, given that our admiration for Glenn was how you and I first connected way back when. I’ve watched his steady decline over the last year or so with a certain wistful nostalgia thinking back to when he was at his prime as a sociopolitical commentator. And for a good stretch, he was pretty solid. I think there’s a little bit of audience capture factored in here, as well as somewhat of a slavish devotion to always maintaining himself outside of some perceived box (funny, those two things seem sort of contrapuntal). But really, I think he just spread himself too thin outside the lanes of his expertise. In any case, it’s been pretty sad for me to watch go down as well :(
Hi Scotty, it really is sad to watch him become this caricature. If I held out any hope for him, it's all gone now. But at least he did one great lasting thing, he connected you and I.
That was my silver lining as well, my friend!
Everyone is free to disagree with anyone, any idea, any position they want. Loury happens to disagree and is willing to publicly critique many of the positions of the Left.
It’s fine if you want to critique his stance and ideas, but you’ll have more credibility and in the long run will likely convince more people of the validity of your position if you’re able to present better ideas in an attempt to counter what you consider bad ideas…rather than name-calling and character smearing.
The liberal vs. conservative bifurcation of reality is mostly a distraction. Best if intelligent people such as yourself don’t fall for the tried-and-true smoke-and-mirrors tricks of the ruling elite.
Ideas grounded in truth backed by facts and evidence will take all of humanity much further toward collective thriving than partisan sniping and bitchy rug pulling.
I presented better ideas admidst the fitting name calling
Glenn Loury has ideologically bobbed and weaved throughout his career, seldom letting any tribe feel too comfortable for too long. When I studied with him he was at his most left-leaning, when his primary focus was mass incarceration, and he was a darling of Brown's campus left. There was a ton of overreach from the illiberal left over the past 10-15 years that he reacted to critically, and I expect he will now react to MAGA excesses equally critically. I understand disagreeing with Loury, he is mercurial, but he's still an absolute giant.
https://ivyexile.substack.com/p/diamonds-and-rust
Changing ones mind in the face of compelling evidence is good. However I don't see Glenn changing on Trump anytime soon. He's locked in on this one
When someone claims you have TDS it is a compliment. It also means the person should not be validated by taking them seriously or appeasing them. These types are authoritarians
Being deranged is not usually a compliment. It points to a mental illness in which a person cannot think reasonably. In Germany at one time not too long ago, there were a lot of people with JDS - a Jew Derangement Syndrome. It is a very dangerous illness.
You drunk?
Nicholas, where in this comment section did anyone accuse anyone else of have TDS? All I noticed was Charles commenting that somebody had “reverse TDS”…whatever the heck that means.
Thank you, Charles, for your insightful critique of Glenn Loury's troubling perspectives and sycophantic tendencies.
Thanks for listening, Jamal
My gosh Charles! Your critique of Glenn is simply a thinly veiled reflection of your own TDS. Let’s talk about Ukraine. There is no doubt that Putin is a bully and truly bad guy. He attacked Ukraine based on the ideological belief that Ukraine’s desire to enter NATO posed a threat to Russia’s security . This is a debatable point.
Well known economist, Jeffrey Sachs, argues that at the end of the Cold War there was an agreement between the former combatants that membership in NATO would be limited and that Ukraine would not be invited to join. This is a debatable point and is open to historical analysis—but it is a legitimate point to explore.
A simple thought experience makes the point: Iran decides to form an economic, military and military alliance with Mexico. Given that Iran has loudly called for the destruction of America—what do you believe would be or should be the response. Putin, others such as Sachs, argue the only purpose for NATO since the end of the Cold War is to oppose Russia. In reality this may be a legitimate goal but Russia’s concerns are not fanciful.
The Ukraine war however shows that Russia is formidable but no longer a decisive military or political force. Ukraine has proven to be a stubborn opponent. However, without the material snd military support of the USA Ukraine doesn’t have a prayer of defeating Putin’s Russia. Trump in his usual in-artful and crude manner made that clear. Continuing to fight even with American aide is a slow motion defeat and prolonging the unbelievable death and destruction for the Ukrainian people.
You seem to be criticizing Professor Loury because he finds that he can’t argue against the basic reality of the war. From a policy standpoint you can disagree with the president on the war. There is an argument that America should continue to provide military support until the last Ukrainian—after all, we are harassing Russia on the cheap (some would say not so cheap in treasure) while allowing Ukrainians to die while not risking USA lives. Some might argue that this is perverse. Our president has said in short I do not support a war where the only outcome is going to be continued death and destruction.
You seem to be crosswise with Professor Loury because he clearly sees and is able to state the president’s policy preferences—whether or not he agrees with them. Your argument seems to be that Glenn should be joining the chorus of those who denounce the president as a pagan unfit for the presidency. You like too many on the left seem unable to accept that the majority of the American electorate voted not just for Trump but for his policies.
Glenn has argued that because you don’t like the policies or the man that doesn’t mean he is an illegitimate president. He was elected by the American people and the American people will be the final arbiter of his policies and his success as president. You seem to expect that to prove his intellectual bonafides, professor Loury must share your opinion of the president and your policy preferences—this of course is ridiculous.
If you disapprove of the president’s policies stand up and make a cogent argument against those along with your alternative. Attacking professor Loury because he doesn’t reflexively denounce our president rather than make your own criticisms seem a bit, I’m sorry to say, intellectually immature, even cowardly.
At this point, invoking TDS unironically in a sentence is quite intellectually lazy. It’s a shallow attempt to psychologise legitimate complaints. But to return the favour, people like Loury are caught in the MAGA reality distortion field, a mystical force where the subject frequently move goalposts to post-hoc rationalise poorly thought through ideas and contradiction. Covfefe.
While I certainly dont agree that Loury is a lost cause, on this issue he is just plain wrong. He seems to entertain some vulgar version of the security dilemma, which has been exhausted way beyond its purport at this point. Anyone that is remotely familiar with the conflict explicitly remembers the Budapest memorandum, where Ukraine gave their nuclear weapons—their one deterrent, away in exchange for recognition of its sovereignty. Zelensky is well within his right to demand security guarantees given the poor track record they have had with Russia.
I do not doubt that you are making these arguments in good faith, but those of us that are Europeans have seen this movie before. Like Chamberlain you want ‘peace in our time’ while those of us that are Russias neighbour have our borders security challenged by a revisionary power—that includes my native Norway.
Thank you Raymond. I don't know how one could be clearer for people to understand what I'm saying
Accusing a man of being MAGA because he is not deranged is a low blow.
It is not that he is MAGA, rather the fact that he makes embarrassing, glaring concessions to the executive overreach on his side. Hence under the influence of the distortion field. Mcwhorter on the other hand, always managed to have a critical distance to the extreme wing of his preferred party. That is, Mcwhorter is heterodox and anti-woke, Loury is just an incoherent rightwinger, brilliant in his field but lacks good judgement.
You mentioned a lot of "debatable points" which shows clearly Putin'd justification for this war is suspect, but that aside, I already answered your question about what Russia should do seeing Ukraine being admitted into NATO is a security threat to Russia.
Lets even assume there was such an agreement not to admit Ukraine into NATO. Did Ukraine sign that agreement? If not, why is Russia not taking up it's grievances with the guilty party, NATO? Why Ukraine?
Second, Putin's motivation is self preservation in power, he revealed how shallow his justification for invasion was in his interview with Tucker, where he essentially claimed Ukraine is Russia and that there is no Ukraine, that they're one people. Even if Russians and Ukrainians are one people, they don't have to be one country. The Swiss and Austrians are ethnic Germans, they exist perfectly as separately independent states, why not Ukraine
If Iran forms an alliance with Mexico and proposes to put Iranian missiles in Mexico given it's rhetoric against the US, I expect the US to take it up with it's enemy, Iran. The US or Russia has no right to determine the geopolitical alliances of their neighbours.
Lastly, both Trump and Loury are making silly demands, asking Zelensky to stop the war. How is he going to do that? Without even asking the terms of cessation of hostilies from Russia, you're asking the one being invaded to stop the war? What if Russia rejects the ceasefire deal as they indeed have, should Ukraine simply let Putin takeover Ukraine?
If you watched my video, I explained all this. It isn't up to Ukraine to cease hostilies. How about NATO which the US is a part of NATO proposes to Russia that as part of the ceasefire is to sign a deal this time to never admit Ukraine into NATO? How about making that offer to Putin?
But you expect Zelensky to agree to unconditional ceasefire without security guarantees, without assurances from Russia that the fighting would stop. If the US was Ukraine would you stop fighting?
Talking about breaking deals, Russia have Ukraine guarantees of independence if it gave up it's nukes, Russia since 2014 has broken that agreement, Ukraine hasn't broken any agreement with Russia.
It's easy to accuse someone of TDS, because you can dismiss what they said. I accused Loury of being a lost cause, and I proved my point.
Listen you need to spend some time looking at world history. Unfortunately, the creation of entangling alliances has always been a motivation for war. The fact that you and others on both the left and right assert that Russia has no reason to be concerned about its neighbor Ukraine on its border allying itself with Russia’s traditional adversaries is not an argument against Russia’d invasion.
WWI was started precisely because the various combatants chose to create a series of sensitive alliances that were perceived as threats. I don’t agree with the Russian invasion but I cannot dismiss it out of hand without looking at the Russian perspective.
Moreover, the risk that the conflict will draw in a wider set of actors that could lead to a worldwide conflagration is real given all the allies involved—NATO and the USA on one hand and Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran—just to name a few. Simply saying Putin is a bad guy and we should oppose him is not a viable military or political strategy. How do we assure Putin that the west’s overtures to Ukraine are not a long term threat to Russia? It is possible that the west may have to stand up militarily to Putin’s aggression, but first recognize and accept that confrontation with Russia carries significant geopolitical and military risk.
Suggesting that the losing side in a conflict is not going to be required to make concessions is silly and ahistorical. Zelensky can certainly choose to continue fighting but Ukraine is losing and as such the destruction and death on both sides will continue. I agree that Trump is not a very sympathetic diplomat but his basic understanding of the conflict is correct.
While he certainly doesn’t need my assistance I object to your attempting to denigrate Professor Loury by arguing that his analysis of the situation on the ground is too similar to our president’s—a president you object to—ridiculous. A more useful critique is to present your policy preferences for either stopping or continuing the Ukraine war; along with alternatives and potential outcomes.
John, don't misunderstand my argument. I am not arguing that NATO's actions is not a perceived threat to Russia, ofcourse it is. My argument is on principle, this is a much civilised world than 80 or 100 years ago, the way geopolitics is done needs to change. If you recall I kept saying Russia should attack the guilty party, NATO, not Ukraine. Ukraine has nothing to do with this. It's all NATO's fault.
Russia has justification for feeling threatened, but they don't have justification for attacking an independent country who by the way hasn't even joined NATO.
Let me use an analogy, if someone starts insulting your mother to your face, that's a provocation, but if you punch them and as a result they broke their necks, the judge isn't just going to let you walk because they provoked you, but in this instance, person A provoked Russia and Russia took it out on his friend instead.
I'm arguing on principle. If we're going repeat history and use it as justification for anything today, we might as well bring back colonialism and slavery and women being second class citizens, there are plenty of historical precedent for all that.
If the USA decided to attack Mexico because Mexico makes a military alliance with Russia, you bet i would be screaming just as loud as I am now that México is a sovereign country and it's not the US business how they run their alliances.
This politics of power needs to stop, it leads to an unstable world. If I were the leader of a small country at this point there is nothing that would stop me from acquiring nuclear weapons as a safety measure to guarantee my sovereignty. If you want the world to be a more stable place, power politics must stop
Ok! In some ideal world where you are omnipotent it might be possible to achieve the outcomes you prefer—everyone likes everyone; the strong do not abuse the weak; there are rainbows and puppies for everyone. You describe your idea of a just and principled world—but that is not the world we live in. In this world China gobbles up Tibet and Mongolia and Hong Kong on its borders commits genocide against the Uyghurs and threatens war against Taiwan. Putin believes that fall of the Soviet Union was a historical mistake that should be corrected. Is he strong enough to pull off his belief that the former members of the former Soviet empire should be reunited under Russian rule? This is an empirical question. The point is that the world you describe doesn’t and never has existed—and if it did exist I’m not sure I would want to live in it. In all cases historically the imposition of particular vision of order and peace has always involved the application of force by the strong upon those who are weaker. Russia, more precisely, Putin is a bully. You can fight the bully —sometimes you win sometimes you lose. Or you can accommodate the bully. But that is the truth of it.
Let me start from the bottom up. "You can fight the bully, sometimes you win, sometimes you don't"
Your quote above invalidates your earlier points, if you can fight the bully and sometimes win then why do you have an issue with Ukraine fighting the bully in the hopes that it can win?
You wouldn't want to live in a just world? That's telling.
Back to the top. There is no ideal world, we make of the world what we want of it, that's literally the story of mankind from using stone tools to being so advanced enough to go to the moon. The "real" world is for man to have never developed beyond being a caveman.
In the real world, slavery is the order of the day, misogyny is fundamental, in the real world there would be no need to change all that. But people saw an ideal and fought for it, but here you are saying in so many words that that should not have happened, accept fate, because progress is an ideal that can never be reached.
It may make me come across as naive but I will never stop advocating for justice and what is right now matter how difficult it is to obtain. Difficult does not mean impossible. Nothing good comes easy.
Just like Charles you confuse your preferences for what is right or wrong or legitimate. I found Charles comment and frankly your response intellectually lazy. I used TDS unironically because rather than share a cogent critique of policies he disagrees with Charles unfairly attacks Professor Loury because he doesn’t share his perspective on President Trump and his policies. Folks like you and Charles simply dismiss the president and his policies and his millions of supporters
It's clear you didn't watch my video. I don't know how anyone could watch that and come off with I didnt provide a cogent critique of policies I disagree with 🤦
I did watch the video—i stand by my observations.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, I grant you that
Glenn Loury could really use a little "crack pick-me-up," don’t you think?
This comment is not even worth responding to.
Despite your best efforts, you’ve managed to become the poster child for enjoyable monotony!
It’s not always that we disagree with one another, the lack of self governance makes the disagree even less palatable.
I don't get it! Glenn Loury is as reasonable as can be! Trump was handed this mess by a mentally deranged Joe Biden. There are not a lot of options at this point. Either come to some kind of solution that neither side will be totally happy with, as Trump is trying to negotiate, or keep on killing each other's citizens and destroying property indefinitely, hoping it doesn't develop into WWIII.
I am sure you stood against Obama when he stood by and did nothing when Putin invaded Georgia.
The lost cause inhabits your mirror. This is frequently identified as cognitive dissonance. Late Admissions contains several examples of Glenn changing his position based on new information or new perspective. Can you give examples of when you have changed your opinion?
If you cared to comprehend what I wrote, you would find ample evidence of me changing my mind in the face of compelling evidence. A clear example staring you in the face is I used to think highly of Glenn until new information showed me just how shallow he is. You can go back to my substack and YouTube history to see how much I've changed my mind. That being said, what is the relevance of changing one's mind to the points I raise in this article?
Jamal X, What is the point? Why are you and Charles obsessing over Glenn Loury like you are both 12 years old? Do you have something intelligent to say on the matter or are you on Substack to talk shit in an attempt to diminish the value of an otherwise invaluable platform?
Seriously, you read as mentally disturbed with your race-baiting and childish comments.
We're the ones obsessing over Loury? SMH. If you don't like our critique of Loury, that's your problem. It's a free world, Loury gave his commentary on an issue, I am giving my commentary on his commentary and trying to minimise that without addressing the arguments I've made shows you have nothing, you don't have a rebuttal, so you resort to tactics like this
In his book, "Black Labor White Wealth", Dr. Claud Anderson states, " By mouthing off the social and economic views of white conservatives, black conservatives convert confusion of the personal racial identity to confusion in the minds of black people about the real issue facing them. Black conservatives operate under misleading colors. As an old farmer said, 'They run with the hounds while pretending friendship and brotherhood with the rabbits.' The confusion caused by their schizophrenia behavior provides a public cover for anti-black attitudes and activities and makes them appear nothing more than white racist black-face minstrel makeup.
Becoming a conservative has historically provided personal rewards to individual blacks, with few downsides, because of the powerlessness of the black community to hold accountable those members who turn against it. Blacks found that it was not difficult to establish beneficial relations with whites once they accepted a subordinate position and committed themselves to place the welfare of the white class first. Once that was agreed upon, tacitly or otherwise, blacks were then entitled to various forms of paternalistic protection, Christian charity, and meritorious recognition.
White conservatives then conferred special status and recognition of conservative blacks as exceptional as acceptable. Accordingly, black conservatives who place their advancemeynt above the welfare of their race often gain significant personal and financial benefits, recognition, and access to power. They are anointed by whites as [leaders] and touted as role models. In political and social situations, a black conservative resembles Sambo in Harriet Beecher Stowe's [Uncle Tom's Cabin]. In a historical context, a Sambo was black America's worst nightmare. The stereotypical Sambo was more than a minstrel man, a buffoon, and a plantation [darkie]. Sambo represented the extraordinary success of social control, which was the ultimate goal of a slavery conditioning process that transplanted a white mindset into a black personality
While Glenn Loury was busy out there in the 80s pepetuating violence in the hood and Black mass prison incarceration with his crack cocaine addiction, I had several crack heads like him on my prison caseload. I also interviewd many crack cocaine related convicted felons for prison. Furthermore, Glenn should be ashamed of himself with his active sex addiction while cheating on his terminally ill wife.
Glenn Loury is a Black conservative grifter who owns and controls nothing of significant value (eg., factories, transportation systems, or financial institutions) to help assist working class Black people putting food on the table and a descent roof over their heads. The same goes for Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and other notorious Black conservative grifters.
Insofar as mental health diagnosis, the DMS-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders) is used by board cerified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists to evaluate for for specific mental disorders. BTW, did your mother breast feed you? Did uncle bubba inappropriately touch you? Lol!
The phrase "race-baiting" has become a favorite tool for some to undermine those who have the nerve to talk about racism in America. During the Obama years, right-wing pundits grabbed onto this buzzword like a lifebuoy tossed into choppy waters, using it against Black voices who dare to raise these crucial issues.
Media powerhouses like the Drudge Report, Fox News, and the National Review have taken "race-baiting" for a joyride, flaunting it like a badge of honor. Drudge, in particular, has curated a delightful collection of its usage for anyone looking to indulge in the latest hot takes.
Even when these outlets sidestep the term "race-baiting," they’ve mastered the art of insinuation, steering the conversation away from the meat of the matter and into a land of distraction and misdirection.
You’re making a lot of assumptions about people and events, Charles.
Plenty of US citizens were immediately strongly opposed to the Bush regimes idiotic push for the invasion of Iraq.
And yes, you really should read more Thomas Sowell. Why wouldn’t you?
Plenty of American citizens wanted revenge. Didn't Bush approval rating soar after that. Like I said hindsight is 20/20.
Sowell is even more of a joke than Loury. I know that's an unpopular position, but it's true.
That was quite a rant there, Charles.
One thing that stands out is your statement about the US invading Iraq after 9/11.
You state as a rhetorical question: “When 911 happened and Iraq was invaded didn't people make money off that war? Should the US not have responded because some elites were going to make money? Such a silly argument.”
Well, Charles, in answer to that “question”…no, the US shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. Why?
Because Sadaam Hussein and the Iraqi population had no involvement in 9/11.
Also, your assertion that US taxpayer money going to fund arms sales will benefit the American people economically demonstrates your utter ignorance on these matters.
I suggest you take a break from obsessing over Glenn Loury and read some history and economic books, my good man.
Adieu
Ofcourse the US shouldnt have invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussain had nothing to do with it, but tell that to the American people who wanted blood and revenge after 911. Hindsight is always 2020.
Making assertions without backing them up. Explain how military aid works and whose economy it benefits. Oh wait you need to go and consult a history book written by Thomas Sowell.
Lastly, you can stop obsessing over me too. If you don't like my commentary on Glenn Loury, you're free to stop commenting. Why the obsession?
Charles, I will not claim to be a scholar of Russian history, but it seems very likely that the push to keep funding Ukraine is little more than a money laundering operation with the intent of putting more absurd profits into the pockets of arms manufacturers and their investors aka the global elites. Zelenskyy can only account for a mere fraction of the $150 Billion already given to Ukraine by American taxpayers. What happened to all that dough?
Are you and your buddy Jamal X going to be fighting the Russians? Pretty easy to sit back with your dicks in your hands and talk about the need for other individuals to go fight a war.
As to your adolescent comments about reverse TDS, etc…I have zero interest in those type of trolling teenager comments and will not be entangled by such ridiculous ant-intellectual traps.
Stick to actual ideas and free and open dialogue. Is that too much to ask for from other adults?
You're clearly not a scholar of any sort never mind Russian history. That is very apparent with your statement "....but it seems very likely that the push to keep funding Ukraine is little more than a money laundering operation with the intent of putting more absurd profits into the pockets of arms manufacturers and their investors aka the global elites"
Whether the global elites are making money off this war is irrelevant to the fact that Ukraine was invaded by Russia and needs to defend itself. People always make money off war. When 911 happened and Iraq was invaded didn't people make money off that war? Should the US not have responded because some elites were going to make money? Such a silly argument.
It's easy to seat down with your dick in your hands and say Ukraine should not be supported because it's not your country being invaded. Let's see how well you seat with dick in hand if the US ever gets invaded. Luckily the people of Ukraine are not cowards who would let another country invade and destroy them without putting up a fight. You think people don't'die in war? You think Hitler was defeated without soldiers dying. All those soldiers should have simply let Hitler take over the world because hey, that would kill people. American selfishness is so infuriating, you are asking Ukraine to accept a condition (being invaded) that no American would accept if it happens to the US.
Where did you get the analysis to show how much Zelensky can account for in the 150 billion dollar aid so far? Can you provide a credible source? Did you also know that the majority of this aid is not in direct cash transfer but in the form of weapons and military hardware that is feeding the American economy as US weapons manufacturers are making money off said weapons manufacture?
Zelensky is not accountable to you, he is an ally, not a vassal. If he decides to launder funds that should help him prosecute a war, he's only hurting himself. It's fine if the US doesn't want to support Ukraine militarily, it's the US money, they can decide what to do with it, but this mora posturing is nonsensical. Trump threatened to cut off aid, Zelensky called his bluff and he's back providing the same aid. SMH.
In all of this, not once have you condemned Russia for invading, not once have requested pull back its forces or cease fighting, but its the people defending their homeland who you have all the smokes for.
Lastly, stop pretending you're interested in any serious intellectual discussion, you're only interested in ideological discussions that fit your narrative.
BTW, I'm an extensive world traveler, having visited Russia. It's a white racist shithole.
I am currently undertaking preparations to defend myself against aggressive individuals affiliated with white supremacist ideologies. At present, I am in my workshop, where I am crafting custom AR-15 and AK-47 firearms, as well as ammunition.
Well said, John FosterBey.
Reverse TDS
Yeeeesaaa massa...weeez sick!