Let’s pull a James Stockdale and ask ourselves, “Why are we here?”
Why are we consuming conservative media?
Because it wasn’t always this way. Websites like PJ Media are a new thing! If you’re old enough to remember AOL dial-up, you’re old enough to appreciate the novelty.
But maybe, if we were born a few centuries earlier, we’d be looking at conservative media differently. Maybe, instead of seeing it as a new thing, we’d see it as a throwback — a childhood memory redux, because there are so many parallels between today’s media marketplace and the nakedly partisan media outlets that were consumed during the days of our Founding Fathers.
It’s not exactly the same; historically, nothing ever is. But when you stop and think about it, some of the parallels are striking, aren’t they?
There are five main reasons to consume conservative media:
- For personal, value-driven reasons, you don’t want to participate in the mainstream media ecosystem any longer. (Or you’re trying to minimize your participation, at least.) You’re “dollar voting” by going elsewhere.
- You support the objectives of conservative media — i.e., promoting conservative ideals and/or thwarting the advance of socialism/liberalism — and feel honor-bound to join a side.
- You find the content important and/or entertaining. Plenty of bang for the ol’ buck.
- Educational purposes: You gain new insights/perspectives about the things that matter the most. (Often because conservative media reports what the liberal media omits.)
- You are “arming” yourself with the necessary knowledge and/or counterarguments to prevail against the left-wing propaganda machine.
I suspect reason #5 punches far above its weight class. There’s so much left-wing propaganda! Misinformation is literally everywhere. One of the benefits of being “armed” isn’t just to protect yourself, but to also protect your friends and neighbors — and correct the record when necessary.
Because politics is a participation sport.
That’s one of the best things about conservative media: Every now and then, you’ll read an opinion that’s worded so perfectly, you’re now “armed” with an unbeatable rebuttal. (Take that, sister-in-law!)
Our Founding Fathers would agree. Probably.
PRedictions: The ripple effects of the Iranian unrest will unmask the stupidity of the GOP’s isolationist movement. There’s a small-but-vocal branch in the Republican Party that wants America First to mean America Alone. (Cough: MTG, Tucker Carlson, Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, Steve Bannon.)
And they justify their position by draping themselves in the cloak of moral superiority: They’re the “peacemakers,” you know, fighting tooth-and-nail against the evil “warmongers.”
(Militant pacifists are the best, aren’t they?)
Unfortunately, war is a lot like marriage: It only takes one party to blow it up.
Peace requires unanimity: All sides must agree to stop fighting. But it only takes one side to disagree, and then everyone else is at war.
Same goes for marriage. YOU might believe in the sanctity of marriage, and really, truly meant what you said when you swore that you’d love and cherish your spouse ‘til “death do you part.”
But guess what: If your spouse leaves you for someone else, you’re not gonna be married anymore!
That’s the folly of radical isolationism: It’s never fully your choice.
To think otherwise is delusional.
PRojections: That’s why the smartest way to avoid bloody, costly wars is to leverage your resources in such a way that war is unnecessary.
It’s the essence of the philosophy “peace through strength,” but it’s more than that. It also means taking opportunistic advantage of geopolitical situations, as to minimize the risks that war will break out.
Take, for instance, Iran.
I don’t want Americans fighting in Iran. Nor do I want Iran threatening the U.S. with terrorism, nukes, or violence. In an ideal world, I wouldn’t think about Iran at all!
But that would require a change in its government.
Thus, the best outcome for the U.S. would be internal regime change in Iran, so it’s no longer our enemy.
And the most likely way that’ll happen WITHOUT American boots on the ground is via an Iranian rebellion — with the Persian people overthrowing the mullahs.
So, it’s if you’re really an anti-war isolationist, you’d be doing everything possible to enhance the probability that the Persian protesters will succeed. That includes using propaganda — as President Trump is doing, when he’s encouraging the protesters to continue and threatening the mullahs with violence if they use lethal force against their own people.
But that’s not what anti-war isolationists, including Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, are doing. They’ve been trying to subdue the anti-Iranian tide, with Carlson going as far as carrying the mullahs' water.
As Iran International reported:
Tucker Carlson's interview with Iran’s president Masoud Pezeshkian was all Tehran could wish for, experts told Iran International: a global stage, no pushback, and a direct line to Donald Trump’s base.
“This was a major victory for Iranian information warfare operations,” said Marcus Kolga, a leading expert on foreign disinformation. “Whether intentionally or not, Carlson is acting as a significant conduit and amplifier for Iranian government information operations.”
The interview was recorded remotely, unlike the one Carlson did with Russia's president Vladimir Putin in February 2024.
"(Carlson) offers Pezeshkian and the Iranian regime a platform—without context or pushback—allowing Tehran to shape the record to Carlson’s viewers and listeners unopposed,” Kolga added.
Every patriotic American ought to be cheering on the brave Iranian protesters — hundreds of whom have already died. If they succeed, our world will be safer.
And war less likely.
PRaise: Speaking of which, God bless the Iranian protesters. Toppling the mullahs would probably be the biggest, most far-reaching geopolitical change since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Depending on what replaces it, Iran could be the exact opposite of what it once was: a reliable ally to China and Russia — and a steadfast enemy of the “Great Satan,” the United States.
Imagine that: The year is 2027. Thousands of Jews are saying they feel safer in downtown Tehran than they do in London or New York City!
Don’t laugh. It really could happen.
PRedators: There’s an organized political network that inspired Renee Nicole Good to interfere in federal law enforcement. This network required funding.
And the people funding it, I suspect, aren’t the activists on the ground who are hounding ICE agents, obstructing justice, and creating a more dangerous environment. They’re cutting checks, cheerleading chaos, and encouraging unqualified civilians to endanger lives — including their own.
It’s cowardly. If they want to use SUVs to illegally block ICE agents, they should do so themselves.
Instead, they’re sending unqualified civilians to die.
We’ll probably learn that many of these protesters, including, sadly, Renee Nicole Good, were battling emotional issues. (There are reports that she lost custody of her first two children, which is atypical for a mother.) They were vulnerable, scared, and lost.
And perfect cannon fodder for a well-funded political network.
Memo to Pam Bondi: If you want to redeem yourself after a horrid 2025, this would be an excellent place to begin.
