Hi Rod, I believe you said on one of your last TAC blogs that you’d still be involved with TAC and write for them from time to time. Is that no longer the case?
I also would like to take this opportunity to clarify recent scurrilous reporting. My family’s historic ties to the Hungarian coffee house industry are in no way influencing my financial support of this substack. We cut all ties to the Hungarian dessert business decades ago, approximately at the same time we fled the country for our lives, and have no residual fiduciary relationship with any sugary magyar delicacies. Mr Dreher’s praise of local Budapest confectionery remains, to my knowledge, entirely spontaneous and sincere, and any imputations to the contrary in the corrupt corporate media are slanderous lies, likely linked to a malicious whisper campaign that I suspect is being masterminded by my ancestral enemy, the American Academy of Pediatrics. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the situation.
I've read pretty much everything Rod Dreher published at The American Conservative over many years and this is the first I've heard of him in relation to Tarkovsky. I hadn't followed all his posts at his substack, only the few free ones he sent. Nothing in TAC I can confirm.
Given the political positions of the scurrilous magazine, a smear is in character. Trying to kick someone when they judge that person vulnerable in furtherance of the politics of personal destruction is par for their course, but subpar to common human decency. Moreover, it's not surprising that it goes beyond living by lies, to a moral violation of the Decalogue, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
What can you say, written by Caleb Ecarma, who a shallow dive into his online persona and work is some sort of Woke demi-denizen of semi-celebrity gossip outlets.
Without the readers knowing those involved or what they actually said, the author of this self described "scoop" can't be trusted except as a Woke s--t disturber intent on getting a kick out of fomenting conflict among those he targets as enemies. Vanity, for sure, but it's hardly fair, defamation driven by animus and resentment.
Evidently "they" got "their" snit in a wringer because "they" don't like Christian schools who won't tolerate homosexual activism within the student body.
Libel suits. I suppose every writer dealing with anything controversial has been threatened with a defamation suit from time to time. I was threatened with a libel suit BY MY GRADE SIX TEACHER for something I had written a class newspaper that I briefly once wrote. By hand, every copy by hand. Something about his inability to spell, of his confusing words like "site" and "sight". I may have called him "dumb" as well.I think he was serious too. He was certainly angry. I wasn't worried, though, because every word I wrote was true, and truth is an absolute defence to defamation.
Rod Dreher has a following, certainly, because of the quality of his insights over the years. I don't consider it to be a cult following, however, as I've offered my own critical opinions in comments, that I hope add to understanding, rather than simply idolizing. I think other commenters certainly aren't shy about disagreeing with the author in a reasonable manner. I cannot myself afford to pay to read and comment, (thanks Emil) and it was a stretch to get a TAC subscription, however the requirement to financially contribute does not make of Rod Dreher a cult leader. On the other hand, Ecarma shares in the cult of Woke, but while he barks, Rod's caravan of reason moves on.
I think what set this up was that it was a mystery of why Rod Dreher left The American Conservative. Understandably, no one involved wanted to admit it was driven by financial realities, nor would anyone employed be inclined to accept an income reduction. So a Woke gossip columnist filled this void with false and distorted calumny. I have read that a similar animus filled the vacuum with deceit regarding the unknown reasons for divorce between a committed Christian writer and his estranged wife. In the absence of reasons, it's an opportunity to spread lies and accuse of hypocrisy.
Hi Rod, I believe you said on one of your last TAC blogs that you’d still be involved with TAC and write for them from time to time. Is that no longer the case?
Is it definitely someone in TAC world who went to Vanity Fair?
I also would like to take this opportunity to clarify recent scurrilous reporting. My family’s historic ties to the Hungarian coffee house industry are in no way influencing my financial support of this substack. We cut all ties to the Hungarian dessert business decades ago, approximately at the same time we fled the country for our lives, and have no residual fiduciary relationship with any sugary magyar delicacies. Mr Dreher’s praise of local Budapest confectionery remains, to my knowledge, entirely spontaneous and sincere, and any imputations to the contrary in the corrupt corporate media are slanderous lies, likely linked to a malicious whisper campaign that I suspect is being masterminded by my ancestral enemy, the American Academy of Pediatrics. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the situation.
Gaty.substack.com
Yes would like the General Eclectic podcast to continue
Ah, sounds like the mysterious anonymous sources of the Censorship Industrial Complex
I've read pretty much everything Rod Dreher published at The American Conservative over many years and this is the first I've heard of him in relation to Tarkovsky. I hadn't followed all his posts at his substack, only the few free ones he sent. Nothing in TAC I can confirm.
Given the political positions of the scurrilous magazine, a smear is in character. Trying to kick someone when they judge that person vulnerable in furtherance of the politics of personal destruction is par for their course, but subpar to common human decency. Moreover, it's not surprising that it goes beyond living by lies, to a moral violation of the Decalogue, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
What can you say, written by Caleb Ecarma, who a shallow dive into his online persona and work is some sort of Woke demi-denizen of semi-celebrity gossip outlets.
Without the readers knowing those involved or what they actually said, the author of this self described "scoop" can't be trusted except as a Woke s--t disturber intent on getting a kick out of fomenting conflict among those he targets as enemies. Vanity, for sure, but it's hardly fair, defamation driven by animus and resentment.
Evidently "they" got "their" snit in a wringer because "they" don't like Christian schools who won't tolerate homosexual activism within the student body.
Vanity Fair is living up to their name.
Libel suits. I suppose every writer dealing with anything controversial has been threatened with a defamation suit from time to time. I was threatened with a libel suit BY MY GRADE SIX TEACHER for something I had written a class newspaper that I briefly once wrote. By hand, every copy by hand. Something about his inability to spell, of his confusing words like "site" and "sight". I may have called him "dumb" as well.I think he was serious too. He was certainly angry. I wasn't worried, though, because every word I wrote was true, and truth is an absolute defence to defamation.
You're telling us that the standards of reporting at VANITY FAIR suck? Quick, sal volatile. Eff 'em, friend.
Rod Dreher has a following, certainly, because of the quality of his insights over the years. I don't consider it to be a cult following, however, as I've offered my own critical opinions in comments, that I hope add to understanding, rather than simply idolizing. I think other commenters certainly aren't shy about disagreeing with the author in a reasonable manner. I cannot myself afford to pay to read and comment, (thanks Emil) and it was a stretch to get a TAC subscription, however the requirement to financially contribute does not make of Rod Dreher a cult leader. On the other hand, Ecarma shares in the cult of Woke, but while he barks, Rod's caravan of reason moves on.
I think what set this up was that it was a mystery of why Rod Dreher left The American Conservative. Understandably, no one involved wanted to admit it was driven by financial realities, nor would anyone employed be inclined to accept an income reduction. So a Woke gossip columnist filled this void with false and distorted calumny. I have read that a similar animus filled the vacuum with deceit regarding the unknown reasons for divorce between a committed Christian writer and his estranged wife. In the absence of reasons, it's an opportunity to spread lies and accuse of hypocrisy.
It’s disgusting that Vanity Fair would publish such trash based on anonymous sources. Shame!