> Why can’t I use Grok to generate violent pornography? Why can’t we clone human beings? Why can’t we clone Neanderthals, and place Neaderthal clones in human wombs? The problem here isn’t so much technological inability as it is ethics.
> This is scary, and I understand that when a normal person is confronted with these possibilities, they shrink back in horror. It is natural to fear the extinction of your kind and to prefer preservation at all costs. **But at the deepest level, I am not a conservative. I want change at any cost.**
So eventually your entire political reasoning is because of this? You essentially want to turn the entire human society into laboratorium just for the funsies?
This to be honest is even worse than feudal kings who at least are obligated to have some sort of noblesse oblige to the people they rule.
Also. "The planet is a conscious entity" is absolutely delusional, and "Dinosaurs as soldiers" practically can only be said by someone not understanding military science.
But at least this gave me the overview of neoliberal agenda down the line so I can oppose it.
My favorite part was about "woke" white anti-whiteness being a religious experience and non-white anti-whiteness just being "bitter". It has always driven me nuts to hear white libs talk about a POC rallying against "racism" as if they are "brave" and selfless an not a self interested opportunist. At least with white libs it can actually come from a place of kindness. I guess
I agree with the core of left Moldbuggianism / deep leftism: that America is ruled by a network of institutions and not the government or people, and that there does not seem to be a sustainable alternative to this system. That said, I disagree with the following principles that you and nonzionism have advocatged for:
> No country can do without an established religion
This is largely true, with the exception of South Korea and Japan. Asians seem to cope with the modern worldview much better than Africans and Europeans.
>Educated, intelligent, conscientious and generally competent people are drawn to the Left because the Left is where the power is
"High IQ midwits" are drawn to the left because of that -- people who are competent and smart but do not think deeply about politics are center-left Yglesiite types.
>The Right can never actually takeover, and it wouldn’t be a good thing if they could.
In the short term this is definitely not true (e.g. see now). In the long term, this is true.
>In the free market of ideas, the Left always wins in the medium to long term, because, over multiple iterations, it is smart people who win the debates, and most smart people are on the Left.
No. The smart people were on the right pre-2008, and the current IQ difference between right wingers and left wingers is about 2-4 points or so within the general population.
>Leftism evolved out of Protestant Christianity, through adaptation to the needs of modern society. All attempts to use Christianity to defeat Leftism are inherently doomed, like using a bayonet against an M16.
I can't agree with this part of Yarvinism. Jews and catholics were the most left wing religious groups in pre-1960 America, while protestants have traditionally supported the right.
I would agree that the modern western worldview is just Christianity stripped of theism, though I do not think that this is a necessarily leftist worldview.
>When we apply this schema to wokeness, it’s not entirely clear whether we have fully left the first stage and entered the second stage. I would argue no. Wokeness has not had its council of Nicaea; there is no Bible of wokeness; there is no woke mass; there is no woke liturgy. It’s still figuring itself out.
Wokeness is a religion but it is too decentralized and smart to have a "bible" as sacred texts only serve to be desacrilized. Because it cannot institutionalize or centralize itself, it will be stuck in a weird limbo between the eccentric and priestly stages as long as it exists.
1. RELIGION: Japan and South Korea are not real countries. If America left, I think they would either be taken over by China in a matter of decades, or some kind of hyper-nationalism would take place to resist China. I would describe North Korea as a theocratic state with the leader as a demi-god who is worshipped in religious rituals, and this is the natural state of Asian societies, absent American influence.
This is a semantic disagreement over whether religion is metaphysical or whether it is a structure of unqualified axiomatic moral commands with sacred rituals fueled by ecstatic hysteria. I think metaphysics is a recent invention in the history of religion, and pre-philosophical religions, lacking metaphysics, could be considered hyper-superstitious forms of atheism, where God really lived on a mountain and had a physical body, but he would burn your face off if you tried to look at him.
2. POWER: the worst of Antifa (throwing their urine on you at a protest) are unimpressive midwits. But the smartest guys I know in the hard sciences are socially liberal, even if they have free market views. I view left-wing extremism (antifa, communism) as superficial signaling on the part of anxious neurotics, in the same way that church ladies excessively signal their religiousness.
There is a correlation between mental illness and purity spiraling, even on the right. This isn't a defense of moderate centrism (agnosticism) as an ideology, but an observation of where smart people are comfortable. When I say "deep left" I mean "deep state CIA MKULTRA hippie-yuppie fusion (Millennialism)" rather than "cryogenically unfrozen anarchist from 1919."
3. LONG TERM VICTORY: it depends how you view genetic engineering. If you see it as an expression of hierarchy, then the right-wing wins. If you see it as a defeat of Christianity and wholesome chungus shire life, then the left-wing wins. I need to find a poll that asks people "is genetic engineering wrong" and breaks it down by political leaning to demonstrate my contention.
4. IQ GAP: Hanania's concept of EHC is helpful here. There are smart religious people, but Dawkins/Hitchens/Russell outmaneuvered religious people, and this trend goes back to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.
I am accepting the Christian conservative framing of "Christian Nationalism is right-wing." The Nietzschean right disagrees with this framing, but for myself personally I think agreeing and amplifying the Christian Nationalist frame is more expedient. But it's a valid critique.
Jewish leftists in Russia in 1917 were probably smarter than the average Russian. America universities have been to the left of the American public since the 1930s, and possibly earlier (despite prohibitions on dating, that was more a class thing than a religious thing). This might be because urbanism has been generally leftist for 10,000 years, and university students tended to be urban. Freud and Boaz were dominant in psychology and anthropology and unfettered by Christian morality.
5. CALVINISM: I agree that Moldbug downplays the influence of Jewish and Catholic intellectuals on leftism. I will release an article on this called "who killed the WASP?" But it was ultimately Protestants like Wilson and FDR who opened the doors and formed a coalition with Jews and Catholics to beat the Republicans. If the isolationist Hooverites got their way, Jews and Catholics would have remained subject to quotas and America would have stayed out of WWII. Civil Rights banned discrimination against Catholics and Jews, which is forgotten.
Jews and Catholics didn't win a physical war against Protestants, but allied with a progressive faction within Protestants. Look at the supreme court during Brown v Board. It was Protestants. Not the average Protestant, who was right-wing, but a Freemasonic-aligned faction. Using the word Freemason is low-status because it is associated with Birchers and Alex Jones, but it is an accurate term for a particular faction of Protestants who wanted progressive policies.
6. FORMALIZATION: you might be right that wokeness cannot be formalized because of the problem of desacralization. Homer and Hesiod, in this respect, were criminals against the original Greek religion, which was more present in the Olympic Games than in the scrolls of the poetic cycle. I don't think there is really a solution to this problem besides global depopulation and genetic engineering, or the collapse of the global economy. It seems we are inevitably headed toward one of those outcomes.
The problem of wokeness is that it is deeply unattractive to most people in the “intelligent enough they’re not midwits and can’t actually do stuff other than write BS PhDs” category of higher-IQ people. If you lose or disempower enough of those (let’s call them builders), you end up like Europe.
You could (to a point) make Marxism attractive to builders. Even Nazism might have worked (imagine if those guys won the day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews?wprov=sfti1). Wokeness would need to shed too much of its safetyist and anti-progress BS to become an actually interesting movement that allows normies to let builders build, not a degrowth cope mechanism like Christianity (the fact that woke people promote degrowth is low-key genius for their cause; never underestimate cargo-cult tactics).
Thinking creatively about an accelerationist religion while not avoiding the real world (like Land or Yarvin) is cool, I just think you’ve chosen the wrong champion. Let’s think of a better one. :)
I never called myself "deep woke," and I do advocate for a reform of wokeness into something better than it currently is. I oppose agnosticism or "anti-wokeness" which is a negative ideology. The burden of proof is on anti-wokists to offer a superior alternative. It is not enough to criticize.
These views on abortion, IVF, euthanasia, etc are somewhat Christian, and really Evangelical/Catholic, right? I guess that's the only thing that is relevant, since the US is the only relevant country in the deep leftist worldview.
Judaism is not happy about euthanasia, and it's moderately pro-life but more moderate on the issue than Christianity is. However on the most important issue Judaism is totally cool with IVF, genetic engineering, genetic enhancement to increase IQ, etc with Orthodox Israeli bioethicists like Shimon Glick and Avraham Steinberg defending the view that man are "co-creators with G-d".
Orthodox Christianity and Islam are also more moderate than Evangelicals and Catholics on these sorts of issues. Interestingly, Shia Islam is generally more bioethically permissive than Sunni Islam.
Vivek Ramaswamy and Kash Patel are pushing for Judeo-Christian-Hindu syncretism. Mike Johnson opposes IVF. Run a poll and ask Republicans and Democrats who is more comfortable with MRNA.
I don't doubt that the Republicans are on average more hostile toward repro-tech than the Democrats. But I don't see how this is really a left-right thing in any sort of "deep" sense. It seems to be driven by Christianity.
In any case, the Republicans will not ban IVF and genetic enhancement, I am sure Trump supports it and the people who are doing embryo selection already are Republicans, in particular they are Tech Right.
The mRNA thing is so contingent on what happened. If Trump had won the 2020 election, the Republicans would be more pro-vax. Kamala said she wouldn't get the Trump vaccine at the time.
I think it's possible for something like embryo selection for IQ to get politicized where the right is more supportive. Especially with the rise of the tech right and the decreased role of Christianity in our politics. I'm not claiming that this will happen with absolute certainty. But I am claiming it is something that could happen.
What I expect to actually happen is that repro-tech will be embraced across the political spectrum, to the chagrin of at most 10% of the population who is hardcore woke and to the at most 10% who is hardcore anti-IVF.
Birthright citizenship really does seem like a huge problem for countries like the US and Canada if they want to have extraordinarily massive guest-worker programs on the UAE's scale, no?
Seems like a constitutional amendment phasing out birthright citizenship (limiting it to people born before 2030, or 2040, or 2050) could be a good move. But good luck actually getting the Left to ever agree to that!
The risk in this model is the possible over-inflation of the cultural or psychological significance of "wokeness". It has represented a significant influence, but it's not immune to the ephemeral qualities of our era, significantly reduced as it is as many elites who once endorsed it now are seemingly casting it aside. I believe wokeness is more appropriately viewed as a kind of Great Awakening (also masonic events) - influentially maybe regionally and for a short time, but outside of certain historiographies, not wholly or lastingly.
There's been certain incentives pulling the curtain back on it within the last few years, which largely have to do with viability and concerns for resiliency. Maybe this turn could be characterized as 'conservative', but in the hyper-modern environment in which we live, I think there are larger moral and historical frameworks with greater significance to cultural development than "woke". A part of me is inclined to believe that in the absence of elite constructivism it will be forgotten within less than a generation, especially given the technical shortening of collective memory.
Mormonism, Baptism, Prohibition, Feminism, and other movements taken collectively are significant and should not be dismissed as ephemeral. Sure, some movements are more ephemeral, but even the Quakers left an indelible mark on American education (William Penn). If we dispense with the term "woke" and just say "leftism" then things can be see in their proper context, which is why I say "deep left" not "deep woke." But yeah, BLM can be easily wrapped up like a carpet. I'm not saying that 100% of the phenomena associated with wokeness are here to stay, but the wave of energy in toto has significance for the future.
This is optimism on my part, because the alternative is "stuck culture," but also stuck technology, because conservatism is ethically opposed to both AI (Tucker Carlson saving the union jobs) and genetic freedom (Mike Johnson railing against IVF as demonic). In some ways, the TERFs and first-wave feminists are just a blue-haired variant of conservatives (freaking out about AI porn, sex workers). It's safetyism that I am opposed to. Wokism falls far from the ideal (microaggressions, sexual harassment) but the excessive HR language of wokeness is an overcompensation. In real terms, wokism allows for far more McGenics and LGBTQ-maxing than conservatism, which creates extreme selective pressures.
But dont you feel that Degrowth is intrinsicaly linked with Wokism and Leftism at large? AI Safetyism too seems slightly leftwing tilted. Perhaps this only applies to Europe, but still its not hard to picture hysterical screams followed by legislation to prevent "eugenics".
If I could have clarification, is it that you view wokeness as the vehicle itself (not the passenger or a bystander) that generates the new technology that humanity desperately needs? Like, you could become so woke that you support genetic engineering to make black people a sort of master race
Or is it that wokeness is a chaos agent that acts as a selection pressure- forcing humanity to evolve to defeat or assimilate it? Basically a sort of technological chaos theory that shakes up the order (our american hegemony) that would otherwise be antagonized by another great power, but can’t, because the world is basically America and its client states al la Moldbug
I would say that wokeness is the vehicle, but if I am wrong, then "both" is also an acceptable answer. But the idea that it is a net negative is really unlikely in my experience, because the only alternative is conservatism/Eurasianism/Duginism/China.
If Constantine did not adopt Christianity, Rome would have collapsed 100 years earlier. Constantine was in Civil War with Maxentius at the time, so Rome was already collapsing under pagan emperors. Christianity kicked the can down the road. Pagans confuse the timeframe in a black-and-white good-or-evil assessment, when the reality is more complicated.
Liberal ethnogenesis has progressed further in North America than Latin America. It is about liberal whites distinguishing themselves from conservative whites -- not about whites distinguishing themselves from non-whites.
If my entire plan was racial confusion, absent anything else, then I agree that this probably wouldn't amount to much. The plan is racial confusion in conjunction with global imperialism. This is the formula that created Christianity, but also Judaism and Hinduism.
Creating new religions is good and necessary in the long term, but agree this will not solve every problem and a global population crunch and resource wars will be very nasty. I expect the 22nd century to be as violent as 3rd century Rome. I don't think Caesar was a white nationalist or a xenophobe -- he brought the Gauls into the Senate. I think that's the proper approach to transition from Rome to Catholicism. I understand America won't exist forever, and cannot exist forever, and so in this next century I think America should go buck-wild creating a new global religion, rather than contracting itself into a smaller and more manageable decline.
Christianity didn't solve Rome's problems, but it didn't create them either. Christianity was the basis for the European political order of the 6th century onward. It proved itself as a workable system. I disagree with your assertion that neuroticism is identical cowardice, I don't think you have an accurate understanding of neuroticism. Northern Ivy League students performed better in WWII than southern ruralites. They were undoubtably more neurotic. Neuroticism has a clinical definition, which means "heightened negative affect." Neurotic people in a religious context tend to be more religious, while neurotic people in an ideological context tend to be more ideological. It is a group-selective trait.
Finally reading this. I love that you’ve created your own ideology and wish we could have talked more about deregulating AI and biotech.
- “limit immigration to 10,000 per country”
&
- “invade Mexico”
i see what you did here 😝
You got to keep your options open.
Well, at least now, many of my questions have been conclusively answered!
sorry for the wait
> Why can’t I use Grok to generate violent pornography? Why can’t we clone human beings? Why can’t we clone Neanderthals, and place Neaderthal clones in human wombs? The problem here isn’t so much technological inability as it is ethics.
> This is scary, and I understand that when a normal person is confronted with these possibilities, they shrink back in horror. It is natural to fear the extinction of your kind and to prefer preservation at all costs. **But at the deepest level, I am not a conservative. I want change at any cost.**
So eventually your entire political reasoning is because of this? You essentially want to turn the entire human society into laboratorium just for the funsies?
This to be honest is even worse than feudal kings who at least are obligated to have some sort of noblesse oblige to the people they rule.
Also. "The planet is a conscious entity" is absolutely delusional, and "Dinosaurs as soldiers" practically can only be said by someone not understanding military science.
But at least this gave me the overview of neoliberal agenda down the line so I can oppose it.
I am glad to have alienated you, be on your way now little Hobbit
The opposite of hobbits don't believe environmentalism requires human depopulation.
And my mindset is simple - Those with no noblesse oblige has no right to rule.
What a nutter! You need to rename this 'Deep BS'.
coming from a guy that follows zizek and dugin, LOL. Go back to China!
oy mate bruv do you want some? I'll give it to you.
You are the best right wing author on Substack ;)
My favorite part was about "woke" white anti-whiteness being a religious experience and non-white anti-whiteness just being "bitter". It has always driven me nuts to hear white libs talk about a POC rallying against "racism" as if they are "brave" and selfless an not a self interested opportunist. At least with white libs it can actually come from a place of kindness. I guess
I agree with the core of left Moldbuggianism / deep leftism: that America is ruled by a network of institutions and not the government or people, and that there does not seem to be a sustainable alternative to this system. That said, I disagree with the following principles that you and nonzionism have advocatged for:
> No country can do without an established religion
This is largely true, with the exception of South Korea and Japan. Asians seem to cope with the modern worldview much better than Africans and Europeans.
>Educated, intelligent, conscientious and generally competent people are drawn to the Left because the Left is where the power is
"High IQ midwits" are drawn to the left because of that -- people who are competent and smart but do not think deeply about politics are center-left Yglesiite types.
>The Right can never actually takeover, and it wouldn’t be a good thing if they could.
In the short term this is definitely not true (e.g. see now). In the long term, this is true.
>In the free market of ideas, the Left always wins in the medium to long term, because, over multiple iterations, it is smart people who win the debates, and most smart people are on the Left.
No. The smart people were on the right pre-2008, and the current IQ difference between right wingers and left wingers is about 2-4 points or so within the general population.
>Leftism evolved out of Protestant Christianity, through adaptation to the needs of modern society. All attempts to use Christianity to defeat Leftism are inherently doomed, like using a bayonet against an M16.
I can't agree with this part of Yarvinism. Jews and catholics were the most left wing religious groups in pre-1960 America, while protestants have traditionally supported the right.
I would agree that the modern western worldview is just Christianity stripped of theism, though I do not think that this is a necessarily leftist worldview.
>When we apply this schema to wokeness, it’s not entirely clear whether we have fully left the first stage and entered the second stage. I would argue no. Wokeness has not had its council of Nicaea; there is no Bible of wokeness; there is no woke mass; there is no woke liturgy. It’s still figuring itself out.
Wokeness is a religion but it is too decentralized and smart to have a "bible" as sacred texts only serve to be desacrilized. Because it cannot institutionalize or centralize itself, it will be stuck in a weird limbo between the eccentric and priestly stages as long as it exists.
It's been a while since I've gone back on your show. Perhaps this could be an excuse to talk again.
1. RELIGION: Japan and South Korea are not real countries. If America left, I think they would either be taken over by China in a matter of decades, or some kind of hyper-nationalism would take place to resist China. I would describe North Korea as a theocratic state with the leader as a demi-god who is worshipped in religious rituals, and this is the natural state of Asian societies, absent American influence.
This is a semantic disagreement over whether religion is metaphysical or whether it is a structure of unqualified axiomatic moral commands with sacred rituals fueled by ecstatic hysteria. I think metaphysics is a recent invention in the history of religion, and pre-philosophical religions, lacking metaphysics, could be considered hyper-superstitious forms of atheism, where God really lived on a mountain and had a physical body, but he would burn your face off if you tried to look at him.
2. POWER: the worst of Antifa (throwing their urine on you at a protest) are unimpressive midwits. But the smartest guys I know in the hard sciences are socially liberal, even if they have free market views. I view left-wing extremism (antifa, communism) as superficial signaling on the part of anxious neurotics, in the same way that church ladies excessively signal their religiousness.
There is a correlation between mental illness and purity spiraling, even on the right. This isn't a defense of moderate centrism (agnosticism) as an ideology, but an observation of where smart people are comfortable. When I say "deep left" I mean "deep state CIA MKULTRA hippie-yuppie fusion (Millennialism)" rather than "cryogenically unfrozen anarchist from 1919."
3. LONG TERM VICTORY: it depends how you view genetic engineering. If you see it as an expression of hierarchy, then the right-wing wins. If you see it as a defeat of Christianity and wholesome chungus shire life, then the left-wing wins. I need to find a poll that asks people "is genetic engineering wrong" and breaks it down by political leaning to demonstrate my contention.
4. IQ GAP: Hanania's concept of EHC is helpful here. There are smart religious people, but Dawkins/Hitchens/Russell outmaneuvered religious people, and this trend goes back to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.
I am accepting the Christian conservative framing of "Christian Nationalism is right-wing." The Nietzschean right disagrees with this framing, but for myself personally I think agreeing and amplifying the Christian Nationalist frame is more expedient. But it's a valid critique.
Jewish leftists in Russia in 1917 were probably smarter than the average Russian. America universities have been to the left of the American public since the 1930s, and possibly earlier (despite prohibitions on dating, that was more a class thing than a religious thing). This might be because urbanism has been generally leftist for 10,000 years, and university students tended to be urban. Freud and Boaz were dominant in psychology and anthropology and unfettered by Christian morality.
5. CALVINISM: I agree that Moldbug downplays the influence of Jewish and Catholic intellectuals on leftism. I will release an article on this called "who killed the WASP?" But it was ultimately Protestants like Wilson and FDR who opened the doors and formed a coalition with Jews and Catholics to beat the Republicans. If the isolationist Hooverites got their way, Jews and Catholics would have remained subject to quotas and America would have stayed out of WWII. Civil Rights banned discrimination against Catholics and Jews, which is forgotten.
Jews and Catholics didn't win a physical war against Protestants, but allied with a progressive faction within Protestants. Look at the supreme court during Brown v Board. It was Protestants. Not the average Protestant, who was right-wing, but a Freemasonic-aligned faction. Using the word Freemason is low-status because it is associated with Birchers and Alex Jones, but it is an accurate term for a particular faction of Protestants who wanted progressive policies.
6. FORMALIZATION: you might be right that wokeness cannot be formalized because of the problem of desacralization. Homer and Hesiod, in this respect, were criminals against the original Greek religion, which was more present in the Olympic Games than in the scrolls of the poetic cycle. I don't think there is really a solution to this problem besides global depopulation and genetic engineering, or the collapse of the global economy. It seems we are inevitably headed toward one of those outcomes.
The problem of wokeness is that it is deeply unattractive to most people in the “intelligent enough they’re not midwits and can’t actually do stuff other than write BS PhDs” category of higher-IQ people. If you lose or disempower enough of those (let’s call them builders), you end up like Europe.
You could (to a point) make Marxism attractive to builders. Even Nazism might have worked (imagine if those guys won the day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews?wprov=sfti1). Wokeness would need to shed too much of its safetyist and anti-progress BS to become an actually interesting movement that allows normies to let builders build, not a degrowth cope mechanism like Christianity (the fact that woke people promote degrowth is low-key genius for their cause; never underestimate cargo-cult tactics).
Thinking creatively about an accelerationist religion while not avoiding the real world (like Land or Yarvin) is cool, I just think you’ve chosen the wrong champion. Let’s think of a better one. :)
I never called myself "deep woke," and I do advocate for a reform of wokeness into something better than it currently is. I oppose agnosticism or "anti-wokeness" which is a negative ideology. The burden of proof is on anti-wokists to offer a superior alternative. It is not enough to criticize.
These views on abortion, IVF, euthanasia, etc are somewhat Christian, and really Evangelical/Catholic, right? I guess that's the only thing that is relevant, since the US is the only relevant country in the deep leftist worldview.
Judaism is not happy about euthanasia, and it's moderately pro-life but more moderate on the issue than Christianity is. However on the most important issue Judaism is totally cool with IVF, genetic engineering, genetic enhancement to increase IQ, etc with Orthodox Israeli bioethicists like Shimon Glick and Avraham Steinberg defending the view that man are "co-creators with G-d".
Orthodox Christianity and Islam are also more moderate than Evangelicals and Catholics on these sorts of issues. Interestingly, Shia Islam is generally more bioethically permissive than Sunni Islam.
I don't think Hinduism has much of an objection.
Vivek Ramaswamy and Kash Patel are pushing for Judeo-Christian-Hindu syncretism. Mike Johnson opposes IVF. Run a poll and ask Republicans and Democrats who is more comfortable with MRNA.
I don't doubt that the Republicans are on average more hostile toward repro-tech than the Democrats. But I don't see how this is really a left-right thing in any sort of "deep" sense. It seems to be driven by Christianity.
In any case, the Republicans will not ban IVF and genetic enhancement, I am sure Trump supports it and the people who are doing embryo selection already are Republicans, in particular they are Tech Right.
The mRNA thing is so contingent on what happened. If Trump had won the 2020 election, the Republicans would be more pro-vax. Kamala said she wouldn't get the Trump vaccine at the time.
I think it's possible for something like embryo selection for IQ to get politicized where the right is more supportive. Especially with the rise of the tech right and the decreased role of Christianity in our politics. I'm not claiming that this will happen with absolute certainty. But I am claiming it is something that could happen.
What I expect to actually happen is that repro-tech will be embraced across the political spectrum, to the chagrin of at most 10% of the population who is hardcore woke and to the at most 10% who is hardcore anti-IVF.
Birthright citizenship really does seem like a huge problem for countries like the US and Canada if they want to have extraordinarily massive guest-worker programs on the UAE's scale, no?
Seems like a constitutional amendment phasing out birthright citizenship (limiting it to people born before 2030, or 2040, or 2050) could be a good move. But good luck actually getting the Left to ever agree to that!
Removing BC is unlikely, so I support restrictions.
You mean support immigration restrictions?
The risk in this model is the possible over-inflation of the cultural or psychological significance of "wokeness". It has represented a significant influence, but it's not immune to the ephemeral qualities of our era, significantly reduced as it is as many elites who once endorsed it now are seemingly casting it aside. I believe wokeness is more appropriately viewed as a kind of Great Awakening (also masonic events) - influentially maybe regionally and for a short time, but outside of certain historiographies, not wholly or lastingly.
There's been certain incentives pulling the curtain back on it within the last few years, which largely have to do with viability and concerns for resiliency. Maybe this turn could be characterized as 'conservative', but in the hyper-modern environment in which we live, I think there are larger moral and historical frameworks with greater significance to cultural development than "woke". A part of me is inclined to believe that in the absence of elite constructivism it will be forgotten within less than a generation, especially given the technical shortening of collective memory.
Mormonism, Baptism, Prohibition, Feminism, and other movements taken collectively are significant and should not be dismissed as ephemeral. Sure, some movements are more ephemeral, but even the Quakers left an indelible mark on American education (William Penn). If we dispense with the term "woke" and just say "leftism" then things can be see in their proper context, which is why I say "deep left" not "deep woke." But yeah, BLM can be easily wrapped up like a carpet. I'm not saying that 100% of the phenomena associated with wokeness are here to stay, but the wave of energy in toto has significance for the future.
This is optimism on my part, because the alternative is "stuck culture," but also stuck technology, because conservatism is ethically opposed to both AI (Tucker Carlson saving the union jobs) and genetic freedom (Mike Johnson railing against IVF as demonic). In some ways, the TERFs and first-wave feminists are just a blue-haired variant of conservatives (freaking out about AI porn, sex workers). It's safetyism that I am opposed to. Wokism falls far from the ideal (microaggressions, sexual harassment) but the excessive HR language of wokeness is an overcompensation. In real terms, wokism allows for far more McGenics and LGBTQ-maxing than conservatism, which creates extreme selective pressures.
But dont you feel that Degrowth is intrinsicaly linked with Wokism and Leftism at large? AI Safetyism too seems slightly leftwing tilted. Perhaps this only applies to Europe, but still its not hard to picture hysterical screams followed by legislation to prevent "eugenics".
Biotech safetyism is more important.
If I could have clarification, is it that you view wokeness as the vehicle itself (not the passenger or a bystander) that generates the new technology that humanity desperately needs? Like, you could become so woke that you support genetic engineering to make black people a sort of master race
Or is it that wokeness is a chaos agent that acts as a selection pressure- forcing humanity to evolve to defeat or assimilate it? Basically a sort of technological chaos theory that shakes up the order (our american hegemony) that would otherwise be antagonized by another great power, but can’t, because the world is basically America and its client states al la Moldbug
Or is it both?
I would say that wokeness is the vehicle, but if I am wrong, then "both" is also an acceptable answer. But the idea that it is a net negative is really unlikely in my experience, because the only alternative is conservatism/Eurasianism/Duginism/China.
If Constantine did not adopt Christianity, Rome would have collapsed 100 years earlier. Constantine was in Civil War with Maxentius at the time, so Rome was already collapsing under pagan emperors. Christianity kicked the can down the road. Pagans confuse the timeframe in a black-and-white good-or-evil assessment, when the reality is more complicated.
Liberal ethnogenesis has progressed further in North America than Latin America. It is about liberal whites distinguishing themselves from conservative whites -- not about whites distinguishing themselves from non-whites.
If my entire plan was racial confusion, absent anything else, then I agree that this probably wouldn't amount to much. The plan is racial confusion in conjunction with global imperialism. This is the formula that created Christianity, but also Judaism and Hinduism.
Creating new religions is good and necessary in the long term, but agree this will not solve every problem and a global population crunch and resource wars will be very nasty. I expect the 22nd century to be as violent as 3rd century Rome. I don't think Caesar was a white nationalist or a xenophobe -- he brought the Gauls into the Senate. I think that's the proper approach to transition from Rome to Catholicism. I understand America won't exist forever, and cannot exist forever, and so in this next century I think America should go buck-wild creating a new global religion, rather than contracting itself into a smaller and more manageable decline.
Christianity didn't solve Rome's problems, but it didn't create them either. Christianity was the basis for the European political order of the 6th century onward. It proved itself as a workable system. I disagree with your assertion that neuroticism is identical cowardice, I don't think you have an accurate understanding of neuroticism. Northern Ivy League students performed better in WWII than southern ruralites. They were undoubtably more neurotic. Neuroticism has a clinical definition, which means "heightened negative affect." Neurotic people in a religious context tend to be more religious, while neurotic people in an ideological context tend to be more ideological. It is a group-selective trait.