This pretty much lays out why I am aggressively apolitical in my "real life." I have never voted. I write about it anonymously on here for fun. I don't let it touch anything else.
Caring about politics too much is brain worms, if you are not a millionaire you can’t affect it.
Intellectually I still don’t understand the slight pro democrat / progressive lean promoted in some of the articles. The vision and reality produced by those elites seems the opposite of good, beautiful, true.
The subtitle of this substack is "progressive, elitist analysis," so it would be a bit strange if that tilt wasn't there! If you are interested in understanding my position, I'd suggest you check out this article to start: https://deepleft.substack.com/p/mcgenics
I did read that. I find the idea of depopulation as eugenic hard to square with the almost universal support among the Elite for mass immigration. It seems more coherent to think that these elites would prefer to be like rulers of India, differentiated from a stinking brown underclass, rather than merely wanting to depopulate the excess of the masses.
The first is not a "stinking brown underclass," but extremely competent and competitive people, mostly from India and China (25% of the world's population).
The second has some consequences that I am averse to. However, I believe the second is much less harmful than the first in most cases, and also has some benefits for the purpose of integrating the American system into South America: https://deepleft.substack.com/p/imagining-a-north-american-union
My personal experience (and that of others in such fields) is that Kuomintang-Americans might be competent, but the Brahmins often are less so, especially when they start inviting relatives.
But without considering the ups and downs of high vs low class immigration, both contribute to keeping the population growing. I would think the right could make peace with an actual Sierra club vision of depopulation. What we have now is making Americas population larger and less competent than it was a century ago.
My problem, as I lay out in my article on Elite Immigration, is that the Trump/Vance Republican party seems to be the party of Elite Immigration, which is the more harmful of the two. Obviously I would prefer 0% or even negative immigration, but those aren't the choices on the table. Given facts as they are, I believe mass Hispanic immigration will help America transform NAFTA into an American Union and integrate Mexico into NATO. I'm a liberal imperialist.
I don’t like that trump said good things about immigration recently. During his former term both legal and illegal immigration were down (though sources differ). Generally the republicans can deviate between positions, but I don’t see the democrats or the urban progressive centers ever becoming anti immigrant. It has been their entire thing for the past two centuries.
First of all, I must always clarify when people bring this up: The Dionysian Orgy had nothing to do with sex! Modern group sex being called an orgy is a misnomer. Dionysus was also not a “hedonistic” god. I might have to make a whole post on Dionysus, he is one of the most important deities in Greek religion because of his role in mystery religions.
Otherwise, this article is something I and many others have thought for a long time, but I’d even go further and say a lot of the “politainment” crowd (myself included) is not really interested in what a normie would call “politics”. Listening to CNN journalists blab on about the latest election poll, trump’s legal issues, the latest senate bill, it’s all extremely boring when you are radicalized and realize all of that is fake and gay. I must go to best goy and buy something but I will read the rest of this maybe in audio when I go to the gym
Depends, you can make your politics very practical. You can learn to spot propaganda, illusions, insidious scams and hateful games, learn when to flee the country or avoid being ruined when things get bad. Learn to avoid getting stuck in pointless wars.
You may not be able to move the masses but you can become unmoved by the masses. And escape the designs of the apparatchiks.
Huh, this is just all about over-generalized gender stereotypes. Most women are not into astrology, many are not even into interior decor, like my ex wife just likes empty white walls.
I agree that we are powerless, so politics is more like a fun social game, but not this way. It is basically arguing about whom to respect and whom not.
Do you think there is a difference between a "directional average" truth and a "literal absolute 100% black and white" truth? Do you think there are any average differences between men and women?
There are average differences, but average is not a very useful stat. Within-group differences are larger than between-group differences. I also think the location-less nature of the Internet confuses us a bit. I am in Vienna, Austria, very active dating life on FetLife and Feeld, have read thousands of profiles, and zero expressed an explicit interest in astrology, and few had put their signs on their profiles. That few can be explained by the fact that 1 in 12 people will have that personality type their sign describes, and it communicates that.
“Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation.”
This is my case too. Generalizations depend on assumptions of in-group homogenity. When no such homogenity, no point of them.
"The point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between." That's not my purpose at all, so your quote is irrelevant. Generalizations don't depend on homogeneity, and there is a point to heuristics. Have you heard of selective epistemic nihilism?
Using political labels like "neoconservative", "fascist" and whatnot is a case of male astrology. On the other hand, I find people's focus on them to be reasonable, given that the stakes of politics have risen due to a combination of factors, notably gradual economic stagnation.
I would say "understandable" but not "reasonable." I have sympathy for the phenomenon, since I engage in it, but I'm honest about the fallacy of democratic thinking ("everyone's political opinion matters").
There’s a lot of truth to this. But for me, thinking about politics has been tied to thinking about the good life. Leaving the left coincided with realizing the left was bad for me. That it’s good to embrace masculinity, responsibility, to get married and start a family.
It sounds like you made the transition from "political pornography" to "personal politics," the politics of your individual life. If I were to be fair and balanced I could write an article defending politics as understood by Plato. But that is a far cry from the dominant news cycle that I'm criticizing here. It is a bit of a semantic problem, where yes, politics in the Platonic sense is equivalent to "the good life," but politics in the popular and colloquial sense is very pornographic.
This pretty much lays out why I am aggressively apolitical in my "real life." I have never voted. I write about it anonymously on here for fun. I don't let it touch anything else.
i don’t think this is a fair comparison.
astrology is very real and actually works and so can’t be compared to politics, which is fake and gay.
fun read!
Amazing work here. Thanks for what you do.
Caring about politics too much is brain worms, if you are not a millionaire you can’t affect it.
Intellectually I still don’t understand the slight pro democrat / progressive lean promoted in some of the articles. The vision and reality produced by those elites seems the opposite of good, beautiful, true.
The subtitle of this substack is "progressive, elitist analysis," so it would be a bit strange if that tilt wasn't there! If you are interested in understanding my position, I'd suggest you check out this article to start: https://deepleft.substack.com/p/mcgenics
I did read that. I find the idea of depopulation as eugenic hard to square with the almost universal support among the Elite for mass immigration. It seems more coherent to think that these elites would prefer to be like rulers of India, differentiated from a stinking brown underclass, rather than merely wanting to depopulate the excess of the masses.
I would differentiate between two types of immigration: elite immigration and underclass immigration: https://deepleft.substack.com/p/elite-immigration
The first is not a "stinking brown underclass," but extremely competent and competitive people, mostly from India and China (25% of the world's population).
The second has some consequences that I am averse to. However, I believe the second is much less harmful than the first in most cases, and also has some benefits for the purpose of integrating the American system into South America: https://deepleft.substack.com/p/imagining-a-north-american-union
My personal experience (and that of others in such fields) is that Kuomintang-Americans might be competent, but the Brahmins often are less so, especially when they start inviting relatives.
But without considering the ups and downs of high vs low class immigration, both contribute to keeping the population growing. I would think the right could make peace with an actual Sierra club vision of depopulation. What we have now is making Americas population larger and less competent than it was a century ago.
I am against Indian immigration, and this article is good by Arctotherium if you haven't read it already:
https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/the-case-against-indian-immigration
My problem, as I lay out in my article on Elite Immigration, is that the Trump/Vance Republican party seems to be the party of Elite Immigration, which is the more harmful of the two. Obviously I would prefer 0% or even negative immigration, but those aren't the choices on the table. Given facts as they are, I believe mass Hispanic immigration will help America transform NAFTA into an American Union and integrate Mexico into NATO. I'm a liberal imperialist.
I don’t like that trump said good things about immigration recently. During his former term both legal and illegal immigration were down (though sources differ). Generally the republicans can deviate between positions, but I don’t see the democrats or the urban progressive centers ever becoming anti immigrant. It has been their entire thing for the past two centuries.
"I love beauty, nature, strength, and health." Ahhh! So you're a fascist. jk Good stuff.
This is a refreshing read.
First of all, I must always clarify when people bring this up: The Dionysian Orgy had nothing to do with sex! Modern group sex being called an orgy is a misnomer. Dionysus was also not a “hedonistic” god. I might have to make a whole post on Dionysus, he is one of the most important deities in Greek religion because of his role in mystery religions.
Otherwise, this article is something I and many others have thought for a long time, but I’d even go further and say a lot of the “politainment” crowd (myself included) is not really interested in what a normie would call “politics”. Listening to CNN journalists blab on about the latest election poll, trump’s legal issues, the latest senate bill, it’s all extremely boring when you are radicalized and realize all of that is fake and gay. I must go to best goy and buy something but I will read the rest of this maybe in audio when I go to the gym
Please do make a post on Dionysus!
Depends, you can make your politics very practical. You can learn to spot propaganda, illusions, insidious scams and hateful games, learn when to flee the country or avoid being ruined when things get bad. Learn to avoid getting stuck in pointless wars.
You may not be able to move the masses but you can become unmoved by the masses. And escape the designs of the apparatchiks.
I would agree there is a spectrum of pragmatism vs. time wasting when it comes to politics.
Huh, this is just all about over-generalized gender stereotypes. Most women are not into astrology, many are not even into interior decor, like my ex wife just likes empty white walls.
I agree that we are powerless, so politics is more like a fun social game, but not this way. It is basically arguing about whom to respect and whom not.
Do you think there is a difference between a "directional average" truth and a "literal absolute 100% black and white" truth? Do you think there are any average differences between men and women?
There are average differences, but average is not a very useful stat. Within-group differences are larger than between-group differences. I also think the location-less nature of the Internet confuses us a bit. I am in Vienna, Austria, very active dating life on FetLife and Feeld, have read thousands of profiles, and zero expressed an explicit interest in astrology, and few had put their signs on their profiles. That few can be explained by the fact that 1 in 12 people will have that personality type their sign describes, and it communicates that.
Great use of lewontin's fallacy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy#Support_and_criticism
“Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation.”
This is my case too. Generalizations depend on assumptions of in-group homogenity. When no such homogenity, no point of them.
"The point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between." That's not my purpose at all, so your quote is irrelevant. Generalizations don't depend on homogeneity, and there is a point to heuristics. Have you heard of selective epistemic nihilism?
Using political labels like "neoconservative", "fascist" and whatnot is a case of male astrology. On the other hand, I find people's focus on them to be reasonable, given that the stakes of politics have risen due to a combination of factors, notably gradual economic stagnation.
I would say "understandable" but not "reasonable." I have sympathy for the phenomenon, since I engage in it, but I'm honest about the fallacy of democratic thinking ("everyone's political opinion matters").
There’s a lot of truth to this. But for me, thinking about politics has been tied to thinking about the good life. Leaving the left coincided with realizing the left was bad for me. That it’s good to embrace masculinity, responsibility, to get married and start a family.
It sounds like you made the transition from "political pornography" to "personal politics," the politics of your individual life. If I were to be fair and balanced I could write an article defending politics as understood by Plato. But that is a far cry from the dominant news cycle that I'm criticizing here. It is a bit of a semantic problem, where yes, politics in the Platonic sense is equivalent to "the good life," but politics in the popular and colloquial sense is very pornographic.