why i'm not a centrist.

(i am very smart)

In response to my article on “why i'm on the left,” I got some good feedback. On the other hand, I also got a slew of comments arguing with me. They weren’t arguing with my positions, whether they were good or bad, they were arguing with me, as a person. “Well, you claim to have all these positions, but you’re not a leftist, in your essence, in your SOUL! You’re actually a centrist! You’re actually a right-winger!”

They were offended that I dare “mis-identify” myself, and intent on proving to me that boys dress like boys, girls dress like girls, conservatives belong in this box, liberals over here… They want a very simple red vs. blue tribalistic world where we can neatly hate each other, never speak to each other, and never express nuance or think outside the box. Or, if you do such things, you must be a “centrist.”

None of these people cared to address my clear positions on foreign policy and foreign influence, reproductive rights, academia, science, institutionalism, or conspiracy theories… They insist that, despite my values and commitments, I must abandon the left and identify myself as a sensible centrist or moderate right-winger.

The argument goes like this:

1. The left is intolerant.

2. I have some positions or attitudes which the left is intolerant of.

3. Therefore, I have no choice but to identify as a “centrist,” or “right-wing.”

I call this the Dave Rubin fallacy. I am politically opposed to Rubin. I think there is a chance that he engaged in treason by taking money from a foreign government to spread Russian propaganda. But even if Rubin has terrible politics, maybe there is still validity to his argument. Is it true? If the left cancels me, do I have to become a centrist?

In this article I will argue the following: I don’t care. I don’t care whether or not the left accepts me on some deep personal tribal level. I am not looking for “acceptance,” belonging, or sense of identity from my political positions. I am happy to be hated on the left, right, center, whatever. I have friends and family who don’t care about my politics, and would disagree with me. I don’t care.

What I care about is simple: which side is better in terms of actual results? When we stop confusing “actual results” with the “warm and fuzzy feeling I get from being part of a team,” then the issue clears up quite nicely.

My ability to look at politics as a question of results rather than as a “source of love and companionship” seems incomprehensible to most people. I understand that most people see politics as a form of sports. If they ask me who I’m cheering for, and I say, “the team that scores the most goals,” they jump back in horror, hand covering their gaping mouth, finger outstretched, shaking, accusing:

“Hey! You can’t just support the winning team! You have to choose a team based on something real and important, like geographical location and jersey color! You’re ruining the game!”

I think the parties differ in their policies. I think some policies are better than others. Whether or not other leftists “like me” or “accept me” is irrelevant. If I suddenly declared myself a “pro-choice pro-Ukraine anti-Trump liberal Jewish centrist,” this wouldn’t change any of my positions. It wouldn’t improve my life or grant me a mystical sense of belonging and acceptance. People would still be annoyed by me because I am a disagreeable contrarian. It wouldn’t make me “more effective.”

Honestly, writing a Substack isn’t a very effective way to change politics anyway, and if that was my purpose in life, I would get a poli sci degree, move to DC, and intern for someone. My goal isn’t to be “effective” but to tell the truth, because I have some perverse obsession with truth telling. If that wasn’t the case, I would be making a lot of money right now doing some expedient grifting.

$99 for an NFT? Uh, yeah, I’m a Trump supporter, whatever you say.

I am a leftist because I believe that leftist policies tend to be better. That’s all I’m saying. People continue to be emotionally disturbed by this, claiming that I’m “not allowed” to think those policies are better if I wouldn’t literally have gay sex with Pete Buttigieg.

“Have gay sex with Pete Buttigieg right now, or you’re not allowed to be a leftist anymore!”

I think this article has gone off the rails.

let’s take a step back.

Most analyses of left vs. right are short-sighted and have a shallow conception of history. I don’t think that the problems with Republicans are only due to Trump, but go back much farther. Qanon’s conspiracy theories about underground pedophile tunnels date back to 1987 with “The Finders.” Ronald Reagan made a “Faustian bargain” with the “moral majority” to sweep the White House, instead of excluding them from polite society. He laid the seeds for the Republican Party we see today.

George Bush Jr. played his part by becoming “born again” and adopting a fake accent. Neither his father nor his brother have a Southern accent. It was a deliberate attempt to “play dumb” to an audience of anti-intellectual religious fanatics.

Kamala, for her part, is guilty of similar “code switching,” but I find this to be much less dangerous. Left-wing pandering leads to BLM, while right-wing pandering leads to January 6th. As I pointed out previously, black people have conspiracy theories which are just as silly as the white ones. Still, despite equal silliness, BLM is less harmful than January 6th. I understand that this is “controversial” to say, but no one has actually refuted the point. Enabling black stupidity is less harmful than enabling white stupidity.

Yes, white nationalist terrorism is dangerous. Yes, Russian propaganda is a threat to our democracy. No, BLM is not “just as bad.” No, antifa is not “just as bad.”¹

There are many on the left who claim that rioting and looting are positive and good. They think that the men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse were martyrs and heroes. They also tend to avoid showering and smell like weed. I would no more want to spend an evening in their apartment than I would like to attend a trailer trash white power rally. But that does not make me a centrist. I will still encourage my smelly leftist friends to vote blue.

Everyone likes to whittle big complex issues down to an anecdotal friend-enemy distinction: are you pro-Rittenhouse, or do you think he should have been killed by antifa instead?

Rejecting this false dichotomy doesn’t mean that I am a centrist, or “above politics.” Whichever side I personally “identify with” doesn’t really matter, because life goes on, in one direction in another. You can either be a team player, or sit this one out.

I didn’t riot during 2020. I was largely disinterested in the riots, but did object to the far right’s hysterical sloganeering about “black supremacy,” which I thought demonstrated their unseriousness. I was deeply disturbed by Trump’s refusal to send in the National Guard, so that he could score political points by whining about “Biden’s America.” It seems to me that Republicans would rather dog whistle and agitate their base by letting things get out of control than actually solve problems.

Politics is about coalitions. If the left was 98% evil, and the right was 99% evil, I would still choose the left. I don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. I live in the real world. I never called myself “far left,” just “deep left.” I’m trying to avoid superficial “Schmittians” and focus on deeper institutional issues.

centrism isn’t real.

Politics is the art of negotiation. You state your position, and the opposition states theirs. Then, you reach a compromise, somewhere in-between. This is how prices are determined on a market. You make a sell offer, someone else makes a buy offer, and prices go up or down according to this process of negotiation.

Centrists try to skip this negotiation process and get straight to the point. After all, compromise is inevitable. No one gets everything they want. Why bother fighting? Why not just recognize that both sides have some good points, and try to skip the kerfuffle and get straight to the part where we hug and kiss and make up?

This attitude represents a surrender to exhaustion, like Adam Sandler in Click (2006) trying to fast forward his own life. It is opposite to the performative fanaticism that drives polarization. Whereas fanatics are willing to sabotage compromise (even at the expense of getting nothing in return), centrists believe that they can get more of what they want if they approach politics from a moderate stance.

This is a rational and logical way of dealing with people interpersonally. When I got out in public, I do not accost random strangers and start screaming, “VOTE LEFT! ABORTION, NOW! SUPPORT UKRAINE! SAY YOU LOVE SCIENCE! SAY IT!!”

Maybe that sounds funny and ridiculous, at least until it happens to you. There are people who feel the need to constantly harass others with their political opinions. Remember COVID? Remember being told to put on a mask? Or that you weren’t wearing your mask correctly? Or that you need to stand six feet apart?

I remember walking into an office where no one was wearing their mask “properly.” As soon as they saw me, they told me I needed to wear a mask, but didn’t even bother to put theirs on. It was annoying. I understand why people on the right hate this, and why they vote for Trump. Still, I prefer substantive policy over a “middle finger to the liberal establishment.”

I don’t think Trump is capable or willing to suppress “wokism.” He actually seems to aggravate it, and amplifies it in the same way that the SPLC amplifies antisemitism. In the same way that the SPLC needs antisemites, Trump needs woke. He wouldn’t exist without it.

I am not a fan of performative, hostile, resentful political attacks on random people at the grocery store. I don’t think this form of mass polarization is helpful at creating productive policy. I think it is a way for people to feel morally superior to others without having to do anything.

I can admit that the left engages in this behavior. But the right is guilty as well. Telling a woman she can’t get an abortion because God said so and she’s going to hell is the same exact moral aggression. Telling a woman she should shut up, go back to the kitchen, and get married to some mediocre incel is not just offensive, it results in real material harm by increasing the birthrate of deadbeats and mediocre failures. Calling Ukraine the “enemy of the United States” isn’t coming from a place of sensible rationality, but from a deep seated resentment toward “the elites.”

The question is: which side is worse?

the worst case scenario.

The worst case scenario (which will never happen) would be a Catholic theocratic takeover of America. Pope Francis would open the borders and ban abortion. Science programs would be scrapped, to give more money to the poor. Secular education on evolution would be banned. The streets would fill with trash and unattended children begging for money. Beaches would stink of sewage, and cartels would control the local gas station.

Whatever money wasn’t stolen by the church would be sucked up into the endless void of the elderly on forced life support, with no option for euthanasia. The few remaining productive members of society would be exterminated in an inquisition against “degeneracy.”

There are many based, traditionalist, pro-life, Catholic countries that aren’t quite this bad, but this is the logical conclusion of theocratic thinking: 99% of people live in illiterate “Christlike” humility, while the church hoards billions of dollars in the vaults of the Vatican. This was how large parts of Christian Europe were run for nearly 1,000 years (and even longer in eastern Europe).

Manila, Philippines.

The right-wing has its own version of this vision, which they call “Total Communism” or “White Genocide™” (depending on whether they are boomer or zoomer). They believe Kamala will open the borders, raise income taxes to 99%, and start killing white people by firing squad in broad daylight, simply for the color of their skin (including her own husband, daughter-in-law, party leadership, etc). Both of these visions are horrifying, but I find one more likely than the other.

A third option is to say that both visions are equally likely, and the country is screwed no matter what. Maybe I’m just an optimist, but I reject this idea. Even if “White Genocide” was 98% likely, and “Catholic Theocracy” was 99% likely, I would still find myself on the left.

Commenters object to my vision of these “nightmare” scenarios, stating that apocalypse is so unlikely that it is not worth thinking about. Most right-wingers are not white nationalists, they tell me. Be that as it may, politics isn’t driven by moderate majorities, but by motivated minorities. But maybe I’m too cynical. Maybe the moderates are right. Maybe we should focus on the best case scenario, and see which party is closest to that. What is my best case scenario?

best case scenario: reproduction.

The best case scenario is that America increases reproductive freedom. Marriage is abolished, and individuals are free to engage in partnership contracts of their choosing. The government stops enforcing alimony and child support laws. As a result, fertility hits rock bottom, around 0.5 per woman. The only people who reproduce would be the highly educated and extremely wealthy.

In the name of Planned Parenthood and Saint Sanger, I pray this trend continues.

Is the right headed in this direction? No. JD Vance wants to make child tax credits a right-wing position. He wants to lower the cost of housing to help poor people have more babies. He wants to “defend the institution of marriage.” I’m not sure if he’s supportive of these policies because he truly believes them as “born again Catholic,” or he’s just cynically appealing to the Republican base. Either way, this isn’t good.

JD Vance’s plan for cheap housing and child tax credits.

Commenters have asked me to “just be libertarian.” That’s not a political party. Well, technically, yes, it is, but not really. We have a two party system. It’s left vs. right. I’m not wasting my time on hoaxes, jokes, and cargo cults. Just because you call yourself a “political party” does not mean you are anything more than a LARP. On issues of marriage, reproduction, and bodily autonomy, the left is clearly better. What about foreign policy?

best case scenario: Ukraine.

Let’s look at Ukraine. In the best case scenario, America will issue a declaration that “China is engaged in a proxy war against Ukraine, using Russia.” America will declare political sanctions against China and India in proportion to their trade with Russia. America will demand that every NATO country (including Turkey) devote 5% of its GDP toward aiding Ukraine. America will coordinate with OPEC and unleash its strategic energy reserves to crash the price of energy, destroying the Russian economy, while delivering Europe the fuel it needs to re-industrialize. America will enact a new Marshal Plan to boost European military-industrial production. I understand that all of this is fantastical, but it is my “best case scenario.”

The UK so far has dedicated $16.41 billion USD to Ukraine, out of a yearly GDP of 3.1 trillion, which is 5% over 2.5 years. If the UK wants to meet the 5% per year obligation, it needs to dedicate at least another $15 billion to Ukraine.

I’m not asking NATO members to spend as much, proportionately, as Russia is, with its military budget of 6% per year. But if NATO dedicates 5% of federal budgets to Ukraine, the war would be over in a matter of 6 months.

The total GDP of all NATO members is $45.9 trillion. Reaching the 5% per year benchmark would result in a total of $2.295 trillion dollars to Ukraine, per year. That would be greater than the entire GDP of Russia, which is $2.24 trillion. In other words, Ukraine would have nearly unlimited access to the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen.

Even if Russia increased its military spending to 100% of GDP, it could not match NATO. Game over. The war would end, Russia would be contained, and Ukraine would join NATO. Unlike Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, America would finally win a war with a permanent territorial conquest and expansion of real material power, at a much smaller cost of blood and treasure than the GWOT.

In the face of overwhelming odds, Putin might decide to launch nuclear weapons. Before this possibility arises, he should immediately be directly and explicitly warned that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine will be met with an overwhelming nuclear response. My theory is that Putin would balk in the face of nuclear destruction, and give up on the Donbass. If he does not, it would be the end of Russia as a state. The damage to Europe and America would be significant, but I think we would emerge from the ashes stronger than ever before. To be clear, I do not support a “first strike,” and I would leave that decision in the hands of Putin.

In the worst case scenario, the war goes on forever, never resulting in a decisive victory for Ukraine, and America gets “bored” and gives up, withdrawing aid from Ukraine in the same messy manner that it withdrew from Afghanistan. It would be a humiliating defeat and a huge waste of money and political capital. Furthermore, a Ukrainian defeat would embolden not just Russia, but China too. The USD would almost certainly decline as the world’s reserve currency, sending America into an isolationist spiral, destroying the global economy.

Perhaps this is inevitable. Again, let’s say there is a 99% chance that spending $2.3 trillion on Ukraine (less than half of the GWOT) still wouldn’t work, and America collapses anyway. If we believe what Dave Rubin and Tim Pool have to say, there’s a 99% chance of that happening. I still think the 1% chance is worth trying. I would rather America go down fighting in a nuclear war than to go quietly into the night because we were too cowardly to assert our overwhelming power. I don’t think those are the only two options, thankfully.

It is possible that Trump won’t entirely abandon Ukraine, but the rhetoric of his vice president on this issue is atrocious. For some reason, Vance seems to think that a decisive victory in Ukraine is “irrelevant to our interests,” but endless wars in the Middle East are? He specifically cites his Catholic faith as the reason why he is committed to unlimited warfare in the Middle East.

While I am sympathetic to Israel for Jewish reasons, my own personal ethnic bias is not the basis of a rational foreign policy, and neither is Vance’s private religion. He is willing to send Americans to die in the Middle East on the basis of ancient prophecy, but he isn’t willing to raise the children in his own home in a Catholic household, because that would risk offending his Hindu wife. This seems like a deeply hollow and empty reason to go to war.

Is the Democratic Party any different? I started to write out my full position on Israel, and realized it was too long for one article. People keep complaining about my 8,000 word Giga-Articles. In the absence of a full deep-dive, I’m going to rate the Middle East issue as a “true neutral” for the time being, neither a point for the right nor the left.

I promise my position on Israel will be published in a separate article. It will be full of the deep left surprises you have come to know and love.

anti-elitism.

I have attempted, several times, to explain that while Civil Rights is a deeply flawed civil religion, at least it’s an ethos! Multi-racial white nationalism, or Judeo-Hindu-Christian values, or Duginist “multi-polarity” are all entirely incoherent and negative. They are anti-Atlanticist, anti-NATO, anti-western, anti-liberal, anti-academic, anti-intellectual, anti-woke, anti-left, anti-establishment, and anti-elite. They do not have a positive vision of the world.

I think it is the duty of every thinking person to imagine a positive vision for the world. But most people are not “thinking people,” and their duty is to try to be economically productive and stay out of the way. Too many uppity midwits think they are smarter, or more moral, than Bill Gates. I know the world sucks, but projecting all of life’s problems onto Bill Gates is not going to solve them. The Republicans encourage this victim mentality, and act as an affirming therapist:

“Tell me where on the doll Mr. Bill Gates hurt you. Did the coastal elites talk down to you again? Did they exclude you from their yacht club? They are such meanies! There there, come here, let papa Trump give you a hug.”

Again, the left has their own issue with this, where they blame white men for everything. The question is this: which is more dangerous?

1. Pathological altruism, soyboys, performative cuckoldry;

2. Storming the capitol because Bill Gates is a pedophile lizard.

I think that reducing all of the world’s problems to white supremacy and the patriarchy is wrong. But I also think that reducing the world’s problems to “the elites” is not just wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Every society has elites, and every elite will privilege itself over the masses. That is how society works.

In our society, at least 60% of people are no longer net contributors, in any meaningful sense, to the economy. This is historically unusual. The average person is capable of farmwork or factory work. Now that automation has replaced those people, the service economy has been taken over by mass mutual masturbation. The porn industry makes $100 billion every year. The sports industry is $400 billion. The global fashion industry is $2.5 trillion.

I’m not arguing that people don’t deserve some degree of entertainment, luxury, or relaxation after a long day of work. But most people don’t do anything, and thus, they haven’t earned the right to these expensive circuses. 15% of people effectively work for the government. What are they doing?

Simply by uttering these uncomfortable facts, I will be accused of being a libertarian who belongs with the Republicans. But I am not interested in merely “cutting taxes” or “slashing spending.” I am perfectly fine with putting people on welfare from now until the day they die. My issue is that the Republican Party is inciting these people into violent fantasies about arresting politicians, military tribunals, and deporting millions of people, when most of them are fairly useless and deserve nothing from “the elites.”

No, Bill Gates didn’t “enslave” you, you were just born that way. Most people throughout history have meekly accepted this fact and enjoyed the bread and circuses, but Republicans seem intent on “riling up the base” for votes. The left does this too, but I repeat myself: BLM is not the same as the Capitol Riots.

inefficiency VS explosion.

It is unfortunate that government is inefficient. That is not my gripe. Inefficiency is part of any system. While I would be happy to see government efficiency increase (best of luck, Mr. Musk), it is not my number one priority.

To give a metaphor:

Let’s say my car has low MPG. I drive it to work every day, and it costs me $10 just to go 10 miles, because my fuel efficiency is really low. A Republican comes along, and he tells me he knows a good mechanic. I take it into “Mr. Trump’s Auto Shop.” Mr. Trump tells me he knows exactly what’s wrong with my car, and will have it back to me in four years. Great! What’s the catch?

Trump says,

“Well, I can guarantee you the fuel efficiency problem is solved, but also, there’s a 1% chance I hide a bomb in your engine that causes it to explode at some random point in the future. But don’t worry about it.

What makes this metaphor inaccurate is that Trump actually didn’t make government more efficient. He didn’t reduce the number of federal employees. He didn’t reduce average immigration per year. He didn’t reduce government spending. He didn’t reduce welfare. He didn’t repeal and replace Obamacare. Going back to Reagan, no Republican has actually done any of this. They all expanded the federal debt, continued social security, and allowed NIMBYs to make housing into a giant pyramid scheme. The best President in this regard was Clinton, who balanced the budget.

All of the talk and bluster about “welfare queens” and “small government” is written in the air and water. No one holds Republicans accountable for their misdeeds, and they get away with the same dastardly tricks every election. When faced with the almost impossible task of steering the ship, Republicans panic and hand the wheel back to the bloated bureaucracy. Nothing changes.

The reality is that Mr. Trump is not a mechanic, but he actually does have a bomb. Words matter and policy matters. Destroying NATO, banning abortion, and spreading conspiracy theories makes America worse, in this very moment. I don’t need a crystal ball to see what will happen.

Uniparty as the solution to polarization.

I think it’s fine to criticize the left. I do it all the time. I also think it’s fine to talk to the right. I do that all the time, too. I think the goal of a healthy American political system should be to unify on very crucial existential questions, and leave the “vibes” and “aesthetics” to the voters. While I have no desire to ban transwomen in sports, I am comfortable letting voters decide those sorts of irrelevant “window dressing” issues. If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside to protect the pastime of lesbians and TERFs, go for it. But there are some things that are non-negotiable to me.

NATO.

America’s commitment to NATO is existential. Empires either grow or die. Rome grew, and then it died. Rome didn’t conduct an orderly retreat — it collapsed. You can be mad at Woodrow Wilson and FDR for getting us into this mess, but here we are. I think that America is a net positive, and I’m glad that we’re leading the world. I think we should fight to keep our position as the world leader, and defeat any challenger, including China. I think multi-polarity is just a codeword for Chinese chaos. Multi-polarity is the kind of thing that Attila the Hun would advocate for among the Romans if he was a smarmy propagandist wearing a beanie.

“Caesar’s Gallic war was woke! We fought for the wrong side! Attila the Hun is fighting the liberal elites!”

Reproductive Rights.

Reproductive rights are existential. To be, or not to be, that is the question. Humans must have informed control over our genetic destiny. This is not a question that we can allow to be determined by dying religious cults or misogynists. Otherwise, the world will descend ever more quickly into idiocracy.

Some lingering pet issues.

There are two issues here I have neglected to address, but which are interrelated. These are the environment and the specter of eugenics. Commenters insisted that “abortion is dysgenic,” in an attempt to dissuade me from my pro-life views. I’m not convinced by those arguments, and I will explain why.

The Environment.

I have neglected to speak about my commitment to environmentalism, because it is generally outside the scope of “polarization.” The truth is that most people don’t care about the environment. If they do, it’s some nonsense about CO2. My concern is pollution and trash. The less people, the better for the environment, so this is largely downstream from reproductive rights.

Eugenics.

I accurately pointed out that the right wing will call the left “dysgenic freaks,” and then turn around and say that “castration of the mentally ill is certainly not good.” This was an especially hilarious response:

The reason for the wide divergence within the right around the topic of human value is because the right-wing is a schizophrenic coalition of eugenicists and Christians. I don’t want to be a part of this. I would prefer to be canceled by the left. I am left-wing not by virtue of the warm and fuzzies that my online friends give me, but by virtue of which side I wish to win.

Since you probably won’t read the article I’ve already written on eugenics, I’ll quote from it here:

Unlike classical eugenics, McGenics is not public, bureaucratic, explicit, authoritarian, or coercive. It does not require eugenic councils, stormtroopers, standardized testing, a police state, fascist parades, or concentration camps. No one is forced to eat fast food. It is all voluntary.

Although conservative Christian like JK Rowling are desperate to protect trans people from their own mental illness, McGenics encourages voluntary castration.

The conservative Christian, walking in the forest, comes upon a dead corpse. It disgusts him to think of this dead body rotting and decaying. He picks it up, brings it to the mortuary, and has it embalmed and fortified with formaldehyde. The end result is a perfectly preserved mummy. He prides himself on saving the corpse from an ugly fate of being feasted upon by maggots and worms. But the conservative Christian is fighting the law of nature, and making humanity into a doll house of corpses, meant for display with no higher purpose.

I clearly state that I am against classical eugenics, and believe that people should have the right to euthanize and castrate themselves. This is my position, which aligns with the left, not the right. I don’t care if Rachel Maddow cancels me. I’m not looking for her approval, I’m just hoping she secures her reproductive rights.

Most people are not capable of cheering on a “team” without feeling a sense of tribal acceptance. “Rachel Maddow will never accept you! You’re not allowed to vote Democrat!” Ok, watch me. I’m not looking for a “sense of community” from my political positions.

Many commenters argued with me, saying that people should be saved from themselves (I disagree). Some even said that abortion was dysgenic, and argued that smarter people have more abortions than dumb people. Even if this were true, I would still support abortion.

I’m not making the case that abortion is raising national IQ. I’m simply saying that unrestricted natalism results in favelas. I’m not sure why this is so difficult to understand, but my position is making people very upset, and the responses I’m receiving are totally deranged. Keep raging though, because every deranged comment, death threat, and ethnic slur is really helping my engagement.

failure is always an option.

The dogma of the church is changed by those within it.

John Calvin and Martin Luther were educated men. They believed in the religion of their time, but saw the institution of the church as corrupt and in need of reform. But when Luther saw that the peasants were using his ideas to try to attack the elites, he wrote Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants (1525). I see the right as a coalition as encouraging this horde, and I see the left as trying to stop it.

There is a spectrum ranging from revolutionary to reformer. Most successful revolutionaries begin from the basis of a strong institutional background. Napoleon had the revolutionary army, Stalin had the Bolshevik Party, Caesar came from the Roman elite, Luther was a Catholic priest, and Calvin was educated at the Collège de la Marche. Whether you want to reform or revolt, things generally begin from within institutions, rather than from the peasants raging outside them. Peasant revolts always fail without strong institutional forces supporting them.

I want to work within the state to reform the state. I am not interested in raging against the machine, locking up the deep state, or arresting Nancy Pelosi. I don’t think that Democrats are “traitors,” whereas Putin and Xi are “nationalist allies against the globalists.”

Russians, Evangelicals, and Qanon have conducted hijackings of the Republicans. BLM, pronouns, and communists have conducted hijackings of the Democrats. Small minorities of weirdos will always do this. I am just one more weirdo with ideas.

When rightists tell me that “you’ll never make America good! The only option is total collapse!” they are engaged in slow-burning, seething hysterics. When leftists say that “white supremacy is the root of all evil!” they are also being resentful and hysterical. But I find the idea of “total collapse” to be more threatening than diversity training.

I am open to bipartisanship. If Trump wants to reach back across the aisle to support abortion, my hand is open waiting to receive him. If JD Vance wants to change his mind on Ukraine, I’m ready to embrace him. If Republicans are ready to dump the clown show, and stop supporting conspiracy theories, I will pat them on the back and give them an “atta boy.”

I will not be holding my breath. I’m also not interested in returning to the pre-Trump Republican Party of Bush and Romney, which wasted trillions of dollars on seemingly meaningless wars and pandered to born again Christians. I am actually grateful to Trump that he laid to rest the gay marriage issue, and has finally allowed gay people into the Republican Party. Thank you Trump!

But while I can appreciate his positive aspects from afar, my appreciation only extends to him insofar as he has pushed (former) leftism into the mainstream of the Republican Party. This is all the Republican Party is good for: normalizing warmed-over leftism. Enjoy your leftovers, Republicans.

There is a chance that the Democratic Party could push for racial reparations, federal bloat, and racial riots beyond anything I can imagine. Maybe Haiti is inevitable, and we should all prepare for a future in which cannibals roam the streets looking for white kids to eat. My goal is to influence the left from within and prevent that from ever happening, while making concessions where necessary and appropriate. Pronouns, diversity training, and drag queens are not enough to make me want to collapse civilization. I suppose I have a low disgust sensitivity.

Years ago, you could have said that Democrats were also the party of low-quality rap music, and added that to the list of sins, but oh boy, do I have news for you.

All the Republicans seem good for is pretending that “Democrats are the real racists!”, spreading conspiracy theories, destroying our alliances, and harassing women.

I am realistic about my own power and influence. I understand that I am not going to get everything I want out of either party. In the grand scheme of the universe, I don’t matter very much as a lone individual. However, to the extent that I matter at all, my thoughts and prayers are with the PhD students, the coastal elites, and the liberal WASPs. I want them to succeed in their endeavors, and I will do everything in my power to help them make good choices (pro-science, pro-choice, pro-freedom) rather than bad ones (communist cannibal holocaust).

There are bad people on both sides. I get it. No one likes being called bad names, like “racist,” or “subversive Jew,” or “transphobic,” or “catlady.” People are mean, dumb, and disgusting — and that includes members of both parties. If the Democratic Party has turned you off with drag queen story hour, I offer you my deepest empathy. If your K-12 school teacher traumatized you with her vocal fry, I get it. If a black person played loud music outside your apartment at 3am, I feel your pain. You are seen. You are heard.

Unfortunately, voting Trump as a “middle finger to the establishment” isn’t going to change anything. Trump isn’t going to ban drag queens, liberal teachers, or black people. There is no incremental plan where “first we elect Trump, then mass deportations, then we start building the camps…” That’s not happening. Mental illness is a much bigger problem than politics alone can solve. These are intergenerational problems.

Society has always had problems, and always will have problems. There will always be a “worst problem” and a “biggest problem” at any given time. The left and right disagree about these things. The right thinks that the biggest challenges we face are black crime, Muslim immigration, drag queen story hour, and Hunter Biden’s penis. The left thinks the biggest challenges we face are Russia, racism, reproductive rights, and environmentalism. I will take 3/4 correct over 0/4 correct.

summary and conclusion.

Whether you want to pick a side or not, people will pick a side for you. I'm picking the side of technology, intelligence, education, empire, progress, and idealism. I reject conservatism, nationalism, isolationism, evangelical fundamentalism, Biblical literalism, forced pregnancy, scapegoating of queers, prepperism, blue collar resentment, and petty small-mindedness. I understand that the mainstream left will cancel me. That’s fine. I don’t care. I still prefer them to the right.

People mistake empathy, kindness, and nuance for centrism. Listening patiently to opinions I disagree with, hearing them out, and showing people respect is not the same as agreement. Granted, I don’t always do this, but the extent to which I do is called “centrism” when it should be called “civility.” This fact is lost in our polarization generation, where "being a good person" means screaming, doxing, and physically attacking your opposition. Democratic politics have become a violent monkey circus. I propose that only people with PhDs and FBI agents should be able to vote.

But even under such a technocracy of experts and elites, what policies would I like to see implemented? I want reproductive rights; I want to protect the environment; I want a trade war against China, Russia, and Venezuela; I want a North American Union; I want to end criminal justice, abolish prison, and allow criminals to live fulfilling lives outside of a cage. If this sounds centrist to you, I think the problem is not my lack of clarity, but your own confusion. Maybe you’ve been watching too much Tucker Carlson and it melted your brain.

Politics is directional. Politics is negotiation. Politics is compromise. A good punch, or tennis stroke, has follow-through. To hit the moon, aim for the stars. An archer who wishes to hit a target must tip his aim far higher than the target, because the reality of gravity pulls his arrow down.

Even if the end goal was centrism, the most effective way to reach centrism is not through centrism, but by providing a counter-balance to the prevailing winds. To use a sailing metaphor, if the wind is blowing from north to south, and you are aiming to land on an island in the distance, you must compensate for the sake of the wind, and sail in a diagonal toward your target.

Centrism, however, is never an end goal in itself, but a compromise or mish-mash of positions. Politics is made up of coalitions, and so centrism is a fact of reality as different factions compromise with one another. However, despite the fact that centrism is a pragmatic reality, it is never ideal to be strived toward. Centrism is the pendulum at rest. Progress requires motion in a direction.

American politics is usually binary. Sometimes there are multiple choices, like in a primary. But even in those cases, a choice must be made. Centrism is equivalent with agnosticism. Centrism is being "above it all," or being outside of politics. I have no problem with non-political people. However, when someone declares they are a centrist, this is as good as being agnostic, and is a non-statement. I am stating my positions, and they are of the left. The Republicans are invited to win my vote on the issues I care about, and if they do, I will gladly vote for them.

The terms "deep left" and "above it all" have spiritual significance to me. Neither of them are "down to earth," to be sure. To be deep is to be underneath, within, and looking up. To be "above it all" is to be looking down, alone, disconnected, drifting, floating in space. I imagine myself like a Lovecraftian Kraken, not as a UFO observer.

I talk to people of the left and right. I do this because I am disagreeable and high in openness. I do not become hysterical when discussing moral issues. I do not become frustrated, offended, or "rage quit" just because someone has a different opinion from me.

When I was an anarcho-capitalist, I would write essays in history class explaining why the First World War was caused by statism, and why we need to abolish the state. In English class, when asked to describe my utopia for a creative writing project, I stood up and explained how God wasn't real, and how we needed to eliminate religion and institute mandatory atheism and science in its place. People generally treated me with a mixture of horror, shock, non-engagement, or outright censorship — but they never explained why I was wrong.

I didn't appreciate the fact that, instead of engaging with my ideas, I was yelled at or told I was a "bad person." If my ideas were so bad, why couldn't anyone logically explain to me where I went wrong? I was willing to listen, but no one had anything to say. They just wanted to punish me instead of debating. Because of these experiences (which are a result of my personality traits), I have a very hard time ostracizing people, whether they are transgender or fascist, because I remember what it was like to be ignored or hated for being different.

Unfortunately, most people are not high in openness and logical reasoning, and they will not change their moral opinions when exposed to new information. As a result, political debates on the internet are typically a form of entertainment, fueled by resentment, resembling gladiator matches. Instead of muscled, oiled slaves with swords, we now have mentally ill nerds with reaction GIFs. This is called progress.

If I were a serious man, I would not dwell in the sewers of internet political blogging. There's more money to be made on the stock market; there's multi-level marketing schemes to push; there's fashion trends to follow and video games to play and all sorts of much more pleasant or productive experiences than arguing politics on the internet. Unfortunately, I am a very silly man, and I have a pathological desire to talk about these subjects. I assume that, if you’re reading this, you might be a little bit silly too.

I am not going to work on a campaign for less than $70k; I am not going to go knocking on doors. But my most silly and secret dream is that I will someday be Aristotle to Alexander. I will someday influence someone who actually does something about this whole mess. I am here on the internet, scratching lottery tickets, hoping that I can write that "one perfect article" that inspires the hero who changes the world. Until that time, I'm throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks.

Thanks for reading.

I have noticed that most people do not read most of these articles before running to the comments. Since you seem to have read the entire article, I would like to offer you the good reader discount. I’m striving for four paywalled posts per month, so look forward to that. This is quite literally a full time job, and 100% of my income comes from people like you. Thank you.

1. Although I would not be surprised at all if Russia was funding both BLM as well as antifa. But I think their choice of Tim Pool clearly shows which strategy they think is more effective at destabilizing our country.