Oy vey. It sounds like you should be a Very Online Vitalist with your desire to engage in eugenics while culling the useless eaters.
If your primary concern is eugenics, I think you're going to be sorely disappointed by the left. The left will be hostile to any sort of "designer baby" gene-editing practices due to their equity obsession. If that's something you consider important, your best bet is probably to be a libertarian, which is more right-aligned.
I don't identify with the eugenics movement; I actively repudiate it in this article. I am in favor of people having reproductive freedom. I'm not sure you understood my point about "policies vs vibes." If you'd like to understand what my position actually is before encouraging me to be a libertarian, I would encourage you to quote things I say directly. You are casting me as somehow ignorant of leftist "equity obsession" or that I am somehow unaware of libertarianism.
It was this passage which led me to conclude that you would prefer to see "the lower classes" reproduce less, prefer people to engage in eugenics ("embryo selection"), etc.:
"I am hopeful that technology can shake up some of the most perverse lies and dogmas that weigh down our civilization. We spend an incredible amount of money on the bottom 60% of the population which pays no taxes at all. This population, uneducated, lazy, or senile, is growing. Because this growing class of dependents can vote, democracy incentivizes unlimited parasitism.
It is the right which prohibits abortion. It is the right which protests against embryo selection, IVF, and euthanasia. It is the right now which is pushing for “pro-family policies,” housing subsidies, natalism, and population growth. It objects to immigration on the grounds that “without immigration, housing would be cheaper, and the working class could have more kids!” This is replacing one problem with another."
If you don't support those things, then yeah I guess I just read it wrong. I was looking for anywhere in the essay where you took any real policy positions as opposed to stating different variants of "right wingers are badmeanwrongevilstupid," since I don't have much to say in regards to the latter (as you note, that's just a personal value judgment). The only other one that I see is that you seem to be anti-immigration, but I largely agree with your point that the right doesn't seem to be all that serious about curtailing immigration so there's not a real choice on that issue.
If you're primarily concerned with people having freedom, then I guess I'd ask why are you a leftist and not a libertarian? I get the whole "lesser of two evils" perspective, but I come away from the essay having little conception of which policies you'd actually prefer, if you could vote based on that rather than feeling compelled to merely vote against the fringe that upsets you more.
I think you are falsely equating support for reproductive rights with eugenics. That's typical of the Alex Jones right. Try ctrl-F eugenics and you will find my comments on it directly. It's fine if you think I am a satanist, and you can denounce my beliefs as evil. I don't dispute that you and I have different values which makes it difficult to have a good faith discussion.
For my own personal allegiance, I feel that eugenics is not an effective political or social movement toward achieving my goal of reproductive freedom. Leftism is. I have no desire to ban interracial marriage or put people in concentration camps. That's what eugenics means effectively, and I have no interest in it.
Libertarianism is not an option in my opinion. It's a two party system. I have no hope that libertarians are going to seize power and implement policies that I like. They are institutionally anti-war and against Ukraine, for example. I do have a hope that Democrats can achieve real concrete policy improvements.
Embryo selection explicitly *is* eugenics though, is it not? Unless I'm just misunderstanding the practice somehow. I don't think you are a satanist lol. I do think embryo selection is evil, along with other things that are considered "reproductive freedom," but I don't think that means we must speak to each other in bad faith. I apologize if you think I'm attacking you, I am mostly speaking from curiosity here, not condemnation.
I get that it's a two-party system, but there is a difference between strategic voting and underlying preferences. Even if I was a libertarian myself, I would definitely vote for one of the two major parties due to the structural nature of the winner-take-all system, but I might do so while holding policy preferences that differ significantly from the candidate I'm voting for.
Support for Ukraine does point to an issue where libertarians depart from leftists. What do you think about Israel? That one seems to be a bit of an inverse of Ukraine, with Republicans much more likely to support Israel while the left increasingly supports Hamas and Iran.
Israel is a complicated issue about which I have to write more, but it is even more difficult for me to be heard accurately on that issue, since both sides are quick to misinterpret. I think both sides neglect the fact that Israel is extremely polarized internally and does not have a future under "democracy."
Yes, likely because opposing eugenics poses an inherent contradiction with support for "reproductive healthcare." If you allow the willful killing of children, *of course* some people will use that for eugenic purposes. A consistent anti-life perspective will recognize this and embrace it. As someone who is pro-life, I generally oppose eugenics for this same reason--eugenic practices are largely incompatible with respect for human life.
> Libertarianism is not an option in my opinion. It's a two party system.
But you just argued for being on the left because you can work within the system to change it. I'm deeply skeptical about that possibility personally, but it's clearly true that libertarians have a long history of working within the right wing parties in the anglosphere to make them more libertarian, hence Tea Party, RINOs, etc. Trump if anything is a corrective to that trend, where the non-libertarians rallied around him in order to kick the libertarians out and restore their influence to something more approximating their true numbers, replacing it with more popular, er, populism.
And I think you underestimate the chances of being rapidly cancelled by the left if you gained any prominence. Saying lots of very un-woke things whilst claiming to be on the left doesn't work.
You said this: Intelligent right-wingers seem to be inevitably persecuted by the loud and noxious minority which plagues that “community.” While I am open to having my ideas challenged by my opponents, I am also grateful that I am not constantly under attack “by my own side.”
You're not under attack by the left because you're an anon of no consequence and they probably don't know you exist, not because of some kind of moral superiority of the left. You also seemed to assert that people are trying to get Alex cancelled, but the only evidence for this was comments expressing disagreement with you. Actual cancellation attempts of the left wing form looks like running to YouTube to try and get Alex's channel banned, not posting measured disagreement in a comments section.
Right, I was looking for this stuff because I don't really consider you a leftist, so I found it odd that you identify as such and even wrote this whole article on why. I would classify you as a centrist or some other label which doesn't fit neatly within the left-right dichotomy. I'm not sure if the left would really accept you as one of its own, not the woke left at least (which seems to be the ascendant part of it). Here on your Substack it seems like you engage primarily with right wingers and centrists/"politically homeless"/etc.
You mischaracterize the right - at least in America - to suit your predispositions.
In 2020, Trump won people making +$100k by 12 points and lost those making less than $50k by 11 pts. He won married people by 6 and lost unmarried by 18.
“The right” in America are not a bunch of toothless hillbillies - they’re the white middle class. And to the extent the dastardly esoteric Hitlerites exist as a political coalition, I would be shocked if they were, as a group, not significantly better educated and compensated than the median citizen.
That you are occasionally subjected to Alex Jones-tier conspiracists in the comments does not outweigh clear statistical data on the composition of the American political coalitions.
"By 2016, the Republican Party won almost twice the share of votes in the nation’s most destitute counties — home to the poorest 10 percent of Americans — than it won in the richest."
The “who wins rich counties” argument is dumb for the same reason those maps showing huge swaths of red and tiny islands of blue is dumb and I wouldn’t have expected you to sink to that kind of hackery. As I’m reliably informed, neither counties nor land vote.
The author has managed to combine one of the worst things about the far-right: its distaste for the weak, the stupid and the poor; with the worst aspect of the left: its obsession with personal autonomy and self-fulfillment. I for one want to live in a society which ensures a good life for the weak, the old, the vulnerable and the stupid, and treats no one as useless eaters. I want to live in a society which makes it easier to live a moral life, rather than letting people slip into self-destruction.
"I want a society that combines selfish egoism and cruelty with disorder and immorality." lol
When two people share no fundamental values discussion is impossible. The society you see as good I see as evil, and the society that you see as evil I see as good. Further discussion is useless.
I don't even necessarily disagree with your facts. I disagree with the values you believe in. I don't believe intelligence is more valuable than any other virtue. I do not believe smart people matter more than stupid people. I believe that everyone in society has infinite value, and that society ought to concern itself with the well being of everyone. How is this a disagreement on fact?
you make some good points in the article, but it seems your idea of the “right wing” comes from the discourse of fringe posters and factions online that have no real world manifestation or organization. the ideas you criticize certainly exist out there but there is a wide gulf between those ideas and your average right wing or republican voter. in other words, it’s a straw man argument. in my view, the extremist ideologues amongst the far-left have a much greater influence on the party platform and policy than anyone considered a white nationalist or a Nietzschian vitalist. surely you see the difference between the populist movements than have arisen in the last decade and the wacked out fringe of Q-Anon or Christian Nationalists.
I live in Texas and know a fair amount of Trump voters. none of them are motivated by hardcore ideology. most are just conservative with a mix of libertarians or disaffected liberals.
ok fair enough, but politics is driven by more influences than just ideas. in fact, the direction of much of politics and the fate of nations has more to do with the monied interests of an elite few than any ideologues. for instance, only a few years ago the Democratic party was overtaken with the “woke” after the death of Floyd where we saw entire state governments and more rush to mainstream the fringe ideologies of the anti-racist left virtually overnight (defund the police, DEI in corporate America and government, woke media coverage etc). cut to the present moment and now to the DNC convention where they lionized Walz as the new masculine as well as touting a robust, lethal military with very little identity politics. my point is that ideology is only as influential as it is useful to the ruling class and the powers that be. most of the time it is a pretty glove around the raw fist of power.
'Trump is never going to become sane and restrict immigration, and the left is never going to get rid of the pronouns. These are the realities of living in a fallen world. Choose your poison. I’ve chosen mine...'
The civil religion of the left results in bill gates daughter dating a black rapper. If the right is now adopting such norms, it is because the norms of the left eventually trickle down to the conservatives. Eunuchs don’t directly engage in that behavior, but tend to be the most fanatical in upholding those norms. Richard Hannia thinks that if he sucks up to Kamala on every other possible issue, perhaps the liberals will see the light on HBD. Yet in reality, when liberals are presented with Donald trump in 2016, who was running in the democratic platform from 40 years ago rather than any genuine extremism, their reaction has been murderous. There is no incremental solution that coincides with liberals remaining in power.
The failure of “white nationalism” is in considering WASPs friendly. Liberal WASP elites have done more to try and eradicate Europeans from the world than any other group. Considering this includes themselves, one could conclude WASPs are some of the most duplicitous and evil elites to have ever existed. Yet one must work with them because they conquered the world.
I am not sure why people are so interested in informing me that Richard Hanania is not going to redpill liberals on race, as that has nothing to do with my article.
You correctly claim that MAGA and conservative populations have an influx of multiracial pairings or black focused groups and individuals . I believe that this is not a phenomenon distinct to or caused by conservative media. The democrats push openly for all this in their propaganda, and it seems to me like the elite only have marginally more resistance to overcoming this propaganda, especially when it comes to their children.
You argue in the article it is more compelling to try and work with elite democrats than submitting to lowly MAGA peasants and incels. Hanania is a guy who has been trying to do this for quite a long time. His attempts to seduce certain liberal elites on this topic show how much effort it would take to change the minds of progressive elites on race. It is terribly unrealistic to even contemplate.
If you see the black / multiracial turn of conservatives as a bad thing, then giving more power to democrats gives them even more legroom to ratchet up their race politics to make things even worse, indefinitely. “Unless they were redpilled”, say some optimists.
Well, this has been popping up on my feed for the past few days so clearly it's going a bit viral... 36 likes and 101 comments? Oof. You make many good points in this article, but many that I also have to contest.
>Socrates, in his time, was accused of “corrupting the youth,” which seems to be the charge against me, “a proponent of man made horrors beyond our comprehension.” What did I say that was so wrong? Am I really that scary?
Well, Socrates was really killed because of his association with the Tyrants. The charges were just window dressing. I get that wordcellin' is a difficult job though. We respect our wordcels here!
>The Spartan Krypteia ritualistically humiliated the Helots by harassing, raping, murdering, and torturing them. Athenian schoolmasters sexually abused young boys or teenagers as a symbol of the unlimited power of the pedagogue. American slave masters whipped their slaves, and worse.
Ehh, I know we like to meme about Buck Breaking but it is obviously one of those "Black conspiracies" you talk about earlier. Same with other cherrypicked, unreliable nonsense like "The Delectable Negro". White slaveowners were, all things considered, very good to their slaves compared to pretty much every other society that has relied on mass agricultural slavery. They taught them the Bible, they encouraged families, and they had a tendency to support and eventually free their illegitimate mulatto children that is seldom talked about. Also, I wouldn't call the pederastic element to Athenian schools quite as rapey as you describe it. Firstly, as BAP points out, most pederastic relationships were much closer in age than people think. Usually the younger party was in their late teens, while the older party was in their early or mid 20s. Secondly, pederasty was certainly not a humiliation ritual, which is why Greek norms forbade elements of homosexuality which were considered particularly humiliating such as sodomy. The practice of pederasty seems to emerge in societies which are very harshly sex-segregated, which Greece was (except for Sparta, but maybe that's why the Spartans frowned upon sexual variants of pederasty). But Greek pederasty was less sadistic than the sort of things Turks do where they rape male prisoners (ex: Lawrence of Arabia) and have eunuch concubines.
>Whereas WASPs were 90% of Americans in 1776, and probably 80% during the Civil War, they quickly declined to less than 50% of the population by WWII, and now represent less than 20%.
Depends on how much you want to purity spiral. Americans are mostly mixed with other European groups now, but if you took every White person's DNA and averaged it together, you'd get something very close to an Englishman. This is because most people underreport English or Old Stock heritage, they identify with their most recent immigrant ancestry.
>Of course, most right-wingers are economically impoverished, psychologically jilted, vengeful, resentful, and downwardly mobile. They don’t have the capacity to join the elite, even if they wanted to. Since they feel that their future is hopeless, they seek to burn the system down, joker style.
Either you've been listening to too much Banania, or interacting with too much wignats. Right-wingers are slightly stupider on average than Libs, but they are far less mentally ill, vengeful, and resentful. There are plenty of right-wingers in the elites, they're just all old people. The young elite is liberal, but young people in general are also liberal, and young elites are just towing the generational line.
>They claim that Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Gates, the Walton family, and the Koch family have either all been “tricked and fooled,” or they are part of a Jewish conspiracy, or they are pedophile lizard people in league with Satan. No one hates wealthy, smart WASPs more than the right wing.
Bezos and the Kochs are ethnics, and Bill Gates is self-made. Hardly prime examples of "Boston Brahmins", albeit those types are extremely Liberal. My understanding has always been that WASPs are just sort of aloof from politics, they sort of just do their own thing. But there is the other explanation of the descendants of Puritans being Puritanical, and the current Puritanism being Leftism. Maybe that's why WASPs everywhere else in the country are the most Republican, but in New England are uber-Libs.
>During the feudal era, elites genetically and biologically replaced the lower classes. They did this by using peasants as farm equipment, or oxen, forcing them to till the fields. They hoarded wealth for themselves, allowing peasants to go hungry and die during famine, while preserving themselves.
This is correct, but I think you're exaggerating a bit. First of all, elites didn't force peasants to do anything. Peasants lived on elite land and grew crops on elite land. Elites simply demanded some of those crops as a fee for allowing peasants to use their land and rely on the protection of the Lord and his knights. Secondly, being an aristocrat in the middle ages was actually insanely deadly. Aristocrats in the early modern period actually had a lower life expectancy than the middle class (or what existed of it) because they were constantly fighting in war. Yes, having plate armor and a horse helped a lot in this regard, but this didn't help if you got a disease and died (very common among soldiers). While many peasants were conscripted into war, they fought at a lesser rate than the aristocracy and furthermore they had a lot to gain from war -- they could become somewhat wealthy by looting and maybe even kidnap some girl to be their wife if we're talking about the right time period.
>The right is schizophrenically fractured. Eugenicists really think that hitching their bandwagon to Nick Fuentes will someday pay off. In any case, the dominant religious forces among the right are not eugenicists, but Alex Jones and Pope Francis. The left, by contrast, supports all the policies which allow for a return to historically normal population trend, where the lower classes are gradually replaced.
Hmm, I think you have some misconceptions about what policies are and aren't eugenic. Abortion is not eugenic -- despite the reputation that abortions are something poor people get, they usually can't afford them and the amount of high IQ children lost to abortion is more significant because the number of high IQ children being birthed is already lower. The only sense in which abortion is eugenic is insofar as Black people get a lot of them. Which isn't really something I would call "eugenics", since eugenics really deals with managing heritable traits on an individual level/within a population.
Hypergamy is also not eugenic. Remember that when you date low-bred women with high-bred men, you're still getting the genes of low-bred women. And yes, men do have more mutations, so perhaps in the case of the cream of the crop it is good for men to have many wives, but women are also frankly quite bad at selection. They often select for negative traits like "dark triad" personality, and I've even heard that women actually select for obesity (probably not "high status" women doing this stuff, but if you're only looking at what high status women select then you're not pro-hypergamy).
Hypergamy is also so socially corrosive that whatever slight eugenic effect there is to it is blotted out by the negative consequences. This isn't even pointing out that hypergamy leads to a decisive advantage for men as they get older, which encourages delaying one's fertility to a point where it is dysgenic simply due to the paternal age.
>Most LGBTQ people are politically conformist and are happy to support “the current thing.” As someone who is invested in the political stability of the country, I have no problem with eunuchs running around on Grindr, so long as they don’t actively sympathize with our foreign enemies and try to blow up our federal buildings. That’s more a problem on the right, not the left.
Why do you place so much weight in a few crazies who blow up federal buildings? It is much more socially disruptive and destabilizing when Black people burn down a bunch of homes and businesses even if 90% of those homes and businesses are Black, because this generates an image of weakness on the federal government and the federal government's power comes from an image of strength. Meanwhile, when some crazy attacks feds it just garners support to the feds on the grounds of sympathy. Also, gay people just suck and kill the vibe. And they'll get you in trouble if you point out that they kill the vibe. No other particular reason necessary to not like them.
Substack told me to write a shorter comment, so I'll split this into two comments. The second one will be a reply to this one.
>On the other hand, I have no place in a right wing defined by white nationalism at the fringes. It is easy enough to declare it to be “axiomatically immoral” and be done with it. White nationalists are a hodgepodge as diverse as any other fake identity group
I would contend that White Nationalism (Arguably even White Supremacy) is actually the spirit of America. Racialism, not Egalitarianism, is the ultimate brain child of the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, an attempt to fit humans into scientific quantifiable categories rather than guesstimating based on language or religion. Yes, there tended to be a partiality towards the Anglo, and even as a non-Anglo I believe there should be, but the extent to which America was viewed as an exclusively Anglo-Saxon project is exaggerated heavily by a lot of historians who rely mostly on anecdotal evidence. If you simply look at the political processes, marriage rates, and legal rulings of the first century and a half of our country, it paints a different picture.
>The worst of them believe that “mere whiteness” is a historically tenable identity; that the cultural distinctions between Anglo-Saxons and Germans are irrelevant; that the religious distinctions between Episcopalians and Baptists is meaningless; that all 800 million white people on planet earth are part of one big happy family with biologically determined interests, and it is only the Jews who have conspired to keep them apart. Prior to Jews, whites lived in a Garden of Eden, never engaging in warfare against each other, hugging and kissing in harmony.
No, I don't think any White Nationalists believe this unless they are profoundly mentally retarded. They are simply recognizing that White Nationalism makes the most sense in the context of America, or really with respect to general conflicts between Europeans and Non-Europeans. Think of the Greeks. Just because they all recognized that they ought to unite at certain times (ex: Panhellenic Games, Persian War, Trojan War) they also constantly fought with each other and proclaimed their superiority over each other. One can hope Europe could reach a similar state, but in America the notion of Whiteness has existed from the very start.
>It is the right which prohibits abortion. It is the right which protests against embryo selection, IVF, and euthanasia. It is the right now which is pushing for “pro-family policies,” housing subsidies, natalism, and population growth. It objects to immigration on the grounds that “without immigration, housing would be cheaper, and the working class could have more kids!” This is replacing one problem with another.
Again, abortion is not eugenic. Secondly, IVF is obviously dysgenic even if you do genetic screening like the Israelis do. People who cannot naturally have kids should not be allowed to have kids unless they can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the reason they cannot have kids has nothing to do with their genes. Also, a lot of high IQ white people also get their jobs taken by immigrants, particularly in the tech sector.
>The left prior to Marx is filled with luminaries and revolutionaries, whether one considers Zoroaster, Plato, Christ, Caesar, William of Ockham, Machiavelli, Voltaire, or Napoleon.
I know what you're doing here, trying to demonstrate how unique your idea of the left is. I don't think it works. Leftism is really quite distinct. There is no such thing as "rightism" but there is such a thing as "Leftism" because Leftism comes directly from certain thinkers of the past 200 years. You can call Voltaire or Rousseau or Locke antecedents to Leftism but I don't really think you can call them leftists. Napoleon is obviously a traitor to the Revolution, he had himself crowned Caesar and tried to establish his family as royalty. Maybe in the context of Louis he is a leftist, but perhaps I could counter you and actually claim that Absolutism is left-wing... HMM!?!?!?? Dangerous topic... Julius Caesar... You know, I'm kind of with you, Caesar was kind of a shitlib in certain ways. Augustus was very based and redpilled though. Zoroaster was not a leftist. Jesus Christ was also not a leftist, and I know given my pagan background you would expect me to call him a leftist, but Jesus was really not into politics. William of Ockham was not a leftist. Going and blaming everything on nominalism is silly, none of that stuff really causes someone's political opinions. Unless there's something about Ockham I'm missing.
I agree that Southern slavery was probably less harsh than Helotry. I agree that most pederasty was between teenagers and Athenian men. I agree that it wasn't as brutal as rape itself -- sexual abuse is a legal term in America in 2024. Regarding the genetic argument, I don't buy it, because I think lineage is a story of who you are, not a mishmash of genes. Regarding the average resentment of right vs left, I suppose I could qualify my statements to mean "people who matter for the future," as in "not old people and not moderates." I wasn't claiming that Gates was a WASP; my sentences including him stand. Regarding peasants, I'm using the term "force" in line with the NAP. I never argued that abortion was "eugenic," I said that forcing women to have kids is both immoral and has bad consequences. I don't think I made one argument in favor of "eugenics" at all. Read my words exactly and literally. I disagree that BLM was worse than January 6th. I agree that white supremacy founded America, and without white supremacy, Americans are currently very confused about what they are (nothing?). I believe that many white nationalists are, in fact, "profoundly mentally retarded." I never once argued that abortion was eugenic, I don't know why you and others keep saying I'm wrong when I never claimed this. Voltaire was a leftist.
> I agree that it wasn't as brutal as rape itself -- sexual abuse is a legal term in America in 2024
Well, yes, but my main point is that it was not done out of a desire to humiliate.
> Regarding the genetic argument, I don't buy it, because I think lineage is a story of who you are, not a mishmash of genes.
Sorry, which part is this in reference to?
>I'm using the term "force" in line with the NAP. I never argued that abortion was "eugenic," I said that forcing women to have kids is both immoral and has bad consequences.
I assumed you meant it was dysgenic based on the surrounding context, my bad. Abortion might have bad consequences but it is quite unambiguously morally depraved to kill your own child for no particular reason. Doing it because they’re retarded and won’t live long or healthily anyways is one thing, doing it because you can’t afford a child is one thing (applies to practically no one in the modern west, although maybe it should) but doing it because you have “career ambitions” is pretty terrible. Does this mean it should be illegal? Ehh, not sure. But I understand why people don’t want their tax dollars going to it. And it’s really only when the government hands it out for free does it even have a chance of being eugenic. I certainly do having a bleeding heart for the women who are afraid of being forced to have consequences for their actions. Maybe I’m just a dark chudcel though
> I don't think I made one argument in favor of "eugenics" at all.
You were spending a lot of time talking about how conservatives want eugenics but then get mad at eugenic policies, and how you want to replicate the eugenic birth patterns of historical society where the elites outbreed the commoners, and how conservatives are dysgenic (stupid, mentally ill) so I assumed you were going for a eugenics angle. I’m not really sure what else you see in these policies, frankly… I think many people assumed this because other people on this app usually make arguments for those things from a eugenix approach and not many people make them from any other sort of approach which still revolves around what is best for social order
> I believe that many white nationalists are, in fact, "profoundly mentally retarded."
I think you're misunderstand the term "humiliate" as I am using it in an etymologically archaic sense, meaning "to make humble." Consider this passage from Machiavelli's discourses, Chapter 15:
"After offering solemn sacrifice they caused all the captains of their armies, standing between the slain victims and the smoking altars, to swear never to abandon the war. They then summoned the common soldiers, one by one, and before the same altars, and surrounded by a ring of many centurions with drawn swords, first bound them by oath never to reveal what they might see or hear; and then, after imprecating the divine wrath, and reciting the most terrible incantations, made them vow and swear to the gods, as they would not have a curse light on their race and offspring, to follow wherever their captains led, never to turn back from battle, and to put any they saw turn back to death. Some who in their terror declined to swear, were forthwith slain by the centurions."
Were the soldiers humiliated? Not in a modern colloquial sense, but in the sense of "having their honor threatened, being threatened with guilt in shame," then yes. That is how I am using the term. So while teenage boys may have not felt "guilt and shame" from being sexually abused (or loved as you call it), they certainly felt a new sense of "not wanting to let their lover down," as in the case of the Sacred Band of Thebes. This is the core of institutional humiliation. What we consider today to be humiliation is a subset of this broader phenomenon.
Genetic argument: I don't think German+French = Anglo-Saxon. I think Anglo-Saxon isn't a genetic equation with "equivalents," it is a specific historical lineage. You don't say "well I am northern French and also Swedish, so basically I'm English." You're ignoring the significance of the mainline Protestant tradition which was decimated after WWII.
"Mothers who choose to chemically castrate their children have the right to do so. This is more likely to happen among mentally ill families than healthy ones. I have no interest in “saving” the children of mentally ill women."
Why do you support child abuse? I honestly cannot understand your perspective.
Child abuse comes in many forms, and attempting to legislate it worse only perpetuates it, in this specific case. Do you support banning moms telling their sons "I hate you" and verbally abusing them? Or are you a hypocrite?
You’re asking me to provide you with moral deontology to justify trans kids. I’m speaking pragmatically about political coalitions. Are you a Christian?
Legislate? Ban? Did someone suggest these as the answer?
The answer is to shun those who abuse others (of any age) while offering asylum to the abused. Personally. No government involvement ever made anything better overall.
Patriarchy emotionally stunts everyone, women very much included. That's not an excuse for their behavior; it's just a statement of the root of the problem. Remove it, and we will find that this kind of thing just doesn't happen.
Perhaps the source of your misunderstanding is a lack of desire to understand. Can you not differentiate between letting people make choices and “supporting” those choices?
1) "Expand or die" is usually not advisable. The Venetian Republic, an example of a Ferengi-like mercantile state, lasted for over a thousand years in part by prudently calculating when it was wise to expand and when it was wise to pull back. On the other hand, history is littered with reckless, self-destructive attempts at expansion. We Americans had a severe cardiac arrest after our predatory conquest of half of Mexico; indigestion from new lands caused the slavery issue to boil over. The most infamous example? Germany's exterminationist expansion attempt eastward led to its fast demise. These cases can be multiplied endlessly to complicate any Nietzschean vision of grand politics. While expansionism is sublime, it often is a fire that burns out quickly.
2) When understanding conservatism, watch what they do, not what they say. It is vital to parse the opportunistic core from the extravagant performance art. Strip a conservative of the clothing of White nationalism, Catholic monarchy, or whatever nonsense they cook up next, and you'll generally find a venal interest underneath. The apocalyptic scenarios justify the opportunism; the opportunism motivates the apocalyptic scenarios. Its spiritual essence was captured in Stendhal's novel The Red and the Black, where mediocre people in restorationist France, boasting that they were more Catholic than the Pope, engaged in all sorts of low, careerist, insincere behavior. Liberalism, in contrast, is a comparatively prosaic and earnest doctrine; it finds sublimity in human achievement.
3) The United States currently has elites but does not have an elite. (This is why we have problems with Russians, Israelis, and other foreign actors interfering with our democracy. No one is behind the wheel!) To be an elite, an elite needs to be self-conscious of itself as a unity -- this implies duties and obligations, a paternalist awareness of one's responsibilities, and a genteel system of decorum that paradigmatically sets manners, style, and behavior for others. The South once had an aspirational elite, but that world was obliterated long ago. The character of current American elites is typically career-seeking, vulgar, and bourgeois.
4) The Portuguese writer Bruno Maçães, in his book History has Begun, speculated that America is becoming its own civilization with a different spirit from Europe. He synthesized ideas from Boorstin, Tocqueville, Frederick Jackson Turner, and others, arguing that everyone is free to make up their own reality in America. Modern conservatism is not much different from progressive wokeness in that it is pure make-believe. Credo quia absurdum. People believe narratives about themselves and others precisely because they are false. The conservatard who thinks Bill Gates is developing vaccines so he can inject nanobots into your body so that the deep state can control you with 5G towers is not much different than someone who thinks they metaphysically are something because they verbally identify as that something. This is a dumbass American phenomenon, not something particular to liberalism or conservatism.
5) Globally, there is an emerging collective consciousness among professionals -- doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc. who understand what it means to act as a professional. Conservatives misuse "elitism" to refer to this class because, while politics is a dirty business, reactionary opportunists don't like honesty or integrity in principle. The Tuckers and Tim Pools of the world would rather live in a Putin-like autocracy where bullshitting is rewarded.
6) Humiliating others is something to avoid unless one wants to multiply enemies or convert temporarily annoyed people into permanent enemies. When someone is in charge of something and wants to increase their prestige and influence, it is essential to let others save face -- especially when they don't deserve it. Too much sickly Nietzsche and not enough Machiavelli leads to self-ghettoization, as in the case of Richard Spencer. Bertrand Russell, who was an actual aristocrat, remarked about Nietzsche that "Those who do not fear their neighbours see no necessity to tyrannize over them."
7) Elitism is not the beginning nor the end of existence. Compare both sides of my family. On the paternal side, the Bowdens came to the Old Dominion from England after the establishment of the Republic, married into the remnants of the old Tidewater tobacco aristocracy, and remained minor elites, such as judges and mayors and whatnot. On the maternal side, the Pressleys are quiet, respectful hillbilly people. Slave morality? Who has more reach today? Elvis, a distant cousin? Or old names in my family tree like Fauquier, Morton, Pryor, etc.? Does anyone care that Marmaduke Beckwith was a 3rd Baronet in Yorkshire in the 1600s?
8) The new interest in elites is caused by the game of musical chairs caused by Reaganism, which transfers wealth upward and makes most people downwardly mobile in a generational context. Prestige TV in recent decades -- Shogun, Game of Thrones, The Sopranos, Mad Men, Deadwood, etc. -- typically has the theme of climbing the ladder at all costs. (Failure means working in an Amazon warehouse.) This spirit, this culture, is a policy choice and not an artifact of nature.
I will try to write an article in response, but I don't think that would be sufficient. My response is generally, "good point, I agree to an extent." However I think each of your points deserves its own full discussion, which would take probably 8 hours. Let's follow up on this.
Bruno Maçães seems very interesting and to explain a lot. As you may know, René Girard's (another reader of Tocqueville) Deceit, Desire and the Novel gives a singular perspective on your points 2 and 3.
Regarding 3, he suggests a shift from "external mediation" to "internal mediation", coinciding with the aristocracys loss of legitimacy (and virtue).
Regarding 2, he speaks of Julien Sorel's "political atheism." For Girard, Julien appreciates M. De Renal's political conversion as someone appreciates a returning musical motif. This is revealed by the smile Stendhal places on Julien's face. It is ultimately the same "mimetic" gravitation which leads her to one camp and to the other.
"The Portuguese writer Bruno Maçães, in his book History has Begun, speculated that America is becoming its own civilization with a different spirit from Europe. He synthesized ideas from Boorstin, Tocqueville, Frederick Jackson Turner, and others, arguing that everyone is free to make up their own reality in America. Modern conservatism is not much different from progressive wokeness in that it is pure make-believe..."
Just one bit from your substantive comment. Yea Maceas was interesting. I say was because I'd heard from him or about him in 2021 and 2022 but he seems to have fallen off the map since. He approves of the make-believe though, iirc.
And Richard Hanania, as much as he shits on normies, he believes one thing that's great about elites is that they are more idealistic. But when does idealism transform into the world of bullshit make-believe?
"Prestige TV in recent decades -- Shogun, Game of Thrones, The Sopranos, Mad Men, Deadwood, etc. -- typically has the theme of climbing the ladder at all costs. (Failure means working in an Amazon warehouse.) This spirit, this culture, is a policy choice and not an artifact of nature..."
I don't know how much one can really get around the notion of pulling yourself up by your proverbial bootstraps and striving like hell. You hear it in left form too, as in a responsibility to at least aim for revolution. Trotksy had a hell of a work ethic.
The liberty-pilled negative rights striving of American culture long predates Reagan, as well.
Negative rights come from Isaiah Berlin and are an artifact of the Cold War.
America was built on the American system of Hamilton, Carey, and List, where massive tariff walls and state involvement in infrastructure and research and development were used to develop a giant manufacturing base. The Morrill tariff, for example, allowed the United States to establish a university system; the Pacific Railroad Act made the Transcontinental Railroad happen, etc. The alternative was the free trade of slavocracy, which wanted the United States to remain a dependency of the UK (the first phase of the Industrial Revolution was textile-based) by exporting cotton using slave labor, a special interpretation of liberty with few adherents today. Rhetorically, I agree with Trump here, though, in practice, the man is aligned with international finance and talks populist for the grugs.
How much did Mellon contribute to Trump so far this cycle? I think it is $75,000,000.00.
Immigration temporarily dipped because of Covid. The wall is a farce, and Trump isn't going to do anything that resolves the problem, like a national ID card. Remember this when 2029 rolls around.
Immigration dropped during trumps term before Covid. A wall was never really necessary, as we are seeing that immigrants are mostly controlled through carrots and not sticks.
"Christ is the Logos". According to the English Bible, yes. "The word was God and the word was with God" as it says at the outset of the book of John.
Something funny about all that though. The thing that is default doesn't need a word until its opposition - or you could say its "adversary"/Satan - arises. Adam names the animals in the garden and this establishes male dominionism within the doctrine. One must know a demon's name to summon it. Demons work for that Satan dude, according to the popular mythos. Men love nothing more than naming things after themselves and sometimes after the people that belong to them.
There's something off in all that. If anything, we'd be better off for dudes shutting up some more. Yet here they are, obsessed with the logos and its application according to their desires.
Anyway, pretty much everything you've said about the right is true. That said, do you really not see that both sides are equally fvvccked? That both wings belong to the same bird? When you join a party, you are a rod bound together with a bunch of other rods to create the fasci. That root word, ofc, reveals the true meaning of fascism, and it isn't only a description of the right. It's a description of both sides, as both use this tactic.
Give anarchism a chance. Anarchy just means "no rulers" (greek). We don't need to be ruled. Adults can take responsibility for our actions without some government goon standing over us. In fact, we do it much better without them.
Ofc, not being ruled means giving up any gods one may have served before. That is often the toughest hurdle for the religious, but I can assure you as one who has done it ..
IT'S WORTH IT.
We can remove the bloodlines from power. All we have to do is get about 8 out of every 100 people on board. It's totally achievable. Let's do that and then everyone will truly be free to choose for themselves how to be. Then they will receive the natural consequences of their respective actions, good and bad. That's the world we want and the world we need.
Don't believe in? Honey, it's not Santa Claus. It's history. The common ideology is anarchy. In other words, no rulership.
Yes, intelligent people resent those financial criminals who have stolen the value of our currency from us for their own benefit. That's how using your brain works.
You are a slave. We are the same in this way. Your masters laugh at you as you willingly serve them.
Resistance is snowballing and there's no way to stop it now. Those who choose the wrong side are about to realize the overwhelming severity of their mistake.
You make soke interesting points here that I'll be thinking about. That said, there were a few places I found myself disagreeing on the facts.
For ohe left is much more hostile to embryo selection than the right is. While I'd agree the status of IVF on the right is more fragile than it is on the left, the consensus for now is in favor.
You say also that deep right's logic leads to white supremacy. I think this might be true for you, as an atheist and utilitarian? The only other viable endpoint for those is libertarianism, and they are a dead force these days. But if you were able to relax either commitment, you would have other options, because right is much more ideologically diverse than the left. In particular, the right is the only current home of anyone whose morality includes virtue/aristotelian/teleological concerns. I think that *your* morality has those concerns, given the way you call trans people eunuchs. This may be worth some introspection for you, and I'd be happy to talk about it, having been through the same myself.
The immigration point is... I wish you weren't right. We have no good choices.
I agree with you that within a Christian framework, white nationalism is not the evitable conclusion of the right. Unfortunately, Christianity seems to be headed on the way out. I'll DM you regarding a conversation.
>For ohe left is much more hostile to embryo selection than the right is. While I'd agree the status of IVF on the right is more fragile than it is on the left, the consensus for now is in favor.<
Correct. Right now the left is pro-IVF and vice versa because everyone is obsessed with abortion. As soon as reproductive technology is used for actual eugenics, the left will turn against it, hard. A lot of conservatives will as well, I might even be one of them. But the "vitalist" and "techno optimist" types who will be most likely to support that stuff will clearly end up being more right-aligned than left, if only due to sheer political necessity. No matter how many chuds there are calling you a Jew in the comments, the fact is that the right will still tolerate your existence in a way that the left will not. The left will simply unperson you.
Richard Hanania is a perfect example of this--despite spending most of his energy shitting on right wingers, leftists still refuse to associate with him because he doesn't toe the line on black people. No amount of insults aimed at Trump voters will ever make him a person again and allow him to re-enter mainstream liberal institutions. The only way he could ever do that would be to renounce his HBD views.
“I enjoy speaking with people with whom I disagree. Many rightists are unable to understand “. That’s gaslighting right there. Progressives refused to go on conservative podcasts. In universities, including my own conservative speakers are effectively banned - the veto coming from violent demonstrations. I’m glad you’re open to conversation. But that is a highly unusual position on the left.
Oy vey. It sounds like you should be a Very Online Vitalist with your desire to engage in eugenics while culling the useless eaters.
If your primary concern is eugenics, I think you're going to be sorely disappointed by the left. The left will be hostile to any sort of "designer baby" gene-editing practices due to their equity obsession. If that's something you consider important, your best bet is probably to be a libertarian, which is more right-aligned.
I don't identify with the eugenics movement; I actively repudiate it in this article. I am in favor of people having reproductive freedom. I'm not sure you understood my point about "policies vs vibes." If you'd like to understand what my position actually is before encouraging me to be a libertarian, I would encourage you to quote things I say directly. You are casting me as somehow ignorant of leftist "equity obsession" or that I am somehow unaware of libertarianism.
It was this passage which led me to conclude that you would prefer to see "the lower classes" reproduce less, prefer people to engage in eugenics ("embryo selection"), etc.:
"I am hopeful that technology can shake up some of the most perverse lies and dogmas that weigh down our civilization. We spend an incredible amount of money on the bottom 60% of the population which pays no taxes at all. This population, uneducated, lazy, or senile, is growing. Because this growing class of dependents can vote, democracy incentivizes unlimited parasitism.
It is the right which prohibits abortion. It is the right which protests against embryo selection, IVF, and euthanasia. It is the right now which is pushing for “pro-family policies,” housing subsidies, natalism, and population growth. It objects to immigration on the grounds that “without immigration, housing would be cheaper, and the working class could have more kids!” This is replacing one problem with another."
If you don't support those things, then yeah I guess I just read it wrong. I was looking for anywhere in the essay where you took any real policy positions as opposed to stating different variants of "right wingers are badmeanwrongevilstupid," since I don't have much to say in regards to the latter (as you note, that's just a personal value judgment). The only other one that I see is that you seem to be anti-immigration, but I largely agree with your point that the right doesn't seem to be all that serious about curtailing immigration so there's not a real choice on that issue.
If you're primarily concerned with people having freedom, then I guess I'd ask why are you a leftist and not a libertarian? I get the whole "lesser of two evils" perspective, but I come away from the essay having little conception of which policies you'd actually prefer, if you could vote based on that rather than feeling compelled to merely vote against the fringe that upsets you more.
I think you are falsely equating support for reproductive rights with eugenics. That's typical of the Alex Jones right. Try ctrl-F eugenics and you will find my comments on it directly. It's fine if you think I am a satanist, and you can denounce my beliefs as evil. I don't dispute that you and I have different values which makes it difficult to have a good faith discussion.
For my own personal allegiance, I feel that eugenics is not an effective political or social movement toward achieving my goal of reproductive freedom. Leftism is. I have no desire to ban interracial marriage or put people in concentration camps. That's what eugenics means effectively, and I have no interest in it.
Libertarianism is not an option in my opinion. It's a two party system. I have no hope that libertarians are going to seize power and implement policies that I like. They are institutionally anti-war and against Ukraine, for example. I do have a hope that Democrats can achieve real concrete policy improvements.
They are institutionally anti-war and against Ukraine, for example.
I wouldn’t say they’re institutional anti-war.
It’s just that the loudly obnoxious pacifist minority is making a lot of noise.
Unfortunately, small dedicated minorities drive and define political parties.
The pacifist minority doesn't have that kind of institutional power.
Remember, Wilson and FDR promised to keep America out of the wars. The thing is war can be interested in you, whether or not your interested in it.
Embryo selection explicitly *is* eugenics though, is it not? Unless I'm just misunderstanding the practice somehow. I don't think you are a satanist lol. I do think embryo selection is evil, along with other things that are considered "reproductive freedom," but I don't think that means we must speak to each other in bad faith. I apologize if you think I'm attacking you, I am mostly speaking from curiosity here, not condemnation.
I get that it's a two-party system, but there is a difference between strategic voting and underlying preferences. Even if I was a libertarian myself, I would definitely vote for one of the two major parties due to the structural nature of the winner-take-all system, but I might do so while holding policy preferences that differ significantly from the candidate I'm voting for.
Support for Ukraine does point to an issue where libertarians depart from leftists. What do you think about Israel? That one seems to be a bit of an inverse of Ukraine, with Republicans much more likely to support Israel while the left increasingly supports Hamas and Iran.
Israel is a complicated issue about which I have to write more, but it is even more difficult for me to be heard accurately on that issue, since both sides are quick to misinterpret. I think both sides neglect the fact that Israel is extremely polarized internally and does not have a future under "democracy."
He dodged the eugenics bit.
Yes, likely because opposing eugenics poses an inherent contradiction with support for "reproductive healthcare." If you allow the willful killing of children, *of course* some people will use that for eugenic purposes. A consistent anti-life perspective will recognize this and embrace it. As someone who is pro-life, I generally oppose eugenics for this same reason--eugenic practices are largely incompatible with respect for human life.
I literally use the word eugenics in the article.
> Libertarianism is not an option in my opinion. It's a two party system.
But you just argued for being on the left because you can work within the system to change it. I'm deeply skeptical about that possibility personally, but it's clearly true that libertarians have a long history of working within the right wing parties in the anglosphere to make them more libertarian, hence Tea Party, RINOs, etc. Trump if anything is a corrective to that trend, where the non-libertarians rallied around him in order to kick the libertarians out and restore their influence to something more approximating their true numbers, replacing it with more popular, er, populism.
And I think you underestimate the chances of being rapidly cancelled by the left if you gained any prominence. Saying lots of very un-woke things whilst claiming to be on the left doesn't work.
I never said “the left would never cancel me.” I’m not sure why this piece inspired so many strawmen.
You said this: Intelligent right-wingers seem to be inevitably persecuted by the loud and noxious minority which plagues that “community.” While I am open to having my ideas challenged by my opponents, I am also grateful that I am not constantly under attack “by my own side.”
You're not under attack by the left because you're an anon of no consequence and they probably don't know you exist, not because of some kind of moral superiority of the left. You also seemed to assert that people are trying to get Alex cancelled, but the only evidence for this was comments expressing disagreement with you. Actual cancellation attempts of the left wing form looks like running to YouTube to try and get Alex's channel banned, not posting measured disagreement in a comments section.
"I come away from the essay having little conception of which policies you'd actually prefer"
I list them in the article, but I will repeat myself:
Foreign policy (Ukraine)
Reproductive rights
Institutionalism (conspiracy theories and riots)
Pro-science
Right, I was looking for this stuff because I don't really consider you a leftist, so I found it odd that you identify as such and even wrote this whole article on why. I would classify you as a centrist or some other label which doesn't fit neatly within the left-right dichotomy. I'm not sure if the left would really accept you as one of its own, not the woke left at least (which seems to be the ascendant part of it). Here on your Substack it seems like you engage primarily with right wingers and centrists/"politically homeless"/etc.
I think I'd put you in this bucket: https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-lives-in-reality-caucus
I don't believe in centrism, I suppose I need to write that article as well.
Did you write this?
Wokism is over. https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/dreams-that-didnt-come-true
Make a material prediction. Less transgender surgery next year?
You mischaracterize the right - at least in America - to suit your predispositions.
In 2020, Trump won people making +$100k by 12 points and lost those making less than $50k by 11 pts. He won married people by 6 and lost unmarried by 18.
“The right” in America are not a bunch of toothless hillbillies - they’re the white middle class. And to the extent the dastardly esoteric Hitlerites exist as a political coalition, I would be shocked if they were, as a group, not significantly better educated and compensated than the median citizen.
That you are occasionally subjected to Alex Jones-tier conspiracists in the comments does not outweigh clear statistical data on the composition of the American political coalitions.
Trump won 46% of voters making under $30k per year. Here's sources:
https://www.businessinsider.com/2016-2020-electoral-maps-exit-polls-compared-2020-11
"By 2016, the Republican Party won almost twice the share of votes in the nation’s most destitute counties — home to the poorest 10 percent of Americans — than it won in the richest."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/27/business/economy/republican-party-voters-income.html
Interesting that you're on the left but acknowledge that he's getting the poor folk vote.
Anyway something for us to talk about when we do the interview! (Thinking October some time.)
The “who wins rich counties” argument is dumb for the same reason those maps showing huge swaths of red and tiny islands of blue is dumb and I wouldn’t have expected you to sink to that kind of hackery. As I’m reliably informed, neither counties nor land vote.
Who is Vance appealing to?
The right includes toothless hillbillies with money, and leftist intellectuals resent them for it.
There are right-wingers with money, but they are not toothless hillbillies, they are Catholic lawyers who live in Dallas.
To the left elites these are the same.
As a self appointed elite I say they are not
Esoteric Hitlerites are usually third generation immigrants.
The author has managed to combine one of the worst things about the far-right: its distaste for the weak, the stupid and the poor; with the worst aspect of the left: its obsession with personal autonomy and self-fulfillment. I for one want to live in a society which ensures a good life for the weak, the old, the vulnerable and the stupid, and treats no one as useless eaters. I want to live in a society which makes it easier to live a moral life, rather than letting people slip into self-destruction.
"I want a society that combines stupidity and poverty with authoritarianism and tyranny." lol
"I want a society that combines selfish egoism and cruelty with disorder and immorality." lol
When two people share no fundamental values discussion is impossible. The society you see as good I see as evil, and the society that you see as evil I see as good. Further discussion is useless.
True, your initial post was merely a moral outburst on your part. Go smash some more Roman statues.
As was yours.
Go work some poors to death.
I'm not motivated by moral outburst. You can't distinguish between a calm elucidation of facts and resentful iconoclasm. Do better.
I don't even necessarily disagree with your facts. I disagree with the values you believe in. I don't believe intelligence is more valuable than any other virtue. I do not believe smart people matter more than stupid people. I believe that everyone in society has infinite value, and that society ought to concern itself with the well being of everyone. How is this a disagreement on fact?
you make some good points in the article, but it seems your idea of the “right wing” comes from the discourse of fringe posters and factions online that have no real world manifestation or organization. the ideas you criticize certainly exist out there but there is a wide gulf between those ideas and your average right wing or republican voter. in other words, it’s a straw man argument. in my view, the extremist ideologues amongst the far-left have a much greater influence on the party platform and policy than anyone considered a white nationalist or a Nietzschian vitalist. surely you see the difference between the populist movements than have arisen in the last decade and the wacked out fringe of Q-Anon or Christian Nationalists.
I live in Texas and know a fair amount of Trump voters. none of them are motivated by hardcore ideology. most are just conservative with a mix of libertarians or disaffected liberals.
I disagree that the majority matters at all. I think politics is driven by fanatic minorities, not moderate majorities.
ok fair enough, but politics is driven by more influences than just ideas. in fact, the direction of much of politics and the fate of nations has more to do with the monied interests of an elite few than any ideologues. for instance, only a few years ago the Democratic party was overtaken with the “woke” after the death of Floyd where we saw entire state governments and more rush to mainstream the fringe ideologies of the anti-racist left virtually overnight (defund the police, DEI in corporate America and government, woke media coverage etc). cut to the present moment and now to the DNC convention where they lionized Walz as the new masculine as well as touting a robust, lethal military with very little identity politics. my point is that ideology is only as influential as it is useful to the ruling class and the powers that be. most of the time it is a pretty glove around the raw fist of power.
The paragraph you just wrote seems to support my leftism much better than the Republican Party, not sure what you're trying to convince me of.
I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m just trying to have a discussion.
Biden didn't run on border security or putting a Republican in his cabinet, feel free to correct me with some sources.
You don't like government spending or vaccines or lockdowns or LGBTQ, and your solution is... Trump 2024!
Another intelligent leftist. That makes two (the other one I know about is Freddie DeBoer). I disagree mostly, but ... subscribed.
Noah smith is usually readable
'Trump is never going to become sane and restrict immigration, and the left is never going to get rid of the pronouns. These are the realities of living in a fallen world. Choose your poison. I’ve chosen mine...'
fair enough
The civil religion of the left results in bill gates daughter dating a black rapper. If the right is now adopting such norms, it is because the norms of the left eventually trickle down to the conservatives. Eunuchs don’t directly engage in that behavior, but tend to be the most fanatical in upholding those norms. Richard Hannia thinks that if he sucks up to Kamala on every other possible issue, perhaps the liberals will see the light on HBD. Yet in reality, when liberals are presented with Donald trump in 2016, who was running in the democratic platform from 40 years ago rather than any genuine extremism, their reaction has been murderous. There is no incremental solution that coincides with liberals remaining in power.
The failure of “white nationalism” is in considering WASPs friendly. Liberal WASP elites have done more to try and eradicate Europeans from the world than any other group. Considering this includes themselves, one could conclude WASPs are some of the most duplicitous and evil elites to have ever existed. Yet one must work with them because they conquered the world.
Name this "black rapper."
Robert Ross according to imdb.
I appreciate the citation. They broke up 10 months ago:
https://www.instagram.com/hiphopties/p/CywQUrzStRJ/
I am not sure why people are so interested in informing me that Richard Hanania is not going to redpill liberals on race, as that has nothing to do with my article.
You correctly claim that MAGA and conservative populations have an influx of multiracial pairings or black focused groups and individuals . I believe that this is not a phenomenon distinct to or caused by conservative media. The democrats push openly for all this in their propaganda, and it seems to me like the elite only have marginally more resistance to overcoming this propaganda, especially when it comes to their children.
You argue in the article it is more compelling to try and work with elite democrats than submitting to lowly MAGA peasants and incels. Hanania is a guy who has been trying to do this for quite a long time. His attempts to seduce certain liberal elites on this topic show how much effort it would take to change the minds of progressive elites on race. It is terribly unrealistic to even contemplate.
You said that Hanania is trying to redpill elites on race realism. I am not. Not sure what your criticism of me is.
If you see the black / multiracial turn of conservatives as a bad thing, then giving more power to democrats gives them even more legroom to ratchet up their race politics to make things even worse, indefinitely. “Unless they were redpilled”, say some optimists.
There are probably house reps and Silicon Valley people who think he’s legit on some topics
Well, this has been popping up on my feed for the past few days so clearly it's going a bit viral... 36 likes and 101 comments? Oof. You make many good points in this article, but many that I also have to contest.
>Socrates, in his time, was accused of “corrupting the youth,” which seems to be the charge against me, “a proponent of man made horrors beyond our comprehension.” What did I say that was so wrong? Am I really that scary?
Well, Socrates was really killed because of his association with the Tyrants. The charges were just window dressing. I get that wordcellin' is a difficult job though. We respect our wordcels here!
>The Spartan Krypteia ritualistically humiliated the Helots by harassing, raping, murdering, and torturing them. Athenian schoolmasters sexually abused young boys or teenagers as a symbol of the unlimited power of the pedagogue. American slave masters whipped their slaves, and worse.
Ehh, I know we like to meme about Buck Breaking but it is obviously one of those "Black conspiracies" you talk about earlier. Same with other cherrypicked, unreliable nonsense like "The Delectable Negro". White slaveowners were, all things considered, very good to their slaves compared to pretty much every other society that has relied on mass agricultural slavery. They taught them the Bible, they encouraged families, and they had a tendency to support and eventually free their illegitimate mulatto children that is seldom talked about. Also, I wouldn't call the pederastic element to Athenian schools quite as rapey as you describe it. Firstly, as BAP points out, most pederastic relationships were much closer in age than people think. Usually the younger party was in their late teens, while the older party was in their early or mid 20s. Secondly, pederasty was certainly not a humiliation ritual, which is why Greek norms forbade elements of homosexuality which were considered particularly humiliating such as sodomy. The practice of pederasty seems to emerge in societies which are very harshly sex-segregated, which Greece was (except for Sparta, but maybe that's why the Spartans frowned upon sexual variants of pederasty). But Greek pederasty was less sadistic than the sort of things Turks do where they rape male prisoners (ex: Lawrence of Arabia) and have eunuch concubines.
>Whereas WASPs were 90% of Americans in 1776, and probably 80% during the Civil War, they quickly declined to less than 50% of the population by WWII, and now represent less than 20%.
Depends on how much you want to purity spiral. Americans are mostly mixed with other European groups now, but if you took every White person's DNA and averaged it together, you'd get something very close to an Englishman. This is because most people underreport English or Old Stock heritage, they identify with their most recent immigrant ancestry.
>Of course, most right-wingers are economically impoverished, psychologically jilted, vengeful, resentful, and downwardly mobile. They don’t have the capacity to join the elite, even if they wanted to. Since they feel that their future is hopeless, they seek to burn the system down, joker style.
Either you've been listening to too much Banania, or interacting with too much wignats. Right-wingers are slightly stupider on average than Libs, but they are far less mentally ill, vengeful, and resentful. There are plenty of right-wingers in the elites, they're just all old people. The young elite is liberal, but young people in general are also liberal, and young elites are just towing the generational line.
>They claim that Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Gates, the Walton family, and the Koch family have either all been “tricked and fooled,” or they are part of a Jewish conspiracy, or they are pedophile lizard people in league with Satan. No one hates wealthy, smart WASPs more than the right wing.
Bezos and the Kochs are ethnics, and Bill Gates is self-made. Hardly prime examples of "Boston Brahmins", albeit those types are extremely Liberal. My understanding has always been that WASPs are just sort of aloof from politics, they sort of just do their own thing. But there is the other explanation of the descendants of Puritans being Puritanical, and the current Puritanism being Leftism. Maybe that's why WASPs everywhere else in the country are the most Republican, but in New England are uber-Libs.
>During the feudal era, elites genetically and biologically replaced the lower classes. They did this by using peasants as farm equipment, or oxen, forcing them to till the fields. They hoarded wealth for themselves, allowing peasants to go hungry and die during famine, while preserving themselves.
This is correct, but I think you're exaggerating a bit. First of all, elites didn't force peasants to do anything. Peasants lived on elite land and grew crops on elite land. Elites simply demanded some of those crops as a fee for allowing peasants to use their land and rely on the protection of the Lord and his knights. Secondly, being an aristocrat in the middle ages was actually insanely deadly. Aristocrats in the early modern period actually had a lower life expectancy than the middle class (or what existed of it) because they were constantly fighting in war. Yes, having plate armor and a horse helped a lot in this regard, but this didn't help if you got a disease and died (very common among soldiers). While many peasants were conscripted into war, they fought at a lesser rate than the aristocracy and furthermore they had a lot to gain from war -- they could become somewhat wealthy by looting and maybe even kidnap some girl to be their wife if we're talking about the right time period.
>The right is schizophrenically fractured. Eugenicists really think that hitching their bandwagon to Nick Fuentes will someday pay off. In any case, the dominant religious forces among the right are not eugenicists, but Alex Jones and Pope Francis. The left, by contrast, supports all the policies which allow for a return to historically normal population trend, where the lower classes are gradually replaced.
Hmm, I think you have some misconceptions about what policies are and aren't eugenic. Abortion is not eugenic -- despite the reputation that abortions are something poor people get, they usually can't afford them and the amount of high IQ children lost to abortion is more significant because the number of high IQ children being birthed is already lower. The only sense in which abortion is eugenic is insofar as Black people get a lot of them. Which isn't really something I would call "eugenics", since eugenics really deals with managing heritable traits on an individual level/within a population.
Hypergamy is also not eugenic. Remember that when you date low-bred women with high-bred men, you're still getting the genes of low-bred women. And yes, men do have more mutations, so perhaps in the case of the cream of the crop it is good for men to have many wives, but women are also frankly quite bad at selection. They often select for negative traits like "dark triad" personality, and I've even heard that women actually select for obesity (probably not "high status" women doing this stuff, but if you're only looking at what high status women select then you're not pro-hypergamy).
Hypergamy is also so socially corrosive that whatever slight eugenic effect there is to it is blotted out by the negative consequences. This isn't even pointing out that hypergamy leads to a decisive advantage for men as they get older, which encourages delaying one's fertility to a point where it is dysgenic simply due to the paternal age.
>Most LGBTQ people are politically conformist and are happy to support “the current thing.” As someone who is invested in the political stability of the country, I have no problem with eunuchs running around on Grindr, so long as they don’t actively sympathize with our foreign enemies and try to blow up our federal buildings. That’s more a problem on the right, not the left.
Why do you place so much weight in a few crazies who blow up federal buildings? It is much more socially disruptive and destabilizing when Black people burn down a bunch of homes and businesses even if 90% of those homes and businesses are Black, because this generates an image of weakness on the federal government and the federal government's power comes from an image of strength. Meanwhile, when some crazy attacks feds it just garners support to the feds on the grounds of sympathy. Also, gay people just suck and kill the vibe. And they'll get you in trouble if you point out that they kill the vibe. No other particular reason necessary to not like them.
Substack told me to write a shorter comment, so I'll split this into two comments. The second one will be a reply to this one.
Part 2/2
>On the other hand, I have no place in a right wing defined by white nationalism at the fringes. It is easy enough to declare it to be “axiomatically immoral” and be done with it. White nationalists are a hodgepodge as diverse as any other fake identity group
I would contend that White Nationalism (Arguably even White Supremacy) is actually the spirit of America. Racialism, not Egalitarianism, is the ultimate brain child of the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, an attempt to fit humans into scientific quantifiable categories rather than guesstimating based on language or religion. Yes, there tended to be a partiality towards the Anglo, and even as a non-Anglo I believe there should be, but the extent to which America was viewed as an exclusively Anglo-Saxon project is exaggerated heavily by a lot of historians who rely mostly on anecdotal evidence. If you simply look at the political processes, marriage rates, and legal rulings of the first century and a half of our country, it paints a different picture.
>The worst of them believe that “mere whiteness” is a historically tenable identity; that the cultural distinctions between Anglo-Saxons and Germans are irrelevant; that the religious distinctions between Episcopalians and Baptists is meaningless; that all 800 million white people on planet earth are part of one big happy family with biologically determined interests, and it is only the Jews who have conspired to keep them apart. Prior to Jews, whites lived in a Garden of Eden, never engaging in warfare against each other, hugging and kissing in harmony.
No, I don't think any White Nationalists believe this unless they are profoundly mentally retarded. They are simply recognizing that White Nationalism makes the most sense in the context of America, or really with respect to general conflicts between Europeans and Non-Europeans. Think of the Greeks. Just because they all recognized that they ought to unite at certain times (ex: Panhellenic Games, Persian War, Trojan War) they also constantly fought with each other and proclaimed their superiority over each other. One can hope Europe could reach a similar state, but in America the notion of Whiteness has existed from the very start.
>It is the right which prohibits abortion. It is the right which protests against embryo selection, IVF, and euthanasia. It is the right now which is pushing for “pro-family policies,” housing subsidies, natalism, and population growth. It objects to immigration on the grounds that “without immigration, housing would be cheaper, and the working class could have more kids!” This is replacing one problem with another.
Again, abortion is not eugenic. Secondly, IVF is obviously dysgenic even if you do genetic screening like the Israelis do. People who cannot naturally have kids should not be allowed to have kids unless they can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the reason they cannot have kids has nothing to do with their genes. Also, a lot of high IQ white people also get their jobs taken by immigrants, particularly in the tech sector.
>The left prior to Marx is filled with luminaries and revolutionaries, whether one considers Zoroaster, Plato, Christ, Caesar, William of Ockham, Machiavelli, Voltaire, or Napoleon.
I know what you're doing here, trying to demonstrate how unique your idea of the left is. I don't think it works. Leftism is really quite distinct. There is no such thing as "rightism" but there is such a thing as "Leftism" because Leftism comes directly from certain thinkers of the past 200 years. You can call Voltaire or Rousseau or Locke antecedents to Leftism but I don't really think you can call them leftists. Napoleon is obviously a traitor to the Revolution, he had himself crowned Caesar and tried to establish his family as royalty. Maybe in the context of Louis he is a leftist, but perhaps I could counter you and actually claim that Absolutism is left-wing... HMM!?!?!?? Dangerous topic... Julius Caesar... You know, I'm kind of with you, Caesar was kind of a shitlib in certain ways. Augustus was very based and redpilled though. Zoroaster was not a leftist. Jesus Christ was also not a leftist, and I know given my pagan background you would expect me to call him a leftist, but Jesus was really not into politics. William of Ockham was not a leftist. Going and blaming everything on nominalism is silly, none of that stuff really causes someone's political opinions. Unless there's something about Ockham I'm missing.
>[image of chudjak screaming hysterically]
I look like that and I do that.
I agree that Southern slavery was probably less harsh than Helotry. I agree that most pederasty was between teenagers and Athenian men. I agree that it wasn't as brutal as rape itself -- sexual abuse is a legal term in America in 2024. Regarding the genetic argument, I don't buy it, because I think lineage is a story of who you are, not a mishmash of genes. Regarding the average resentment of right vs left, I suppose I could qualify my statements to mean "people who matter for the future," as in "not old people and not moderates." I wasn't claiming that Gates was a WASP; my sentences including him stand. Regarding peasants, I'm using the term "force" in line with the NAP. I never argued that abortion was "eugenic," I said that forcing women to have kids is both immoral and has bad consequences. I don't think I made one argument in favor of "eugenics" at all. Read my words exactly and literally. I disagree that BLM was worse than January 6th. I agree that white supremacy founded America, and without white supremacy, Americans are currently very confused about what they are (nothing?). I believe that many white nationalists are, in fact, "profoundly mentally retarded." I never once argued that abortion was eugenic, I don't know why you and others keep saying I'm wrong when I never claimed this. Voltaire was a leftist.
> I agree that it wasn't as brutal as rape itself -- sexual abuse is a legal term in America in 2024
Well, yes, but my main point is that it was not done out of a desire to humiliate.
> Regarding the genetic argument, I don't buy it, because I think lineage is a story of who you are, not a mishmash of genes.
Sorry, which part is this in reference to?
>I'm using the term "force" in line with the NAP. I never argued that abortion was "eugenic," I said that forcing women to have kids is both immoral and has bad consequences.
I assumed you meant it was dysgenic based on the surrounding context, my bad. Abortion might have bad consequences but it is quite unambiguously morally depraved to kill your own child for no particular reason. Doing it because they’re retarded and won’t live long or healthily anyways is one thing, doing it because you can’t afford a child is one thing (applies to practically no one in the modern west, although maybe it should) but doing it because you have “career ambitions” is pretty terrible. Does this mean it should be illegal? Ehh, not sure. But I understand why people don’t want their tax dollars going to it. And it’s really only when the government hands it out for free does it even have a chance of being eugenic. I certainly do having a bleeding heart for the women who are afraid of being forced to have consequences for their actions. Maybe I’m just a dark chudcel though
> I don't think I made one argument in favor of "eugenics" at all.
You were spending a lot of time talking about how conservatives want eugenics but then get mad at eugenic policies, and how you want to replicate the eugenic birth patterns of historical society where the elites outbreed the commoners, and how conservatives are dysgenic (stupid, mentally ill) so I assumed you were going for a eugenics angle. I’m not really sure what else you see in these policies, frankly… I think many people assumed this because other people on this app usually make arguments for those things from a eugenix approach and not many people make them from any other sort of approach which still revolves around what is best for social order
> I believe that many white nationalists are, in fact, "profoundly mentally retarded."
Touché.
I think you're misunderstand the term "humiliate" as I am using it in an etymologically archaic sense, meaning "to make humble." Consider this passage from Machiavelli's discourses, Chapter 15:
"After offering solemn sacrifice they caused all the captains of their armies, standing between the slain victims and the smoking altars, to swear never to abandon the war. They then summoned the common soldiers, one by one, and before the same altars, and surrounded by a ring of many centurions with drawn swords, first bound them by oath never to reveal what they might see or hear; and then, after imprecating the divine wrath, and reciting the most terrible incantations, made them vow and swear to the gods, as they would not have a curse light on their race and offspring, to follow wherever their captains led, never to turn back from battle, and to put any they saw turn back to death. Some who in their terror declined to swear, were forthwith slain by the centurions."
Were the soldiers humiliated? Not in a modern colloquial sense, but in the sense of "having their honor threatened, being threatened with guilt in shame," then yes. That is how I am using the term. So while teenage boys may have not felt "guilt and shame" from being sexually abused (or loved as you call it), they certainly felt a new sense of "not wanting to let their lover down," as in the case of the Sacred Band of Thebes. This is the core of institutional humiliation. What we consider today to be humiliation is a subset of this broader phenomenon.
Genetic argument: I don't think German+French = Anglo-Saxon. I think Anglo-Saxon isn't a genetic equation with "equivalents," it is a specific historical lineage. You don't say "well I am northern French and also Swedish, so basically I'm English." You're ignoring the significance of the mainline Protestant tradition which was decimated after WWII.
Eww the republican party increased its share of the black vote by 5%, now I'm gonna got for Kamala! lmao this is such a dumb take.
I didn't talk at all about Republicans getting more of the black vote, strawman harder.
"Mothers who choose to chemically castrate their children have the right to do so. This is more likely to happen among mentally ill families than healthy ones. I have no interest in “saving” the children of mentally ill women."
Why do you support child abuse? I honestly cannot understand your perspective.
Child abuse comes in many forms, and attempting to legislate it worse only perpetuates it, in this specific case. Do you support banning moms telling their sons "I hate you" and verbally abusing them? Or are you a hypocrite?
Mothers telling their sons 'I hate you" does not leave them mutilated or infertile, so I don't think it's a fair comparison.
I think your support for mentally ill mothers who castrate their sons is as bad as supporting mentally ill fathers who rape their daughters.
I disagree.
you are a disgusting faggot
Where's the limit on that policy. Child labor, OK? Child slavery, OK? What things are parents not allowed to do to their offspring, if anything?
You’re asking me to provide you with moral deontology to justify trans kids. I’m speaking pragmatically about political coalitions. Are you a Christian?
No I'm not a Christian. Like many, I'm trying to work out what your views are.
Legislate? Ban? Did someone suggest these as the answer?
The answer is to shun those who abuse others (of any age) while offering asylum to the abused. Personally. No government involvement ever made anything better overall.
Patriarchy emotionally stunts everyone, women very much included. That's not an excuse for their behavior; it's just a statement of the root of the problem. Remove it, and we will find that this kind of thing just doesn't happen.
Perhaps the source of your misunderstanding is a lack of desire to understand. Can you not differentiate between letting people make choices and “supporting” those choices?
Engaging post. A few scattered takes:
1) "Expand or die" is usually not advisable. The Venetian Republic, an example of a Ferengi-like mercantile state, lasted for over a thousand years in part by prudently calculating when it was wise to expand and when it was wise to pull back. On the other hand, history is littered with reckless, self-destructive attempts at expansion. We Americans had a severe cardiac arrest after our predatory conquest of half of Mexico; indigestion from new lands caused the slavery issue to boil over. The most infamous example? Germany's exterminationist expansion attempt eastward led to its fast demise. These cases can be multiplied endlessly to complicate any Nietzschean vision of grand politics. While expansionism is sublime, it often is a fire that burns out quickly.
2) When understanding conservatism, watch what they do, not what they say. It is vital to parse the opportunistic core from the extravagant performance art. Strip a conservative of the clothing of White nationalism, Catholic monarchy, or whatever nonsense they cook up next, and you'll generally find a venal interest underneath. The apocalyptic scenarios justify the opportunism; the opportunism motivates the apocalyptic scenarios. Its spiritual essence was captured in Stendhal's novel The Red and the Black, where mediocre people in restorationist France, boasting that they were more Catholic than the Pope, engaged in all sorts of low, careerist, insincere behavior. Liberalism, in contrast, is a comparatively prosaic and earnest doctrine; it finds sublimity in human achievement.
3) The United States currently has elites but does not have an elite. (This is why we have problems with Russians, Israelis, and other foreign actors interfering with our democracy. No one is behind the wheel!) To be an elite, an elite needs to be self-conscious of itself as a unity -- this implies duties and obligations, a paternalist awareness of one's responsibilities, and a genteel system of decorum that paradigmatically sets manners, style, and behavior for others. The South once had an aspirational elite, but that world was obliterated long ago. The character of current American elites is typically career-seeking, vulgar, and bourgeois.
4) The Portuguese writer Bruno Maçães, in his book History has Begun, speculated that America is becoming its own civilization with a different spirit from Europe. He synthesized ideas from Boorstin, Tocqueville, Frederick Jackson Turner, and others, arguing that everyone is free to make up their own reality in America. Modern conservatism is not much different from progressive wokeness in that it is pure make-believe. Credo quia absurdum. People believe narratives about themselves and others precisely because they are false. The conservatard who thinks Bill Gates is developing vaccines so he can inject nanobots into your body so that the deep state can control you with 5G towers is not much different than someone who thinks they metaphysically are something because they verbally identify as that something. This is a dumbass American phenomenon, not something particular to liberalism or conservatism.
5) Globally, there is an emerging collective consciousness among professionals -- doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc. who understand what it means to act as a professional. Conservatives misuse "elitism" to refer to this class because, while politics is a dirty business, reactionary opportunists don't like honesty or integrity in principle. The Tuckers and Tim Pools of the world would rather live in a Putin-like autocracy where bullshitting is rewarded.
6) Humiliating others is something to avoid unless one wants to multiply enemies or convert temporarily annoyed people into permanent enemies. When someone is in charge of something and wants to increase their prestige and influence, it is essential to let others save face -- especially when they don't deserve it. Too much sickly Nietzsche and not enough Machiavelli leads to self-ghettoization, as in the case of Richard Spencer. Bertrand Russell, who was an actual aristocrat, remarked about Nietzsche that "Those who do not fear their neighbours see no necessity to tyrannize over them."
7) Elitism is not the beginning nor the end of existence. Compare both sides of my family. On the paternal side, the Bowdens came to the Old Dominion from England after the establishment of the Republic, married into the remnants of the old Tidewater tobacco aristocracy, and remained minor elites, such as judges and mayors and whatnot. On the maternal side, the Pressleys are quiet, respectful hillbilly people. Slave morality? Who has more reach today? Elvis, a distant cousin? Or old names in my family tree like Fauquier, Morton, Pryor, etc.? Does anyone care that Marmaduke Beckwith was a 3rd Baronet in Yorkshire in the 1600s?
8) The new interest in elites is caused by the game of musical chairs caused by Reaganism, which transfers wealth upward and makes most people downwardly mobile in a generational context. Prestige TV in recent decades -- Shogun, Game of Thrones, The Sopranos, Mad Men, Deadwood, etc. -- typically has the theme of climbing the ladder at all costs. (Failure means working in an Amazon warehouse.) This spirit, this culture, is a policy choice and not an artifact of nature.
I will try to write an article in response, but I don't think that would be sufficient. My response is generally, "good point, I agree to an extent." However I think each of your points deserves its own full discussion, which would take probably 8 hours. Let's follow up on this.
Bruno Maçães seems very interesting and to explain a lot. As you may know, René Girard's (another reader of Tocqueville) Deceit, Desire and the Novel gives a singular perspective on your points 2 and 3.
Regarding 3, he suggests a shift from "external mediation" to "internal mediation", coinciding with the aristocracys loss of legitimacy (and virtue).
Regarding 2, he speaks of Julien Sorel's "political atheism." For Girard, Julien appreciates M. De Renal's political conversion as someone appreciates a returning musical motif. This is revealed by the smile Stendhal places on Julien's face. It is ultimately the same "mimetic" gravitation which leads her to one camp and to the other.
And, to clarify, the mimetic gravitations of 3 follow from 2.
*2 from 3
"The Portuguese writer Bruno Maçães, in his book History has Begun, speculated that America is becoming its own civilization with a different spirit from Europe. He synthesized ideas from Boorstin, Tocqueville, Frederick Jackson Turner, and others, arguing that everyone is free to make up their own reality in America. Modern conservatism is not much different from progressive wokeness in that it is pure make-believe..."
Just one bit from your substantive comment. Yea Maceas was interesting. I say was because I'd heard from him or about him in 2021 and 2022 but he seems to have fallen off the map since. He approves of the make-believe though, iirc.
And Richard Hanania, as much as he shits on normies, he believes one thing that's great about elites is that they are more idealistic. But when does idealism transform into the world of bullshit make-believe?
"Prestige TV in recent decades -- Shogun, Game of Thrones, The Sopranos, Mad Men, Deadwood, etc. -- typically has the theme of climbing the ladder at all costs. (Failure means working in an Amazon warehouse.) This spirit, this culture, is a policy choice and not an artifact of nature..."
I don't know how much one can really get around the notion of pulling yourself up by your proverbial bootstraps and striving like hell. You hear it in left form too, as in a responsibility to at least aim for revolution. Trotksy had a hell of a work ethic.
The liberty-pilled negative rights striving of American culture long predates Reagan, as well.
Negative rights come from Isaiah Berlin and are an artifact of the Cold War.
America was built on the American system of Hamilton, Carey, and List, where massive tariff walls and state involvement in infrastructure and research and development were used to develop a giant manufacturing base. The Morrill tariff, for example, allowed the United States to establish a university system; the Pacific Railroad Act made the Transcontinental Railroad happen, etc. The alternative was the free trade of slavocracy, which wanted the United States to remain a dependency of the UK (the first phase of the Industrial Revolution was textile-based) by exporting cotton using slave labor, a special interpretation of liberty with few adherents today. Rhetorically, I agree with Trump here, though, in practice, the man is aligned with international finance and talks populist for the grugs.
If trump is aligned to international finance it has been a recent change. His presidential term killed the TPP and saw immigration decline.
How much did Mellon contribute to Trump so far this cycle? I think it is $75,000,000.00.
Immigration temporarily dipped because of Covid. The wall is a farce, and Trump isn't going to do anything that resolves the problem, like a national ID card. Remember this when 2029 rolls around.
Immigration dropped during trumps term before Covid. A wall was never really necessary, as we are seeing that immigrants are mostly controlled through carrots and not sticks.
This isn't really the left, this is some kind of liberal centrism.
I'll write an article in response to you.
Wow, thanks
"Christ is the Logos". According to the English Bible, yes. "The word was God and the word was with God" as it says at the outset of the book of John.
Something funny about all that though. The thing that is default doesn't need a word until its opposition - or you could say its "adversary"/Satan - arises. Adam names the animals in the garden and this establishes male dominionism within the doctrine. One must know a demon's name to summon it. Demons work for that Satan dude, according to the popular mythos. Men love nothing more than naming things after themselves and sometimes after the people that belong to them.
There's something off in all that. If anything, we'd be better off for dudes shutting up some more. Yet here they are, obsessed with the logos and its application according to their desires.
Anyway, pretty much everything you've said about the right is true. That said, do you really not see that both sides are equally fvvccked? That both wings belong to the same bird? When you join a party, you are a rod bound together with a bunch of other rods to create the fasci. That root word, ofc, reveals the true meaning of fascism, and it isn't only a description of the right. It's a description of both sides, as both use this tactic.
Give anarchism a chance. Anarchy just means "no rulers" (greek). We don't need to be ruled. Adults can take responsibility for our actions without some government goon standing over us. In fact, we do it much better without them.
Ofc, not being ruled means giving up any gods one may have served before. That is often the toughest hurdle for the religious, but I can assure you as one who has done it ..
IT'S WORTH IT.
We can remove the bloodlines from power. All we have to do is get about 8 out of every 100 people on board. It's totally achievable. Let's do that and then everyone will truly be free to choose for themselves how to be. Then they will receive the natural consequences of their respective actions, good and bad. That's the world we want and the world we need.
I don't believe in popular revolts. You don't have any common ideology to unite people outside of resentment of elites.
Don't believe in? Honey, it's not Santa Claus. It's history. The common ideology is anarchy. In other words, no rulership.
Yes, intelligent people resent those financial criminals who have stolen the value of our currency from us for their own benefit. That's how using your brain works.
You are a slave. We are the same in this way. Your masters laugh at you as you willingly serve them.
Resistance is snowballing and there's no way to stop it now. Those who choose the wrong side are about to realize the overwhelming severity of their mistake.
Couldn’t even get a third through this aimless mush.
thanks for your engagement, really helps with the visibility
You make soke interesting points here that I'll be thinking about. That said, there were a few places I found myself disagreeing on the facts.
For ohe left is much more hostile to embryo selection than the right is. While I'd agree the status of IVF on the right is more fragile than it is on the left, the consensus for now is in favor.
You say also that deep right's logic leads to white supremacy. I think this might be true for you, as an atheist and utilitarian? The only other viable endpoint for those is libertarianism, and they are a dead force these days. But if you were able to relax either commitment, you would have other options, because right is much more ideologically diverse than the left. In particular, the right is the only current home of anyone whose morality includes virtue/aristotelian/teleological concerns. I think that *your* morality has those concerns, given the way you call trans people eunuchs. This may be worth some introspection for you, and I'd be happy to talk about it, having been through the same myself.
The immigration point is... I wish you weren't right. We have no good choices.
I agree with you that within a Christian framework, white nationalism is not the evitable conclusion of the right. Unfortunately, Christianity seems to be headed on the way out. I'll DM you regarding a conversation.
>For ohe left is much more hostile to embryo selection than the right is. While I'd agree the status of IVF on the right is more fragile than it is on the left, the consensus for now is in favor.<
Correct. Right now the left is pro-IVF and vice versa because everyone is obsessed with abortion. As soon as reproductive technology is used for actual eugenics, the left will turn against it, hard. A lot of conservatives will as well, I might even be one of them. But the "vitalist" and "techno optimist" types who will be most likely to support that stuff will clearly end up being more right-aligned than left, if only due to sheer political necessity. No matter how many chuds there are calling you a Jew in the comments, the fact is that the right will still tolerate your existence in a way that the left will not. The left will simply unperson you.
Richard Hanania is a perfect example of this--despite spending most of his energy shitting on right wingers, leftists still refuse to associate with him because he doesn't toe the line on black people. No amount of insults aimed at Trump voters will ever make him a person again and allow him to re-enter mainstream liberal institutions. The only way he could ever do that would be to renounce his HBD views.
“I might even be one of them.“ horrible-you must he disenfranchised
For god’s sake people it’s “Toe the line”. OP made the same error right after he finished bragging about Jj’s verbal IQ.
@readingrainbow Did I mess up the phrase "toe the line?" If so, can you quote me so I can correct it?
edit: found it! Thank you.
his, not Jj’s
“I enjoy speaking with people with whom I disagree. Many rightists are unable to understand “. That’s gaslighting right there. Progressives refused to go on conservative podcasts. In universities, including my own conservative speakers are effectively banned - the veto coming from violent demonstrations. I’m glad you’re open to conversation. But that is a highly unusual position on the left.