Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer
User ID: 2666
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
I'd like to thank you for posting this, and note that most of this describes the Alaskan Independence Party pretty well too.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
I have discovered, by dint of fucking around, that SwiftKey keyboard for Android allows me to insert em-dashes with relative ease. I'm torn about using them—on one end, they're more expressive than standard hyphens or semi-colons; but on the other, in this climate, that invites accusations of AI writing.
I, for one, find this highly disappointing, because — as many of you probably have noticed — I tend to use em-dashes quite often myself. It's partially a combination of how I was taught to write — particularly in college — and them being rather easy to type on my Mac (option+shift+hyphen, with option+hyphen being the en-dash). But, being the old, new-technology-hating curmudgeon that I am, I will not be changing my writing style because of this.
The second is the question of where did their ideas of purity come from. Was it objective, rational, independent inquiry, or was it just a different strain of meme?
This is where you get to postmodernism — the view that there is no objectivity, it's just warring memes and primate social games all the way down (the wordcel version of "there is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it"), you fight for your tribe and its memes because it's your tribe. For many people, they do not have "principles" or even beliefs, they have a side. (Wasn't that the whole "arguments as soldiers" thing?)
So why such a lack of confidence? Because of the repressed awareness that their own beliefs are merely memetic infections, aka psychological projection.
I'd push back a little here, thinking about both the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and modern online debates, about the memetic competitiveness of ideas on equal versus unequal knowledge bases — a priest is equipped to defeat the "viral memes" of a heretic in the way the lay person is not. Because a "heretic" often knows more about the field of their heresy than the average lay person. To consider items from this forum, the average HBD proponent probably knows a lot more about human genetics than your average "blank slate normie." Or, to go to the "Nazis at a table" analogy, our own resident Holocaust revisionists know a lot more details about the history of the camps than someone who's maybe just watched Schindler's List once.
In fact, I see people on the left make this argument; that between equally well-educated academic experts in a field, the left-wing ideas inevitably win the debate against their rivals — hence the left's near-total dominance of academia — but the ignorant lay people, not so well-armed, end up being led astray down the "far-right radicalization pipeline" by smart-but-evil figures like Jordan Peterson.
By this logic they should be inviting Nazis to their table to convert them away from Nazi-ness.
Except that they do sometimes try to "convert them away from Nazi-ness"… in the matter of an inquisitor (or a fire-and-brimstone Puritan preacher): "Repent your heresy, or suffer the consequences!" And for Puritans in particular, expulsion from the community, shunning from "polite society" is a major part of "consequences." Remember, excommunication is "a medicinal penalty of the Church," intended to bring the offender to reform their behavior, repent, and return to full communion.
(And maybe add in a bit of the disgust/contamination mechanisms behind the concept of "untouchability" that appears in so many cultures — that some people are just so indelibly tainted that anything and anyone they contact will be irreversibly polluted by it, as to why certain people must never be associated with, and anyone who has so associated must be treated as one of them as well. EDIT: see also @Southkraut's comment here.)
"each citizen is an educated adult fully qualified to choose on his own what to think".
Lots of people may profess to believe this when asked directly, but it doesn't really seem all that popular a concept in practice. Plus, as for "free speech," this is also the 'your speech is violence, our violence is speech' and 'free speech does not include "hate speech"' crowds. And social media seems to be eroding people's confidence in "the marketplace of ideas" as well. Again, the woke are more correct than the mainstream, and they're just ahead of the curve on abandoning these false and unworkable positions.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
4d ago
the modern mainstream left seems to model ideas as akin to infectious diseases, which can spread from person to person merely through contact
Yes, but are they really all that wrong to model them — or at least some ideas — that way? I mean, isn't this a key part of why, traditionally, heresy was considered such a serious matter? Doesn't the "contagion" model somewhat follow from Dawkins's original "meme" concept; not to mention previous thinkers like Bernays and McLuhan on mass communications?
I mean, this is probably an area where I'd agree that "the Woke are more correct than the mainstream," and that your moderate centrist (classical liberal) sort are way too dismissive of the potential importance of memetic hygiene.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
4d ago
, and those who did were either immigrants, bohemians, or men old enough to have been around the last time beards were in fashion.
I'll add another to this list, from what I know about my own state from that time period: backwoodsmen. The Alaskan "sourdough" is pretty much never clean-shaven.
In fact, AIUI, facial hair has pretty much always been more common on (non-Native) men here in AK as compared to the rest of the US. And maybe it's that we're a "red state" on top of that, but I don't recall facial hair ever being particularly "left-coded" here, at least within my lifetime — it was more that being clean-shaven was often the sign of a Cheechako (newcomer) and/or military.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
10d ago
And there's little or no calls for expanded reparations programs and land acknowledgements are rather rare; black political activism sucks all the oxygen out of the air for anything like that, and for a lot of people the situation for American Indians is basically "out of sight, out of mind."
Land acknowledgments are becoming slightly more common, but only among progressive activist groups, and essentially never with actual native involvement: there's no American equivalent to "welcome to country."
That may be how it is in the Lower 48, but not so much here in Alaska. At least partially because the [Native corporations](Alaska Native Regional Corporations) serve as loci for activism, as well as helping maintain the individual tribal identities, but also that we have the highest population percent Native at 20.7%, and, further, we already have a precedent for reparations in ANCSA (even if it was meant to settle all such future claims, it hasn't stopped activists from seeking more).
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
11d ago
In short terms (based on my experience), I'd say something like "Blue Tribers who like the movie Idiocracy for being 'so true,'" or "racist Progressives who've figured out they hate Red Tribe 'fellow whites' more than they do blacks or browns."
The first time I ever encountered the term, it was in a Substack essay by a "former white nationalist" who pretty much fit that second description — the moment he got out of his diverse, coastal, urban, Blue Tribe bubble into the >90% white "flyover country" and met his "fellow whites" of the Red Tribe, suddenly he wasn't a "white nationalist" anymore. The essay also went on about how "progressive" his politics were, how they were solidly in the tradition of past progressives like Galton and Sanger, and how eugenics are really the most progressive thing (I'd say he's not wrong about that), and that his "project" to "fix" our politics is about reclaiming "solidly Anglo" progressive eugenics from it's "unfair" association with Nazi Germany. (Meanwhile, I noted that his list of past pro-eugenics "Anglo" progressives that started with Galton included the rather non-Anglo Wernher von Braun.)
Basically, this is one of the places where I agreed with Hlynka, that there's a lot of these sorts who are supposedly on the "far-right." (My primary disagreement with him was always that he held being a "principled loser" as the essence of "the Right," and thus pronounced all atheists — and anyone else who disbelieves in "a future state of rewards and punishments" after death — as automatically and inherently Leftists, and thus The Enemy.)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
12d ago
In practice, feminist journalists always want highly successful men to marry women like themselves.
I'm reminded here of "Sailer's Law of Female Journalism":
The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
20d ago
right wing atheism is hedonic self indulgence.
Well, this right wing atheist isn't exactly generating a bunch of hedons these days, nor indulging in much of anything (except being poor and miserable)…
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
20d ago
Interesting quote; but isn't just copy-pasting a long quote (with a link to source), adding no comment of your own, pretty low-effort for the Motte?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
20d ago
Where are you getting this? I’ve seen zero conservatives squarely blaming men for not getting married.
How much do you hand around old school church-going (Protestant) conservatives — typically age 50+ — IRL? Because that's the main place I've seen it. Also preacher blogs. (And some younger religious conservatives blogging from the Eastern European or Latin American country they moved to.)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
20d ago
It reminds me of the sage, soft-speaking Islamic cleric speaking with profound meaning "democracy means government by the people, of the people, for the people... but the people are retarded"
Point of correction: Rajneesh (AKA Osho, born Chandra Mohan Jain), the man in that video, was an Indian "godman," guru, and founder of the eponymous "Rajneesh movement," which had an intentional community in Oregon in the 80s:
Rajneeshpuram was a religious intentional community in the northwest United States, located in Wasco County, Oregon. Incorporated as a city between 1981 and 1988, its population consisted entirely of Rajneeshees, followers of the spiritual teacher Rajneesh,[1][2][3][4] later known as Osho.[5]
Some of its citizens and leaders were responsible for launching the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attacks, as well as the planned 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot, in which they conspired to assassinate Charles Turner, the United States Attorney for the District of Oregon.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
24d ago
why not just blow it all out in a cocaine-and-hookers weekend
Because those are illegal, I don't know where I'd find them in my area, and don't have the money to afford them anyway?
and then end it with a 9mm breakfast?
Because I'd worry about missing the right spot, and ending up still alive but with seriously incapacitating brain damage — which is why I'm more likely to go with helium and an "exit bag" instead.
And as for why I don't do that, mostly because my family would get stuck with the bill for disposing of my corpse, which exceeds my (SSI-limited) net worth. Once my parents are both gone, though…
Now, you might argue that America's heart wasn't really in it. Is their heart going to be more in it when it's their own homeland they're burning and shelling?
"Outgroup vs. Fargroup" comes to mind here. Fighting a bunch of people on the other side of the world who you are somewhat sympathetic toward, versus fighting the useless, inbred, gap-toothed, room-temperature-IQ, religious fanatic, every -ist and -phobe, Klanazis that make up the hated enemy tribe?
Also, in the GWOT, America's military operated in a foreign land, while their entire support structure, industrial base, and their soldiers' friends and family were perfectly safe on the other side of an ocean.
Which means they had nothing to fear from giving up and going home. When "home" is where you're fighting, it's win-or-die, so the motivation is much stronger.
I don't remember where it was, but I remember a year or two ago reading an editorial online from a retired general, ostensibly about the possibility of civil war in the US (though he ultimately used it to lay out his — IMO ridiculous — position on counter-insurgency), where he gave this as one of the arguments as to why whichever side of a second civil war the military pics simply cannot lose — the US military, since the 20th century, has not been and cannot be defeated, the politicians have merely gotten tired and called it off; but since doing so in a civil war is suicide…
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
25d ago
Human history has been a fairly steady march of increasing liberalism
This is straight-up Whig history, and I am far from alone in rejecting it.
Edit: and now I see IGI-111 laid it all out much better and in more detail below.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
25d ago
Something's gotta give between
- Abstinence until marriage
- Marriage driven by choice and random chance relatively (25+) late in life.
- No fault divorce.
- A healthy sex drive in an individual.
So just get rid of #2 and #3, then.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
25d ago
That Devon Eriksen quote pretty much describes a good portion of my own worldview, and your analogy about mitochondria versus viruses sums up another chunk (indeed, it's a metaphor I use myself from time to time). And I, for one, think #1 is pretty much inevitable, with maybe the slimmest hope of #3 (though I think that to be successful, #3 can't rely on "outbreeding the enemy" alone, and will ultimately have to resort to a superior capacity for violence).
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
25d ago
Healthy cultures are evolved phenomena, and most cultures currently alive are no longer suited to their environments.
This right here is a big part of what makes me a "reactionary" right there. The entire modern world vastly overestimates the capacities of intelligently-designed, top down "culture and education program[s]."
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
25d ago
Cruz also thinks that the Bible requires Christians to support the nation of Israel, which is somewhat non-mainstream in theology: "Where does my support for Israel come from, number 1 we're biblically commanded to support Israel". Tucker tries to ask 'do you mean the government of Israel' and Cruz says the nation of Israel, as if to say it's common-sense that the nation of Israel as referred to in the Bible is the same as the state of Israel today. It seems like he's purposely conflating the dual meanings of nation as ethnic group and nation as state, which is a stupid part of English.
I'm reminded of a video I saw some time ago, where Neema Parvini reacted to a video someone linked him to, of sermonizing by an American preacher of the "dual covenant" variety. The preacher laid out the basic "dual covenant" argument, including the assertion that any other position constitutes a claim that God does not keep all his promises, and is thus rank heresy. He then went on to say things like claiming that in Matthew 25:40, when Jesus said "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me," that by "the least of these brothers and sisters of mine" he clearly meant the Jews, and thus Christians will be judged primarily on how they've treated the Jews. He then further elaborated that this isn't just about not persecuting them or being anti-Semitic, but is about what you've done for the Jews — how much you've given to them, what work you've done to their benefit — and that, come the Day of Judgement, Christians' eternal fates will be decided first and foremost by how much they did to serve the Jews.
(Much like Parvini, I was rather dumbfounded by the entire thing.)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
25d ago
Serfs these were not, but no one in this forum could be said as being of "serf stock,"
I'd say I'm pretty close, though — particularly compared to most people here. Functionally-illiterate high school dropout handyman father, stay-at-home mother, grew up in low-population-density Alaska (including time in a community so rural, it lacks electricity, and has a community well for water).
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
25d ago
what are they supposed to do? Every institution they're supposed to trust has lied outrageously. Are they supposed to double down and believe the NYT and MSNBC even harder?
I've seen multiple people, via two different arguments, answer this with "yes, you have to keep believing them." Either because it's your duty to keep society functioning, or (less often) because the "truth-telling institutions" are definitionally incapable of lying.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
25d ago
I remember when movies had a trope- I'm not defined by my work, I do x from 9-5, but all day long I'm a dad- one who happens to do x to pay the bills. The idea of an identity to be proud of, genuine pride in our differences and diversity, was singing its swan song. It's now dead. How many of the world's problems are actually downstream of that? I'm reminded of the several AAQC's about why South Koreans aren't having kids(my answer is pretty simple- it's not fun. Rednecks have kids because they look forwards to going to t-ball games. South Koreans don't because they don't look forwards to twelve hour study sessions).
I'd say this is clearly Max Weber's "Protestant work ethic," and it's triumph is, to a great extent, thanks to Blue Tribe cultural dominance (and, in turn, the Puritan and Quaker roots of the Blue Tribe).
Plenty of people misunderstand what Weber meant (probably because they haven't read him), but, IIRC, he never actually argued that Protestantism caused the "work ethic," merely that they were correlated (and, indeed, looking at history, the causation was more the other way around, with the parts of Early Modern Europe that developed the work ethic being much more likely to go Protestant in the Reformation). Further, it's not just about hard work; Weber made an explicit comparison to monasticism.
To understand the work ethic, look at the etymologies and historical usage of the words "profession" and "vocation." The former especially was originally religious in context. The idea is that, in the pre-work ethic Medieval view, secular work is the curse of Adam — you do it because "he who does not work shall not eat." In contrast, there is the religious calling ("vocation"), whereby one is called by God to make a "profession" of faith in the form of holy vows, becoming a priest, a monk, a nun, etc.
Weber argued that the "work ethic" emerged when Europeans began removing that idea of a "calling" from the monastic context, and bringing it into the secular world; whereby, one could be "called" to serve God by being a farmer, a craftsman, or whatever. Bringing the same sense of mission, and thus identity, to whatever career you have.
And this is deeply embedded in American culture. Practically the first question someone asks upon being introduced to someone else is "what do you do?" — meaning, of course, "what is your job?"
(As a NEET, I'm particularly sensitive to this one. Further, neither of my parents are big on the Protestant work ethic. My Dad never had "a career," only jobs; and my mom (a very lapsed German Catholic) had no problem marrying out of high school and becoming a homemaker, only going to work after my youngest brother graduated high school. I was raised with the understanding that "work" is just whatever horrible, shitty drudgery you do to put a roof over your head and food on the table, and should absolutely not be expected to provide any kind of "meaning" or "purpose" — or even enjoyment. "Work to live, not live to work," and such. And yes, I agree we could do with far less of the work ethic.)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
27d ago
Everyone knows
Consensus building
the real agenda here is that you don't want
So you're a mind-reader? You're not going to engage with the argument being made, but only with what you think the "real" position is?
Plainly uncharitable.
What makes you think pillarization will happen — or, more specifically, that "blue America" will tolerate the existence of a parallel "red" hierarchy?
More options
Context Copy link