Armin
5mo ago
Because we are missing the objective of the Holocaust Remembrance. It was never about remembering the Jews, it was about depoliticizing and deracialise European cultures, imprinting self-hate and leftists narrative control of reality. The moment the Jews became outmoded for several reasons (Israel, too European-like, whatever) Holocaust Remembrance will shift to gays, trans,gypsies or actual communists.
Armin
6mo ago
Yeah, the reason behind the left-wing rally behind environmentalism was never about environment itself, but about obtaining another method of doing the Revolution.
If you ever spoke with committed climate leftists, you quick understand that any discourse is not related to the environment, the economic or tech tools to use, energy, consumption etc, but it is about how to change people to achieve their particular brand of Socialism of the day.
Bonus point if you speak with left-wing climate women: At least men will earnestly tell you that is about the Revolution, while women will shut out angry rants about Mother Earth or being attuned with nature or whetever. A telluric and Dyonisian cult with socialist characteristics, made by people that, without modernity and capitalism, would be better doing literally any other job.
Armin
2mo ago
Just for context, Zuppi is the president of the CEI and a radical immigrationist. He is probably the most pro-open border institutional person in Italy, and a radical leftist to booth.
Armin
5mo ago
Regarding the PMC reaction to Trump's executive orders
It has been hilarious to see the scandalized reaction of some of the people I know on Trump effectively deciding something, as if they were not accustomed anymore to an executive power taking drastical action.
But this is not the topic of the day, instead I was thinking on how, strategically, the Left could respond.
Assuming that we know very well that the Left's demographical bread and butter have been PMC, white collars and upper class people for some years at this point, I think they have finally the opportunity to take, again, the mantle of the battle between the capitalist class and everyone else. Silents for years apart from ineffective rhetoric, now they have the photobombing opportunity to show Bezos, Zuck, Musk and others all together near Trump.
Maybe there is a future in the short-term for the class-based left, now that they can use the rhetorical baton to affirm that they have always been against the upper classes?
Armin
7mo ago
I do not understand where the issue is here. Interpreting it in a Schmittian way;
- Restriction against dangerous behaviour is rightwing and enemy-coded, so it is bad
- Restriction against extremist consuming behaviour is leftwing and friend-coded, so it is good
There is no principle or morality here, only that one restriction is good because friend and the other is bad because enemy.
I think the main problem, when here we try to talk about the reason behind certain behaviours motivated by ethics, is that we always try to rationalise problems and find where is the source, intellectual or moral, behind actions. But often there is no one, it is simply behaviour motivated by friend/enemy distinction.
Armin
5mo ago
Why do I hate every job I do?
I changed job, like, 4 times in my life. To give a bit of perspective, I did a bit of everything (Public servant in administration, consultancy for a small company, then marketing specialist, now business developer and client & project manager)
EVerytime the job was defined by an initial sense of excitement and wonder, an honeymoon lasting like 6 months, and then complete demoralization and destruction. The reasons are always the same: Sense of abandonement from upper echelon, sense of uselessness, frustration derived from general disorganisation etc.
But after changing several jobs, everytime with radical differences both in theme, position, duties, working hours, wage etc, I am beginning to think that maybe the problem resides with me? I am more of an academic/literate type, always loved to write, read, talk with people. But earning a life with this kind of job is impossible, so I decided to pursue more earthly manners. But still, I feel frustrated, and despite adopting every possible idea to improve on the job (training, strict sleep and relaxation schedule, learning how to focus and external tools to remember tasks etc), I still fail to feel remotely good at something.
I have no idea what to do, I feel way less intelligent than I look like from the external.
Armin
1yr ago
Next week I am gonna join a big and important global event regarding innovation, AI, tech and sustainability, with thousands of participants, investors, startups etc.
The prime attention on both social media is given to left-wing NGO, that are arriving in full force to do political propaganda on stage. It is always fun to check the background on LinkedIn of all these, always female, speakers, and see that it is completely unrelated to the issue they are talking about.
For example, of the 5 women speakers from @WomenInAI, only two are graduated, with bachelor, in Engineering, and then they moved to managerial roles, HR or NGOism. One is an "Afrofuturist feminist" who has done nothing in life apart launching her shitty art with the NASA.
In my opinion, the greatest fault of Capitalism, and the real problem that is behind it, is that it is so productive that can share money to unproductive people, creating a new caste of Priestly Propagandist, that exists only because they receive money from society. A parasitical relationships between the producers of wealth, the managers and the oppressed/activist class, who can rearrange the chairs to receive more money, prestige and wealth.
The only way in which a productive capitalist society can work is to introduce a huge shame against this kind of behavior. Sadly, if introduced, it would be,correctly, interpreted as anti-women discrimination.
Armin
1yr ago
Because my nitpick topic is the intersection between politics and gender/sex, in the last months since 7 October I began a very unscientific analysis of the social media content, especially on Instagram, of my friends, acquaintances and other people I follow. (Context as always, European middle-upper class, intra-national environment, very EU-based)
I cannot emphatise enough how much the driven behind pro-Palestinian content is driven exclusively by women. Between the thousands of people I follow, there is a core of around 50 people, all women apart one anarchist guy, who are hard Palestinian-posters (And remember, there is a lot of interests in politics in my environment, it is normal to see all these people interested in stuff like this). And I am not talking about random posting, I am talking of months and months of posting, all inserted in a moral framework of "do not touch the children" or "Israelis are racists". Having followed the process since the beginning, it was fun to see how it took at least one month until the start of the pro-Palestinian posting, as if they were checking where it was the consensus in their group before beginning to post.
The question I ask the community here, why a topic that is so far from our location and interests (again, we are no Columbia University or Middle East, we are far away both ideologically and physically) is so interesting for women, that makes them post about id dozens of times every week, for months straight? And I am talking about a very intense interest, is not rare to see online meltdown of suffering, death menaces or simply histrionics directed towards obscure metaphysical forces.
Again, my observation are reinforced from what I saw in the US and Europe about the universities and campus protests; the protestors are overwhelmingly women, and the most desperate are women.
For me the question rotates around two different forces;
- The maternal ethics of women, that makes them take always the side of the one that looks weaker or more oppressed.
- The ideological force behind social networks, that make them taking the side of the part with more social consensus in their social circles.
Thinking about the past, it makes me smile how much it was common to hear, until twenty years ago, that women are very uninterested in politics, unlike men. For my generation, this idea looks absurd. Men do not care about politics at all.
Armin
9mo ago
Collection of signatures in Italy regarding a popular referendum (doable with 500k signatures, they arrived at 400k this morning) to lower to 5 years the requisites for citizenship.
Proposed thanks to the usual eternal alliance between the Radicals (free marketers, Atlanticist and pro-US liberals) and the socialists-left wing parties.
If the Constitutional Court permits it, it will be another cultural war. Enormous error of the right wing government (as usual) to not reinforce the institute of citizenship, as always the right is reactive and not proactive.
Armin
1yr ago
The Redpilling of the American public intellectual?
Being extremely online, using both X and Substacks and having used them for several years, I cannot not notice a process of redpilling of many US-opinion makers, both blue and grey tribe members.
Elon Musk and Marc Andressen are the first obvious examples, with both of them having directly followed and quoted members of the Dissident Rights (Andressen some days ago tagged Covfefe Anon in a post). Musk in particular speaks often with figures like Indian Bronson, Cremièux and Hanania, all of them supporters of the HBD and "liberal-racist" or "liberal-realist" (still fun that we are talking about an Indian, a Jew and a Palestinian).
Then we have the old New Atheism and IDW intellectuals gang like Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt and others. Their contribution to progressive criticism is not new, but from what I see on X, on the wake of the Harvard controversy, they are talking an harder turn. I cannot confirm because it is only an impression from who they interact with on X.
We have the "Silicon Valley Galaxy", the network of Musk-supporters based in California, with people like Mike Solana (another gay man) exorting the virtues of nationalism and communism-bashing on his wildly popular newsletter.
Nate Silver is a very fun example. A gay Jew who, in the last year, took an hard turn against progressivism because of Covid criticism and the purges that came from it, and now on his substack is attacking the left at every turn, attracting the very entertaining hate of the academic crowd on every post.
Also an individual like Noah Smith, while still completely faithful to the Neoliberal project, began to heavily criticize the progressives, saying that they are way more dangerous than the right.
I am sure that there are other names I forgot.
All of this to say that I see a change of opinion of public figures that, in the year 2016, would have been for sure allies of the Democrats against a Trumpian state. Obviously the change of opinion of twitter-based figures, online characters and academic eretics is not a change of opinion of the PMC at large, but for sure is more that the Dissident Right could have hoped for some years ago.
Armin
9mo ago
I do not understand why we use mental energies on the philosophical why of things when we have the perfect answer. Transgenderism empowers the left, transracialism does not. So the first is logical and the second is not, simple as.
Armin
1yr ago
If the major objective of a system is to protect the interests of the powerful people that lead the system, then it is logical to say that a feminist society exists to protect the interests of women, and that means protecting them from one of the worst sins, the attack against the faux-equalitarian women's morality system.
It is all longhouse, all way down.
Armin
1yr ago
As an European coming from the outside, I had no idea how much power is in the hands of Jewish and pro-Zionist donors in the matters of american academia. And, reasoning about it, I think that for European-Americans it should be a clear bell of alarm; the Jewish donors will tolerate whatever anti-European, child mauling or intersectional feminism, but will never falter at Jewish interests.
Armin
1yr ago
Do men and women political radicalization work differently?
Everyone of us know how riots, revolts and political radicalism are born; a segment of the population, resented or alienated by material means (they are too poor or too isolated by the access to political power, and they revolt by necessity) decide to adopt countercultural ideologies, often violent and revolutionary, in order to destroy the status quo and access the means of power.
But what if our model is obsolete, because we applied it to men and masculinity?
Being a middle-upper class European man, I have a lot of access, both personal and social, to my peers and to what they think. Last day, an homicide made by a men towards his girlfriend happened in Italy, and an enormous cultural war has started with all the related news (including the sister of the victim advocating a "cultural revolution", shame campaign by the media, storms of social media posts by women, and the "fascist" right-wing government immediately folding, promising some kind of introduction of sexual (ergo lgbt) education in the schools).
Well, the model of radicalization that I observed is the following; young, often upper-middle class women with no material problems and often with prestigious (but not high-earning) jobs adopting the position of intersectional or radical feminism in few days, moving quite a lot the Overton window to the left. From this, the following observations I gathered;
-
Women's political radicalization happen in different echo-chambers compared to the men's ones. While men's radicalization happens because of lack of material means, in women's case it looks like the more they happen to be privileged, the more they radicalize. As if material means have no matter for their well being, and the high status position is the source, not the solution, for their growing radicalization.
-
Could be that the de-materialization of post-Marxist politics happened because women are anti-materialists themselves and do not care about all this stuff? Okay all the discourses on post-industrialization, post-marxism, Foucault or whatever, but I do not think that, politically speaking, women cares at all about the well being of their societies at large.
-
Cultural-war-speaking, another demonstration that there is no opposition to the women's tears and resentement in Western Society, and we have still not produced the necessary antibodies to resist them. Far left organisations and ideologies have it far too easy, because they are free to propagandize using traditional medias and social network as an instrument of expansion.
-
A lot of normie women fell in the vortex of radicalizations. But unlike real radicalized womens, if you speak to them personally, they will not strike back at you. A distinction still exist between the mentally-ill woman and the woman who is only pushed by social media and social pressure to act.
-
And that I am lucky to have a girlfriend that does not give a damn about social medias at large.
Armin
1yr ago
I am not an expert by any mean, but imho is the same situation of Croatia in the 90s; everyone screeching about far right nationalists who like Hitler and the Ustasce and the next croatian fascist regime after the war with Serbia. Then you have liberal democracy and talk of gay marriage legalization.
The Liberal-Atlantic bloc has been very good at using then dismantling far right organisation without any sort of problem, I have no doubt they will also do it in Ukraine. Unlike far-left organisations, there is no desire to keep these groups in power after the Emergency.
Armin
8mo ago
Notice how the investigation was carried by Hope not Hate, one of the most (public) well-funded radical left wing NGO in the UK.
Armin
10mo ago
I absolutely expect half of the men from my region to instantly convert to the female gender if gender switching is introduced and being a female let you pay less taxes or whatever.
Armin
5mo ago
In this context, and being a believer in the concept of "ideologies are born to facilitate political struggles", wokism for me is the synthesis of black nationalism, third worldism and feminism that was created to improve the electoral odds and power of the Democratic Party, and then was wielded by the US Empire as an imperial ideology in order to make it easier to control the satellite states.
If we follow this definition of wokism, it is clear that it will lose importance the moment it will not be useful anymore to the US Empire (so never, for now)
Armin
9mo ago
The requisite is 10 years of residence. The proposer of the referendum says it is too high (I suppose that for them everything that is not open border is too high)
Armin
1yr ago
Bryan Caplan complaining on X that Mason U is introducing mandatory Just Society courses; https://twitter.com/bryan_caplan/status/1760048714847064146
It looks Conquest's Second Law is still strong as ever. And I guess Caplan's libertarianism will ask for some intervention against it that will never work.
Armin
1yr ago
Vibe shift?
I lost count of how many anglos, jews and anglo-jews on the center-left/left that, in the past days, had a "Conversion on the road to Damascus", openly admitting on Twitter that their views on the Left were utterly wrong and that they had no idea their side was so full of apologists for jew-slaughter. And I am talking about big figures, including some of the loudest neoliberal mouths, admitting grudgingly that the Right-wing view of academia had some points.
Let's say that this reckoning mood last more than two weeks and the inevitable Israeli reaction on Gaza; It is possible that we are beginning to see a realignement from the upper middle class on immigration in general and on inclusion and diversity in particular?
In my view, there are still some enormous obstacle to shift like these, primarly the enormous influence of academia on journalism and èlites policy and opinion-making in the west, and the machine of the anglo-left working in case of another menace from Trump, that can rapidly rebuild the ranks. Another interesting side of the discourse is what will happen in Europe, where it is true that there are way less Jews, but the Right has way more influence between young and important people. By tasting the environment, almost everyone apart from the aggravated minorities and feminists groups are very, very angry about all of this.
I do not know if it is ok to post this here or in the Gaza thread, if it is wrong I will move it there.
Armin
2yr ago
I am convinced that the Sex Divide is the greatest political engine of today, and that a big chunk of the culture war is based on the existance of this divide, and the inability of society to understand that political differences between males and females have an enormous biological basis.
After I finally understood this concept, I began to "notice", being always passionate about politics and speaking about it, that the discourses and the nature of the topic I discussed with people were and are heavily genderized.
Having a political or cultural discussion with a female is, in general, radically different from having one with a male, not only regarding the topics of interests per se (males more interested in economics or raw politics, female more interested in immigration, equality or similar topics), but also regarding "how" to approach a discussion.
I feel way more free talking with males, because I always had the impression, confirmed 95% of the times, that I can be more open and direct with what I felt without receiving a backslash, that can be personal (simply the person screaming at you or hating you) or social (person beginning to talk with other people in your social network) (NB: I am not American and I do not live in a very polarized society). Apart from the political extremists and activists that you can meet, the following things happened often:
-
Me and the other male have a disagreement, that can be harsh or about an hot topic, but that resolve itself in a shake of hand.
-
We disagree on a lot of topic, but also agree on other ones, making the discussion constructive in itself.
-
I discover that the other male have a lot of, uh, hidden opinions that he does not reveal in his network, often because of female backslash.
In general, I love to talk about politics or culture with other middle or low class males, because I always "received" something in exchange after the discussion, something that can be a new reflection on a topic, an earnest discovering of new knowledge, or simply understanding more some concepts.
Meanwhile, apart from a selected group of very close female friends and a selected other few, almost all the discussion with females ended with a disaster. In spite of me trying to move in a different manner, being more gentle and less direct, and understanding that I need to adapt to other people when I talk about something, the discussions simply does not start well and end well. What happens is:
-
We have a disagreement, and at this point the discussion or close itself ("It is useless to continue, why we should?") or degenerate in a very uncomfortable discussion where the woman put herself as an emotional victim of what we are talking about.
-
If the discussion does not degenerate but continues, it is always redirected to morality or feeling or about a generic "natural law". At this point if I try to redirect the discussion negating the opposing point (I do not agree with your morality or I do not care about this morality) it simply degenerate again in a morality context, where your worth as individual is put on a public pedestal.
The result of all of this, after years of experience... is that I do not talk about these kind of topics with women anymore, apart from a selected few. When I have this kind of conversation I always strive for earning something, that can be knowledge, human connection or shared experiences. Why doing these with women, when the things that you can earn are statistically negative?
Adding to what I said, I also need to mention that, after lowering down the kind of topics and approaches that I have with women, both my dating life and romantic life radically improved. I do not know if it is a coincidence or not.
Armin
10mo ago
Simple feminization of society, and the result of the alliance between feminist power groups and western èlites.
Armin
2yr ago
I mentioned here many times that I consider the gender (sex) divide the greatest factor in our model of understanding modern political thought and action.
Background; middle-class male, young, Catholic family, Mediterranean, living in a big, poor city. Moved to Central Europe to work in a big èlite public institution with many young people, especially females. History of belonging to Marxist organisations in the past btw.
As a passionate about history, I normally talk about it, especially in a highly-educated environment where discussions about complex topics are the norm.
What I noticed in the past year it is astounding and moulded a lot of my thought. Every time I talk with women about history, and the topics fall on some past event/political regime/ideology/whatever, there is a lot of disinterest towards it from the women's side. Not disinterest in the sense of "I do not care", because as I said it is a highly-educated environment where being uncaring about this kind of thing is uncool, but disinterest in the sense of:
"I understand that in the past things worked a certain way, but the past is always worse than now because women had it worse".
From there, after it happened dozens of times with dozens of different women, I elaborated:
Women are the true accelerationist.
I could not elaborate or argue about past political or moral issues or ideologies or sovrastructures, because, from the other side, the argument is always that every behaviour or ideology of the past is ontologically evil because it discriminated against women.
I will never forget how when I was arguing about how 19th-century European states had probably a higher state-capacity than contemporary European states, I was accused of sexism because I expressed a preference for a non-contemporary political structure. The same happened when I mentioned how I admire Charles De Gaulle (because Macron, while being bad, is better than him because he is more feminist).
The most amazing moment was when I said to a group of women (yes, a lot of weird moments this year) that the loss of Church participation alienated a lot of people and diminished the sense of belonging and social participation of the community in the public thing. They agreed with me (!) but still for them, it is better now because they prefer a more isolated society but with more feminism.
Women are true accelerationist because the consequence of feminism has been a weirdo para-futurism philosophy but without fascism. Everything that can be conducted to the past is suspected as part of a reactionary plot to be judged on moral grounds. No detached interests in History per se, but only moral condemnation of everything that is not the "current year".
For me, it was fascinating to discover how males and females consider history, especially when the topic of "in which historical epoch would you like to live?" and every woman answer "now".
The biggest consequence of this sex divide is, imho, that a feminist liberal society has a huge gap in understanding the context when society begins to decline after drifting from some past ideology or structure. It is not possible for them that something contemporary can be worse than something present in the past.
I would like to receive some input on my "theory" from the residents of the motte, expressed in the English language which is better than mine.
PS: for people who are curious, I never received any sort of cancellation or consequence for my brazen rhetorical behaviour. Europe is not as woke as the US, and I am a kinda of "high-status male" for several reason, so I noticed that women tolerate way more whatever I say.
I do not have anything to say apart from that the Western Right is totally fucked.
More options
Context Copy link