Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
Belisarius
.
5mo ago
Scott Alexander has recently argued in favor of Effective Altruism after the new scandal of effective altruists trying to oust Sam Altman from Open A.I.
His argument starts by focusing about how different factions attack EA from different perspectives that are contradictory. That those on the right call them woke and those on the left call them fascists and white supremacist. The point seems to be implying that they are going to be attacked anyway by all sides no matter what, so we shouldn't take seriously such criticisms. Then he mostly focuses on an estimated 200,000 lives saved in the developing world.
My problem with this is that it obscures something that isn't a mystery. Which is that EA's politics align much more with the Democratic establishment than with the right and there isn't any substantial confrontation of what that means.
The biggest donor of Effective Altruism according to my short research and claims I found in the effective altruism forum from 2022 where he participated in such discussion is Asana CEO Dustin Moskovitz.
Asana, his company contributed 45 million in the 2020 election and he also had an important contribution in millions in the future forwards pac
https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/joe-biden/contributors?id=N00001669 https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/pro-biden-super-pac-darkmon/ https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-election-donations-final-tally.html https://bluetent.us/articles/campaigns-elections/dustin-moskovitz-cari-tuna-democratic-donor-2020/
If one looks at open philanthropy or the EA forum and searches for controversial cultural issues there can be sometimes a small dissent but they follow the liberal party line for the most part.
Lets look at open philanthropy, an EA organization and Dustin Moskovitz organization. Scott certainly wants to give credit to EA and open philanthropy for promoting YIMBY.
However this organization has also funded decriminalization policies and pro migration policies.
https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/criminal-justice-reform/ https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/immigration-policy/
I wonder if the well funded caravans of migrants we see in some areas of the world have to some extend to do with funding related to EA.
Recently there has been a mini EA scandal where one individual expressed HBD views in the past but this was made a thing and he was condemned by many in the movement, but not entirely unanimously. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/8zLwD862MRGZTzs8k/a-personal-response-to-nick-bostrom-s-apology-for-an-old
Basically, this individual wrote an email 26 years ago that used naughty language to make the point that you should use less offensive language when arguing for race realism.
Then he apologized due to pressure and argued:
What are my actual views? I do think that provocative communication styles have a place—but not like this! I also think that it is deeply unfair that unequal access to education, nutrients, and basic healthcare leads to inequality in social outcomes, including sometimes disparities in skills and cognitive capacity. This is a huge moral travesty that we should not paper over or downplay. Much of my personal charitable giving over the years has gone to fighting exactly this problem: I’ve given many thousands of pounds to organizations including to the SCI Foundation, GiveDirectly, the Black Health Alliance, the Iodine Global Network, BasicNeeds, and the Christian Blind Mission.
Then there is Open A.I. and Chat GPT and effective altruists have been influential in Open A.I. Chat GPT has liberal bias. https://www.foxnews.com/media/chatgpt-faces-mounting-accusations-woke-liberal-bias
Another thing to observe are the demographics of effective altruists.
They are only 0.9% right wing and 2.5% center right. With majority being of the left with 40% center left and 32% identifying as left. But that is identification. Just like Biden could be identified by some as center left while by others, including myself as far left. They are also 46% Vegans. 85.9% are Atheists.
https://rethinkpriorities.org/publications/eas2019-community-demographics-characteristics
I haven't encountered any group with such small representation of right wingers that actually is fair when promoting a political agenda towards either the right wing, or groups that are more seen related to the right. However, effective altruists are much more concerned about the lack of sufficient racial and ethnic diversity than ideological diversity when you search their forum.
Climate change and veganism are two issues that could well lead to hardcore authoritarian policies and restrictions. Considering the demographics of EA and the fact that Peter Singer is an important figure in it and helped coin the term, I do wonder if on that issue the EA influence would be for them to impose on us policies. When dealing with the moral framing of animal liberation movement activist like Singer we see a moral urgency. Like with all identity movements, to elevate one group such as animals you end up reducing the position of another group, such as humans. Or those who aren't vegans.
The issue is that these networks that are reinforced based on EA might already have as part of their agenda to promote their political agenda.. And these networks that developed in part due to EA and put like minded ideologues together to organize can also expand even more to promote their political agenda outside the EA banner.
It does seem that at least a few of the people involved with effective altruism think that it fell victim to its coastal college demographics. https://www.fromthenew.world/p/what-the-hell-happened-to-effective
My other conclusion related to the open A.I. incident as well is that the idea of these people that they are those who will put humanity first will lead to them ousting others and attempt to grab more power in the future too. When they do so, will they ever abandon it?
Scott Alexander himself argued that putting humanity first is the priority and he had some faith on them thinking rationally when they tried to oust Sam Altman, even though he invited them inside. He might not agree with their action necessarily but he sympathizes with the motive. https://twitter.com/slatestarcodex/status/1726132072031641853#m
That this action is dishonorable matters because like with Sam Bankman Fried it continues the pattern of important ethical issues being pushed aside under the idea that effective altruists know best.
This means that Sam Altman won't be the first. It also means that we got a movement very susceptible to the same problems of authoritarian far left movements in general of extreme self confidence to their own vision and will to power. This inevitably in addition to the whole issue of hell paved with good intentions encourages the power hungry to be part of it as well.
It does seem there is an important side to it which is about people donating in more unobjectionable terms but in general effective altruism it isn't separate from a political agenda that fits with a political tribe. That should be judged on its own merits without the 200,000 saved in developing world being accepted as an adequate answer for policies that affect the developed world. The short version of all this is that if you got a problem with leftist/far leftist NGOs, you should consider the effective altruism movement and some of its key players to be contributing in the same direction.
Wokeness, victimhood and how right wing associated groups "not caring" about being victimized makes you non woke.
This is such a common claim especially here that it deserves to be addressed in general.
What is wokeness about? Its simply the ideology, of lbierals, leftists and those fake conservatives that have been colonized by this ideology that denies any level of legitimate victimhood to its right wing outgroup (the epitome of it would be right wing white christian straight men) and promotes excessive rights and victimhood for its left wing associated ingroup. That frames the left wing ingroup as permanent legitimate oppressed and right wing outgroup as illegitimate oppressors who can never challenge the status of the first.
Its what the ADL, Soros pushes. Both pushing the mantra of white christians as threats to minorities and promoting an onesided hateful narrative and discriminatory policies including totalitarianism and dracognian very one sided hateful hate speech laws. And of course supporting mass migration because it would lead to the extinction of their ethnic outgroup. And do not allow dissent from this mantra and in fact portray all dissent as white supremacy.
Wokeness has plenty of common with certain extreme nationalists of every type and obviously with not only religious Judaism, but the ideological extreme that retains aspects of religious judaism the secular combo of progressive extremism and Jewish ultranationalism has been one of the most key parts of it. And various fellow travelers of that. The one that denies Jews any blame whatsoever on how they treat others except perhaps other intersectional tribes and does not allow any negativity and frames it as antisemitism. Since this is the biggest taboo, I find it important to focus upon it more and I would focus upon a different tribe if I gotten there more pushback. If you are SJW only for the Jews then you are still part of this especially since powerful Jewish organisations like the ADL are important players.
When even Fox News attacks Musk when he tells jewish organisations to knock it off with their antiwhite racism, and entirely denies this you know that the end result of Fox News influence is not going to bring things to jewish organizations with this ideology knocking it off. End of wokeness should mean end of the narrative of the eternally oppressed Jews who should now as lord ordains rule others. This ideology should not be tolerated and Jews should adjust their religious and secular self conception to abadon it. People of any faith can still believe in their religion but should respect the rights of others. If this means their Christianity, Judaism, Islam lacks a certain vision of conquest that existed in the original text, then so be it. And this applies to those supposed secular atheists who seem to have retained aspects of the religion, relating to excessive nationalism.
Are right wing related identitarians like white identitarians then woke? Well, no because they have a different who/whom. It is possible for them to be equally extreme to be similar but not necessarily the case.
Are all victimhood related arguements woke and only abandoning the issue makes one antiwoke?
Not again. Victimhood is actually directly related to justice. Recognizing accurately victims is a necessary component of justice. Excessive victimhood for the ingroup and 0 victimhood for the outgroup is of course injustice and why the woke are unjust. Its what every criminal wants, to get maximum sympathy and get away with it and their legitimate victims to not be seen as victims. And this is why you are part of the woke if you argue like the woke, for zero victimhood for the right wing outgroups.
The argument that the only antiwoke way is to not recognize rights and to concern troll right wing associated groups to not care by people who are in fact sensationalized towards right wing racism is preposterous. We know this argument isn't promoted in good faith for those who subscribe to it don't have a stance of never caring about victimhood ever, nor are they tolerant to what would seem as hardcore right wing racism. More than that, you see this political coalition be sensationalized in opposition of left wing associated victimhood proponents like MLK and civil rights movement even though that movement too like modern woke had its element of seeking excess. MLK argued that USA should treat blacks especially better for having treated them in the past especially bad and used both pressure of sit ons and threat of violent protests to demand that organisations upped black representation considerably treating it as evidence of racism where blacks were underepresented. Lyndon Johnson also considered Herbert Marcuse influence as very important to the civil rights act. key civil rights remaining figures have promoted this party line and with their activism caused multiple race riots too. Modern wokeness is a continuation and part of the progressive hued "rights" movements of the past who had all these elements there too.
If you have a completely hagiographic attitude to said movements, yes you are way is the way of the woke.
Victimhood politics for any tribe tends to increase sympathy for them and can reduce sympathy for others. This is why a political environment where certain tribes are sacred cows and other tribes have no victimhood, is one that will inevitably be extremely racist in favor of first and at expense of the later. The racist hateful people who promote this hateful dogma then pretend to be antiracist and slander others which is an additional injustice.
Concern trolling right wingers and identity politics of the right wing outgroup is wokeness 101 and those who do it are part of it. It is blatant racism to oppose people being opposed to racism because "victimhood politics" i.e. opposing you being victimized is "woke". Such distortion of reality is amazing to witness.
Another false claim I have seen even by right wingers is that adopting the mentality of the woke for your own group would be ethnomasochistic. But the woke are not masochists, they are extreme identitarians and they have gotten plenty of what they want. You could oppose being exactly the same, although some level of tribalism for your tribe too is obviously justifiable and complete lack does not lead to justice but you being preyed upon. The primary arguement against being as selfcentered as the woke would be that is an unjust dishonest mentality and the second arguement that it causes unecessary conflict and the third that it is paperclip maximizing dominance over other things that matters. That is that the woke way is the way where their end point is racist supremacy and their boot over others face, which is both a bad end and results in conflict and could wreck civilization.
I guess one could oppose intersectionality right wing style too on basis that it makes compromises with other tribalisms.
Also, if your group is being mistreated, noticing and opposing this is actually promoting justice and can not be opposed on the primary problems that wokeness has that a) its unjust b) that it alienates unnecessarily others and causes conflict in that way c) that it is a totalitarian vision that never ends that is indifferent and leaves no space for other important considerations.
There is a title for people who support racism against Christians or white people and oppose any opposition. Of course, I personally have a less strict definition of racism. I don't consider all restrictions of any kind racism. I believe we should act in line with reality. In fact I consider say migration restrictions to be anti-racist and mass migration anti nativist racism that leads to genocidal colonization as one example. Just like I consider property rights to be less classist in the ways that matter than a marxist society even though the marxist considers the first classist and his attempt to destroy the class enemy as end of classism.
Plus, I don't aknowledge that some of the things that people whining about isms are problems we should give a fuck about and can be good too, while in a consistent manner other things that might fall under this label are serious problems relating to injustice (treating others unfairly). For example, it is admirable for parents to care about their children first and put effort to raising them right and not Kin-ist and unfair to other children, but it would be evil if for the sake of your family and children having a bigger property you stole your neighbor's house or behaved like a mafia, became Walter White supposedly to provide for your family. I guess in this manner I also oppose this idea from some on the right that there is no such thing as racism, although I approve not taking seriously all the things in a very one sided manner that are called racism which ironically would make you a racist at your own expense, if you did take them seriously. I do think it is foolish not to prioritise the most pervasive racism of our time, especially when right wing associated legitimate grievances are denied by the use of all sorts of dirty tactics. When it isn't this type of concern trolling, the typical other way is to put a smear label of far right, or worse.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that unfortunately for right wingers who want to be exactly like the woke and not be called unjust, that this type of one sided fanaticism would be unjust for any tribe. Any right wing tribalism is not like the woke however, as it can be of a moderate form and pushes back at it in our current political environment where we have excessive tribalism for progressive stack tribes and too little for right wing associated groups. We don't live in a society where even most real right wingers demand that any left wing tribalism is abadoned, in fact you see even them often compromising with opposing real victimization of left wing associated groups and compromising with respecting identification of left wing associated tribes with left wing associated broader tribes of religious, racial, and ethnic nature.
There can be gray areas. What isn't a grey area are massive double standards and a greedy totalitarian mentality of the woke. Who would never have had the success they have if they were just a few kids at college. The concern trolling the right wing outgroup so that it doesn't promote victimhood by opposing racism at its expense is directly a very key part of wokeness and it is a mistake to buy into the self identification as non woke of those who with their influence are promoting this ideology and at best inconsistently promote limited hangouts. Those concern trolling the right wing outgroup should be more honest and say that they are racists.
What should be done about the woke movement? Well plenty can be written, to keep things for once short, I would say that as wokes abuse their power and use both goverment and private institutions to impose their ideology, screwing principles, law, precedent, that the way to go is to ban their NGOs, which includes ethnic supremacist organisations of left wing associated tribes too, not just general left wing organizations, and to not allow the woke to run any institutions and to be intolerant towards their ideology from the perspective I promote here that it is a fundamentally unjust ideology due to excess tribalism for ingroup and lack of due consideration for the group rights of the outgroup, that is no respect for tribalism of the outgroup. And treat all individual branches of the tree the same. The goal should be to stop this ideology from being enacted and to deradicalize people so they abandon it.
Noah Smith has been a figure so repellent ideologically to the right, and hostile to it, that I am actually curious about what he said.
So, there are figures that can be friendlier to the right. But as for some left wingers who are rather prejudiced towards right wing associated groups and see their rights as illegitimate, and identify more with groups associated with the left, and support mass migration and tend to see opposition to them as immoral it would be a repeated mistake from the past to put too many hopes on them.
The generally reasonable dissident right figure Auron Macyntire is correct about liberals. That a subset of them when other progressives are unwelcoming, or they disagree on their pet issues like say Israel, they turn to the right but they don't think they have done anything wrong. They want to run the right in accordance to their own values while looking down on right wingers. And of course they start gatekeeping and deplatforming actual right wingers and preferring people like them.
Similarly we get heterodox academies of Jonathan Haidt whining about intolerance of heterodoxy, while their organization and groups are made almost exclusively by liberals. Or forums like motte, which as far as I am aware, all moderators are liberals, but is supposed to be a neutral forum, and the ideology of those who moderate is unrepresentative of the posters.
We also see these figures try to do the same with "centrism" and define themselves as the only moderates and centrists and everyone who disagrees with them as an extremist. Even though in practice their social views, or views on immigration, or on how much they sympathize with various identity groups are far left. Even if some other progressive extremists are further left than them. If you don't define what is centrist by the last couple of years, and by what leftists who run media define as centrist and moderate and what they define as far right. Any longer term outlook realizes that actually the dissident right, part of what they are pushing were more pervasive and dominant in the past, and we have had a radicalization in the recent past. It would be a welcome development for that to be corrected. Moreover, we should also care about how some trends in politics that have been in influence for a couple of decades have evolved today, and their observable effects.
Elon Musk and Mark Andersen although not dissident rightists do seem to have been influenced more so, or share an agreement with several issues promoted by the dissident right that are valid.
In general, I like the more moderate figures of the actual right, and dissident right like Auron Macyntire, while for the general faction, I think they are pushing in the right direction and society is too lopsided in a left wing and antiwhite direction, but I don't agree with the ends that some dissident rightists wish but have a more moderate preference. Meaning if the more extreme dissident rightists were the dominant part of society I would dislike them, however I do find the more moderate figures to be more moderate than the liberals and Ben Shapiro types too. And that the liberals are the dominant faction makes it quite wrongheaded to not prioritise them. As for the neocons, there isn't really that substantial difference with many liberals and the sweet spot of where to be on such issues is not attained by neocons. Not by a long shot.
I do think I have been influenced too by some of the figures of the dissident right and their views, and seeing that they got things correct.
But I was also influenced by the past religious right now, in a way I wasn't in the past. Frankly, it was mainly the liberals as a group, and their key politicians and political organizations and how far they have pushed and how that they behaved that played that role. And when talking about liberals a key part of the issue are how beholden and key part of it are various identitarian extreme lobbies of the progressive stack alliance of intersectional identities.
The right wingers who have been warning and being cautious and were defamed as being uncharitable, and unfair, were in fact correct. Part of that correctness relates to the skepticism towards liberals/progressives who are willing to sometimes criticize progressives. Of which even Obama has done so, in his quote about how the world is messy, but this doesn't change that Obama's influence lies after and before such statements. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/31/774918215/obama-says-democrats-dont-always-need-to-be-politically-woke
As president he helped push things in the woke direction. He certainly is supportive of the even more extreme Biden administration. And quite recently played a key role in a film with antiwhite racist rhetoric. https://www.foxnews.com/media/obama-produces-first-fiction-movie-netflix-gave-extensive-notes-director-cyberattack-plot
Biden's and that general faction's extreme policies, of open borders, of authoritarian persecution of political opposition, on purging non woke, or following the progressive supremacist party line, are in fact alienating people. For that to count as winning, we should have to see a lot more than that and policy changes as a result of opposing faction/coalition exercising power. And of course, we shouldn't actually care too much about people who are part of Biden's faction but make some limited criticisms. It would be detrimental actually, in that it disincentivize caring about an actual opposition. The right has had a lot more rhetoric about winning, when it hasn't been winning, while the left pretending they are the underdogs, where they aren't, hasn't been detrimental to them. So, we should be realistic.
Belisarius
.
5mo ago
For that reason I'm inclined to just disconnect from technological society, and join the Amish.
That you don't trust the EA is no reason to disconnect. To beat the EA and not let them have total control you need to support a group that is more aligned to your ideals and try to get your group to have their own influence in the AI game.
Wait, you are a moderator too?
Among the new individuals, I noticed netstack, selfmadehuman and another individual which is liberal. I would have to update then. So at this point what is the ratio of non liberals, to liberals? Are you comfortable being so outnumbered, that the process has been fair and balanced?
Naraburns is another case that is a little interesting as he opposes liberals on some issues but self identifies IIRC as liberal, and supports mass migration for western countries while opposing it for Israel. Is there also anyone who opposes zionism among the moderators and sympathizes more with the Palestinians than Israel?
I wouldn't say you aren't a liberal on ethnicity however. My impression is that you seem to oppose ethnic identifications and communities identifying with their group and interests and pursuing them, but oppose the liberal tribe for supporting doing this for their own preferred groups. So you are more consistent than them on that, but still take an ideologically more left wing perspective. Even if the actual left, especially the modern left has as key part of its dna applying it inconsistently.
Of course, my own perspective that it is legitimate for ethnic groups to identify with their own group (well not always, immigrants should be in limited numbers and identify more with the interests of the natives than if they lived in their own separate homeland), and to pursue their well being and legitimate interests and rights but do so in a manner that is reciprocoal with the legitimate rights of others. Which is affected by others behavior of course. To be fair this perspective also has existed among parts of the historical left, being a pervasive perspective in general. But the left wing faction that opposes this, and especially opposes it in a motte and bailey manner against their ethnic outgroups has been the most influential in pushing things in its direction. Plus my perspective has also existed and exists even more so outside the left.
I completely agree with you about EA. My point is that you need to play the game with your own side and try to find likeminded people to support. Running away is a losing move.
Of course you personally not wanting to do that is understandable. But when it comes to what is better to do it requires people who try to create alternative platforms and participate in them.
The genie can not be put back in the bottle. Either they monopolize the genies, or others use them too.
Belisarius
.
3mo ago
Wanting influence is one thing, living there is another. And even in that only some kind of influence. I am not an American for example and I don't see anything immoral in trying to influence American foreign poilicy against doing evil imperialist shit (and laudible for non Americans to prioritise opposing evil policy at their expense) but it destroys all boundaries and nuance to see all kinds of behavior as acceptable. I don't see why USA owes Somalians to let them go there and act as foreigners.
America owes itself to not let foreigners exploit its people. And it is immoral in general to support said exploitation, not a case of you having a point about nativists not having a sound moral reasoning.
Another thing to consider is the enormous amount of western help that goes to African countries.
And also that what you are doing here is being quite convenient for those who both like to invade the world and invite the world. Why not oppose both? I have noticed many of the liberals of this world and including in this forum have failed to be louder in opposing the neocons crowd. In a manner that is disappointing for someone who experienced them opposing the Iraq war as I also did at the time.
Anyway, it is interesting that you are an American who finds nothing immoral about non Americans exploiting Americans. Someone might even describe this attitude as a treasonous attitude and it won't be an uncharitable exaggeration. In actuality those who are uncharitable and booing as their outgroup, those who have standards and try to enforce them, would be incentivizing immorality in favor of exploitation.
Countries ideally should neither be invading the world, not letting themselves be exploited by the world. Something has gotten seriously wrong with the kind of people running things if you have reached that place. Combining pathological altruism with destructive imperialism is like having the worst of both worlds. Someone is winning in this process and it includes various lobbies, war manufacturers, the contractors, the state department.
The idea that identity politics are not effective is simply false. The dominant coalitions rely on identity politics and use it for the advantage of the groups that it comprises.
Part of what claims to be the right has embraced the refusal to do identity politics for its base, in fact to support cancel culture in that direction and tolerating and doing identity politics for progressive associated groups, so your proposal is simply repeating what has failed.
Beyond the issue of effectiveness, it is possible for others to be keeping you down, and it is actually good to oppose that. There is no reason to treat the same all complaints as some might be valid, and others invalid.
The truth is that even invalid blaming others and wanting more for your group at their expense can be effective though.
The problem with much of the current political establishment and this includes people who falsely claim to be on the right or center, is that they tolerate and support excessive rights for progressive stack groups, and don't respect the rights for the right wing groups like white christian men. This also relates to who they are demonizing and overly praising, and historical narratives.
At such it would be both effective and the moral path for the right, and center to sideline this authoritarian racist faction, which slanders and discriminates and favors the replacement of its base. To oppose anti-white and anti-male discrimination is good for society, and good also because it avoids an injustice at the particular groups and challenges directly the logic of the radical far left.
Before that Mike Lindell has been deplatformed and one of the target of the ire of the left wing establishment which includes plenty more rich people collectively working together than what Mike Lindel represents. Where their behavior is not held accountable.
There is no reason to consider this as an example of a bet taxing bullshit. That perspective would only merit entertaining if we see courts forcing liberal establishment figures, including in powerful corporations and NGOs having to pay large fines, or getting them to pay relating to technicality, including prove me wrong bets, to the extend there is some parity there.
Even this hitpiece article against him shows how Lindell has been targeted for his political opinions although they have a celebration paralalax line. https://www.newsweek.com/rise-fall-mike-lindell-1830372 and he has been banned from social media platforms and had other interference with his affairs https://www.axios.com/2023/09/22/mike-lindell-cellphone-seizure-court-constitutional
The message being given is that if you oppose us or support Trump, we are going to get you. And then throw a line of weak deniability. But it would be about your political opinions.
Moreover, the collective media hitpieces on this guy is just utterly horrible behavior. It seems that a culture of liberal voyeristic sadistic glee has developed where certain figures especially, and their general opponents become the afixed target. But especially there is a focus on particular individuals as a tactic to isolate the opposition. This culture definitely leads to increasing injustice and indifference to injustice, because the priority is "getting them" whether Trump, Lindell becomes a value that replaces actual moral principles.
This culture of feeling pleasure over the misfortune of the hated Lindell promoted by such media and such echochambers might be influencing your happiness at his misfortune.
Another issue to ponder, is what would happen if everyone who made claims about russiagate, election interference, supported riots, made destructive false partisan claims, not just politically incorect but including all political correct false narratives, etc, were targeted. Not to mention controversial issues that aren't cared about like supporting warcrimes, aggressive wars, and more. Who would be left of the political establishment?
If one compares drug decriminalization, or general decriminalization policies with countries that follow law and order, the later not only have less drug abuse but also don't have to imprison that many people. The influence of such policy of drug criminalization for most of the world with such policies is for people successfully be dissuaded from abusing harmful drugs.
Drug abuse is a societal scourge and it is another example how libertine policies and attitutes lead to greater suffering but also greater imposition on people's freedom than the sacrifice required from making good trade offs and abstaining from harmful behavior. For the loss of what is good by becoming addicted to drugs is quite greater.
At the end of the day the libertine's have a cope that their policy leads to worse consequences but people get good and hard what they choose. But we shouldn't accept this cope way off thinking. The worse outcomes and society sucking more under such policies is good reason to not respect this course.
Same could also be said with obesity, or even the long term problems of lack of children.
We live in an age where there is a crisis of lack of smaller self sacrifices, for ultimate a greater negative end. In line with the proverb "An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure".
Now, you can't force people to have children, or not get fat, in the same way you can enforce criminalization of drugs, although there are things you could do, but the moralists on these issues are correct. Contrarily the people who have been spreading apathy and downplaying have had a corrosive effect on society.
Beyond just policy, there is also a morality involved with society that does end up relating to what happens and pressures people and also affects the law. So we can judge and contrast the libertine morality with more conservative one on drugs and other issues.
The ridicule of the people trying to dissuade people from bad behaviors and such campaigns, especially on drugs have been one of the most unjust reactions and self destructive ones for society. That kind of judgementalism against wise moralism is disastrous. We need the right kind of moralism. A good society is one where there is moral pressure in the right directions. While a completely non judgemental society is impossible.
Now that we see decline in various important issues, we should appreciate more the conservatives of the past who maintained certain good mores and actually fought to preserve them. Of course you need the right balance of enforcement, or conservatism, but modern conservatives have mostly not been too much on the excessive conservative side in the recent past on such issues. Seeing the effect of liberals taking control I do appreciate actual conservatives more, while in the past I had more mixed feelings about them. People should go back and see what each faction was pushing and claiming, examine how things played out and praise those who got them right, and criticize those who got them wrong.
Oh and the point is good trade offs and knowing what you are doing instead of relying on wishful thinking. Drug restriction policies have had a good track record in modernity. So the idea is for a general ethic of societal discipline for long term good on important areas. Still, no reason to enforce restrictions in a manner that the excessive restriction is more damaging to society than the gain. Or at least to persist where it would be unwise. See covid lockdowns which have been the more excessive uncharted waters type of policy, although serious enough diseases could justify such impositions.
First, define "good art" because we've been having this conversation for centuries and nobody's got a working definition universally accepted. What is "good" art - technical merit and ability? subject matter? what the public likes versus what educated taste likes? And is "good art" art in "good taste"? What's good taste, then, precious?
Everything has been debated forever. There is nuance but generally we could say that:
Good art is aesthetically pleasing. Elevates the human spirit rather than denigrates it. Promotes fundamental truths over lies. Promotes virtues. Is respectful of the original source material, and of the people from which it derrives.
And for the right, also has historical significance. Plenty of it would focus on themes that had been successful in the past, including especially in art before the 20th century.
Everything has nuances but there are also fundamental truths. Among films, The Lord of the Rings adaptation would qualify in a manner than most other adaptations we have seen in recent years don't.
Actually Lord of the Rings did have a character who was demoralized and ready to surrender in Denethor. https://youtube.com/watch?v=b7MCVm4XISc That attitude was treated by the protagonists with contempt which spoke of an important truth. Even greater truth is found in the scene were the advisor Wormtongue who has corrupted king Theoden is banished. Truly magnificent. Also wonderful to see Theoden from a sad shell of a leader returning to a noble king of men. https://youtube.com/watch?v=iQExgALv9wI
Artists are about being transgressive, challenging social and cultural established values and thought, novelty, and all the rest of it. You can't pay them to produce 'conservative' art, and those who do so will be and are derided as sell-outs. Think Thomas Kinkade, who certainly had some measure of talent, deciding to make himself into a brand and churn out product on carefully selected themes that were repeated ad nauseam. "The Painter of Light" who was wildly successful with the public and made a fortune, but he's never going to get the respect of the art world.
How many artists these days are transgressive about the dominant established values of thought? Musicians especially. Do you see them to decry it? Well there are a few who do with some success.
Conservative art was produced for much of history. And based on the weirdo definitions of conservatism I see here, maybe they still are if conserving the status quo is conservatism (it isn't).
Think Thomas Kinkade, who certainly had some measure of talent, deciding to make himself into a brand and churn out product on carefully selected themes that were repeated ad nauseam. "The Painter of Light" who was wildly successful with the public and made a fortune, but he's never going to get the respect of the art world.
Thomas Kinkade is an incredible painter and artist. You can create an environment mroe conducive to allowing artists who really care for their quality of their to create good art. Like Cormac McCarthy whose wives claimed they lived in abject poverty who wasn't a leftist either. Which I am led to believe is actually impossible by some of the comments here.
And you can make it easier for rightists or leftist artists too by creating an environment that promotes more the one, or the other in praise, status, positions to create art.
'Good art' is not going to be given that accolade unless it accedes to the values of the liberal and indeed progressive strain of cultural hegemony. "Norman Rockwell type art" is not intended as a compliment. Is Marcel Duchamp's urinal good art? I think Surrealism did produce good art and it did give a shock to the art world, which every new movement needs to do, but as tastes and values evolve, there's no going backwards.
Yes, and? You are arguing with a strawman. I argue that rightists should fund art magazines, and artists themselves. In fact it is the sane reaction to a polarized environment.
Also, it wasn't always that bad.
but as tastes and values evolve, there's no going backwards.
Says who? Tastes can evolve in various directions. And who says there is no taste for continuous traditions? In actuality old artforms have continuing fans even today.
Actually, there was a film released recently about hunters of pedophiles that was rather popular and was denigrated by most of the media.
Plus, in American television rural tv shows were once all the rage but that ended one day when executives decided to cancel them.
As it happens the public can accept even garbage, although with more dissatisfaction than something better. Where do you gain that great confidence, especially as someone who has claimed to be a conservative that the current dominant strains are the epitome of unchanged sophistication? This faith in the unchallenged and hopeless progressive arc of history is really bewildering.
Mass migration has never been higher than under Sunak in Britain. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/25/sunak-under-pressure-as-net-migration-to-uk-hits-record-606000
I think you need to consider your post. You are praising Indians rulers of UK as others have done so. Doesn't this show you share some of this mentality?
At best it is just Suela who is ineffectively pushing back. But considering talk in combination with opposite action has been commonly seen by the Torries for decades and even others behaving likewise to Sulla, why trust her.
Be more stingy with your praise for politicians until they have done enough to earn it.
What I'm curious about is why so many of the native Tories (Boris Johnson, George Osborne, David Cameron) were so open-bordery. Aristocratic disdain for the native proles? Desire for cheaper servants? Regular cosmopolitan posturing?
It probably also has something to do with why they made gay marriage legal, enforce zero carbon agenda, promoted hate speech laws, and in fact expanded the authoritarian culturally left wing state quite a bit and enforced affirmative action in the party. And entrenching groups like hope not hate as activist organisations that are powerful within the state. Oh and the fact that Cameron selected members of the party based on being culturally left wing enough and excluded others for being right wing. Before that Blair also empowered NGOs.
It also has something to do with right wingers being gullible and willing to vote for them after doing these things. The Torries have been promising for decades to reduce migration. Cameron also said he would control it. If right wingers were more intolerant like leftists and more demanding and condemning and willing to abandon political parties promoting false promises and go to other right wing parties of a more genuine and right wing sort, then maybe politicians would be inlined to keep their promises so they can keep their chairs.
Alas, unlike the never satisfied even when winning leftist, many a right winger is easily satisfied by little when they are losing.
Unlike the people here who have been praising this while it has been happening and always seen moderation and based torries, or based Indian Torries, I would recommend to people who are interested in this phenomenon Peter Hitchen's books or articles about these events who called it as he saw it. Like the Cameron Delusion for example or abolition of Britain that focused on Blair. In all honesty I have read parts of the first and articles, speeches/debates from Hitchens, so you can get some of the content in that manner too.
Anyway, talk is cheap, only action on issues like migration matters. When it comes to politicians by the results you will judge them.
You up the ante in attacking white women in trying to censor negative criticism of black women. You should stop acting as if you are a mod for a reddit sub and trying to enforce left wing ideology on everyone. Unattractive is not equivalent to calling a group disgustingly fat which is more inflammatory. Plus, I won't interpret you choosing that rhetoric as just being a case of providing an example. It seems to me that you are deliberately want to get away with calling white women as disgustingly fat.
It is actually the case that white women are more attractive than black women. Less obese too. So it can't be applied to white women which aren't seen as unattractive.
Black women tend to be rated as less attractive than others.
If either side was in each others position they would be extreme ultranationalists/hardcore identitarian tribalists as they are now. I think the Zionists would be more competent at dealing with another invading group had they been equally smart in that scenario. If the zionists were in palestinian position and were invaded by a group called the Yews that behaved just like the Jews did historically, they would hate their guts with an intense fanaticism that is rarely seen. And yes they would of course utilize terorrism like they did historically, and they wouldn't stop had it been the advantageous method for them to utilize in the circumstances. Generally Jews would really, really, really hate a group that behaved against the Jews like Jews behave towards non Jews.
If Israeli militants would behave as Hamas militants were they in that position, then the immorality of Hamas conduct is greatly diminished in severity.
Yes, relatively to Israel that is. Neither Hamas nor the Israelis and their fans are reasonable groups of people, from the perspective of seeking compromise, avoiding bloodshed, acting morally and ethically, with a mind to proportionality, caring consistently about the golden rule, respecting others rights, etc, etc. Including the same people in the west and in the middle east, they are all a bunch of crybullies, quite possible for them to be victimized based on circumstances, but whenever they get the opportunity they will mistreat others for their benefit and cry about being the victims besides.
So I am not a fan of either sides, or even the behavior of their diaspora but I would prefer if they behaved better but alas you can't change them just cause you wish it to be so. Although due to greater power, I find Israel has the greater responsibility to stop illegal settlements.
Anyhow, contemporary Israel bad behavior and war crimes and unhinged genocidal rhetoric we see among Zionists is already bad enough and worse than what the Palestinians do, although one could argue that had they had the power they would be just as bad or worse.
I find it ironic that you prefer the Israeli way of doing things that excludes you while you want to migrate to the west which if it followed the logic you praise, would rightfully exclude you from it.
But your logic in favor of nationalist violence implies far more besides that. Lets just say your general stance is completely incoherent. Is nationalist violence good when the Israelis do it only, or do you secretly find the west stupid for not being more hostile to you? Although the implications of your rhetoric of more violence no problems raises far more negative implications about what global powers should do. Or even specific countries fearing a dismal fate for their people in the future. Or should have done in the past.
I don't actually agree but I do think enough force and hostility is needed against those who deserve it and to promote civilization and justice. But adoring violence as the solution is wrongheaded and leads to a world under fire and predation of inoccents. Which you show no concern to avoiding. Obviously not letting someone with your backstabbing mentality come to the west would be the sane course. And stopping mass migration of foreigners in general. Which is good in general. But say some white nationalist when India had no nukes wanting to nuke India because they sew it as a threat would be an extremely immoral conduct.
I fail to see any sincere philosophical appreciation for violence and tribalism here. Rather, you are sucking up to Jewish ultra-nationalism.
I encountered the same types who were using incel to had been previously been using MRA as an insult in reddit political subreddits.
The reality is that in culture wars, the groups that are bullied more are those who have shown weakness and susceptibility to it by accepting it, and those who have a lower status position. And men who do pander to women qualify. Obviously this in it self is a massive problem for movements that claim to be for equality, and you will sometimes see people use the arguement that X demographic cares less about identity politics for themselves, so it is fine and proper to maintain a caste system.
A bit like the over focus on white extremism, or "right wing conspiracy theorists". All these are smear terms and propaganda from a political space that favors framing things in a manner that is excessively disfavorable towards its outgorups, men being one of them.
It is also important to note, that it is blatantly a bad argument that the existence of niche subcommunities justifies such behavior. There is obviously a backlash against feminism, but modern loser men have never been more pro feminist, and previous generations of more sexually successful men, had more antifeminist views. Although, being attractive and more social is probably something women appreciate more than having more feminist views and not being too social. But that frustration a) it would be unfair on current societal circumstances including issues like hypoagency, female overepresentation in colleges, and a lot other things, to entirely pin on men as a class while not criticising women which is what the prevailing bias is towards b) it is something different than the narrative that ties the increasing more isolated behavior as deserving because they hate women. This guy has a decent if somewhat more pro male take on decline of marriage. https://www.highly-respected.com/p/stop-blaming-men-for-the-marriage
An aspect of this strategy is to keep in line under a mental slavery and acceptance of their inferior role, various demographics who accept that it is just and roper for them to have a subservient role as allies. My view is that these ideologies really need to be thrown in the dustbin, but it isn't as if I think unfairness towards women is impossible. Although we should also be conserned with important goals of the common good and not take a self serving lazy stance that greater comfort for particular demographics is greater good. For example neither women nor society benefits if birth rates crash and we have a culture that abhors necessary pain and self sacrifice.
What we see here is another example of a supremacist ideology in favor of specific demographic, also unconcerned about the negative effects n society in general, that hides under the pretense of being morally pure, and its dissenters evil. It would be a beating a dead horse to say that a male incel supremacist/focused ideology where the selfish interest of an incel is maximized at expense of women, and society, is undesirable. I would expect most people here already agree with the undesirability of such approach. Well, people should realize such movements are exaggerated enormously and dangled as scapegoats to justify the opposite extreme, and reject such manipulations.
Although, controversially, I don't see why the interests but not from a self destructive manner for society, of even incels of people who would have come incels, needs to not be considered. As should that of women, even incel women. Hint, hint, we need to move towards a situation that there is more romance, marriages, and births. And part of having a sane understanding on such controversial issues is putting your foot down and saying that the legitimate interests of groups like whites, men, whoever, matter. But, like all interests those have a limit and it relates also to how they affect the legitimate interests of other groups. There is a massive gray area and room for debate, but this idea that only the interests of progressive favored groups matter, and the interests of other groups is inherently an extremist proposition, is precisely why things have gone in a direction that is hateful and mistreating of groups whose interests are treated as illegitimate.
While I am in favor of the suppression/end of various sacred cows movements and their limited hangouts that are extreme in this manipulative manner I don't think the ideal is to be the opposite extreme, but to try to wisely favor good tradeoffs. There isn't a good reason to buy into this idea that without such movements and factions only the most extreme chaos and opposite approach would happen. Part of these fears relate also to exaggerating the bad things from the past and not considering the good things that have been eroded by such movements. Nor the fact that we can in fact choose to accept whatever if any reasonable points have been made, while still we ought to reject the unreasonable, which cannot be done under the factions that are uncompromising which is what we are dealing with now.
I am not part of the dissident right although there are some ideas where there is crossover, as is to be the case to anyone opposing the prevailing racism of our time and standing for the rights of groups associated with the right. Your crossover with the woke is quite much closer though.
And obviously the people who agree with the woke like you, do not allow victimhood politics for right wing identity groups but you do tolerate and allow it for left wing identity groups, and you directly attack those opposing this distinction. Your ideas fit directly with the woke. Your constant attacks towards any victimhood/identity politics for white people in particular is obviously racist especially when there are no white identitarian groups with substantial influence, and much more of other groups with said influence which promote a racist agenda. This is a very extreme and also very ahistorical agenda. It has only been promoted as the way to eliminate tribalism among moden far left and American liberals, who often don't realize how radical they have been.
I deliberately argue that unlike the woke we need to actually try to separate legitimate victimization with illegimate excess promotion of a group as victims where it is unwarranted. That accurately recognising victims and perpetrators is a key aspect of justice, which is undermined by various people not just you who try to argue that caring about victims of the wrong tribes is inherently evil and is dissident right-esque as you try to portray it. Which is a blatant circular argument. Its evil because you define those arguing it as evil.
In reality the moderate position that is in line with justice and the truth is that identity groups associated with the left, need to knock it off with their victimhood politics and hatred and come to tolerate and compromise with respecting the rights and identities of groups associated with the right like white christian straight middle class men. And of course those who have a self hateful mentality which is blatantly unjust should do likewise for their own group.
I even argued against right wingers adopting the same mentality as the woke and gave specific reasons of why, rejecting the claim that it is slave morality for the right to adopt that kind extreme supremacist tribalism. My specific argument was that it was unjust, caused unnecessary conflict and was a totalizing vision. So unlike you, I manage to distinguish my position with an extreme one in favor of any group. And I leave room for moderation for left wing associated groups too. I do think that both tribalism to a point and promoting legitimate victimhood to a point is justifiable for different groups and also explicitly for any identity groups associated with the right.
Especially those associated with the right, in the time where progressive extremism that disregards their rights is the more pervasive movement.
What is satirical is how you twist things and paint yourself as someone in the middle or as a "conservative" who somehow focuses much more on attacking the right than the left. Especially when the left wing tribalism is dominating by denying the right wing groups any legitimacy, which is an agenda that you completely fit into. In your David French-esque world it is Hlynka and those fake conservatives like the Torries who actually implemented the far left agenda in policies such as hate speech laws, mass migration, intolerance to native identity politics and AA that represent the true conservatism, while actual opponents of it are "woke"!
Apparently, these ideas are too incoherent for various people here to give a damn, which is convenient for those like you who try to muddy the waters.
Either various people here have a problem with their comprehension. And they tend to be those who previously have shown the same lack of comprehension and promoted this concern trolling argument. Or they actually can comprehend this distinction fine but like to pretend they don't.
In any case, the argument in favor of concern trolling white people, Christians, right wingers, men, whoever, is a blatantly false and easy to undermine through basic logic. The fact that so far it hasn't been sufficiently attacked and ridiculed is itself insulting for those who failed to do their duty and weaken a horrible argument that is pretty key part of the worse behaviors in politics today. There is clearly in certain spaces a shameful lack of conviction in areas where strong conviction is fully justifiable, but would challenge the basic premises of the woke/progressive stack faction. Worse than that the excess of conviction exists in trolling those who actually try to undermine these pervasive today fallacies.
Of course there is a coherent argument there.
Which is that concern trolling the outgroup that it should not show victimhood is promoting injustice for X and Y and Z reasons. Because recognising victimhood accurately is a core component of justice and the progressive extremist movement has denied this to the outgroup and promoted excessive for the ingroup. And then explaining how this movement has operated historically with all its components.
It is a gross misrepresentation to claim that my post boils to claiming my outgroup is evil and I don't make a coherent argument. I explain why this movement has been unjust in this manner. It might not be the argument you would like, especially because you fit with said progressive movement of having double stadnards and have consistently promoted the victimhood of the progressive ingroup and downplayed of the progressive outgroup. Hence your attack and denunciation.
There are plenty of groups that I have disliked throughout the years and been critical off. Progressive extremists/woke are one of them but I have been willing to be critical to right wing groups showing the same extremism although of course i consider it a mistake to prioritize this in the current circumstances. I even qualified and been consistent of it that restraint is a key part.
This idea of "hating on the outgroup" is an excuse for authoritarianism from you ironically who hates your outgroup of course and you certainly have been very willing to hate on those not sharing your progressive politics often enough. Its a way to undermine any valid criticism to promote a limited hangout for the progressive extremist movement. The suffocating constraints of the political commissars, the Amandabs of this world is how we reached the current situation.
The progressive extremism that needs to be condemned and not tolerated is a harmful movement, that we would benefit from its sharp criticism and it been replaced in influence by a more moderate ideology that lacks its one sided tribalism for their favorite groups and their complete disregard for respecting the group rights, and the groups it self that they deem as oppressors. That is the truth, and also what is just, no matter how you try to spin it.
Your insults and slander were expected and mean nothing to me.
** By the way I am disappointed not in you, but in someone else here not addressing the central claim about since wokeness does not respect any victimhood for the outgroup and promotes excessive victimhood for the ingroup, justice requires to actually respect victimhood for right wing associated groups. Because the pervasive concern trolling and arguments I have seen here and elsewhere was against promoting victimhood for right wing associated groups. If I am making a valid point, it would be nice to see someone aknowledge it for a change, and if they disagree on the substance, I would like to see where it is the error in the logic. But it is easier to just condemn as a way to support your extremist faction.
Trying to make laws that are based on motte and bailey between pretensions of equality but actually it is about screwing white people or men, or whatever non progressive group is an obvious way forward.
The only way it might not work is because some of the politicians calling themselves conservatives in addition to the leftists are unwilling to do this whatsoever. In that case, nothing that can work, will work. Pressure can still get more of them, but the right has a gatekeeping problem and infilitration by the left.
Hanania take that wokeness comes in part due to the law and what politicians voted for and enforced is true. Fundamentally what happened is that leftists voted for laws that preffered left wing groups and screwed the right, and supposed right wingers failed to oppose this or even joined with it.
More attention paid on this phenomenon is good, but we really need to promote much greater gatekeeping. The final evolution ought to be to be intolerant of leftists too who are too far to the left and are progressive supremacists. All this is possible, it just requires elite will to do so. And it might require some other meassures to the extend the NGO complex which was itself created and didn't exist overnight, favors one of the two outcomes. Corporate America for example acording to Bloomberg hired over 90% nonwhites. The same corporate america which sided with BLM which actually lead to a rise in murders in black community.
If the same applied against non whites, the leftists here would be advocating for the goverment to regulate and punish the people running corporations. Fundamentally right wingers need to be more aggressive and more willing to enforce justice while not buying the gaslighting of leftists who defect but want the right to be pushovers so they win. The left also should be more just and not be of te form the left is today. We need to gatekeep against that as well, rather than respecting progressive supremacist as an acceptable opinion. It's not. We can have pluralistic debate within a more limited overton window that includes valuable views and excludes the progressive supremacists.
Since you mentioned white nationalism, my take as someone who isn't a white American (I am not American and don't want to give at this point too many details about where I am from) is that some level of tribalism for white Americans being allowed is what you have if you don't have a racist antiwhite society. Unlimited white identity politics can become racist for the same reason the unlimited identity politics for Jews, blacks, women, trans, etc while no identity politics allowed for white americans, men, etc, leads to obvious prejudiced paths. So, even if someone supports multiculturalism white identity politics are a part of that, and it is insane racist bs to want zero white identity politics, when other groups, including broader categorizations with racial elements like Hispanic, Blacks, Asians, etc have theirs. Limiting the tribalism for progressive groups is the big thing if you want to make American society less racist.
I really can't take seriously at all someone who thinks zero white tribalism while allowing quite more tribalism for other groups is the solution to racism. Rather this is the kind of racist concern troll who should be gatekept. Both in a nation state and in a multicultural society, there ought to be tribalism for the majority group but with limits. Even in a nation state too much arrogance can lead to trying to take land from neighbors, etc. lack of tribalism leads to letting others take over, mass migrate, discriminate against you, and the vacuum is filled by the people who supposedly don't have tribalism adopt the tribalism of other groups, anyhow. There is a sweet spot.
So presenting things and pressuring in a direction that rejects the false dichotomy between far left extremism (that pretends of being moderation) and super far right boogieman, is important as to allow people to choose the superior moderate path of justice.
Trying to get the right in this direction is going to be more successful than trying to have a right that purity spirals and accepts the exact way of thinking of the more edgy, hardcore rightist types.
Whatever the actual numbers the nazis conduct against various ethnic groups during the war was murderous. They also enslaved for labor plenty of Europeans and Jews too. It isn't accurate that AFDs plans are equivalent with the nazis agenda even under the framework of many revisionists. Whether towards the Jews specifically, or other populations. It is fair to say the nazis commited genocides against multiple ethnic groups.
Actually the use of nazism as a propaganda towards Europeans is unethical also because the Nazis mistreated the people of plenty of European countries. But of course before the nazis and during and after them, other evil factions existed with a negative agenda against Europeans who even milked antinazism to justify themselves and demonize Europeans. Including those who suffered under the Nazis.
One could well argue that the antifa type of faction, which in fact shares some of the worst pathologies that nazism had, has in fact an agenda quite more destructive than even the nazis. And this applies especially when it comes to Europe. So I would say that if you are more hostile to Europeans than even the nazis, then you should not be allowed to have any influence and say about Europe.
In regards to AFD, some level of repatriations is a moderate response for their own survival that has been forced upon European nations by the extreme "destroy Europeans" faction which tries to promote as fait accompli the extinction of European ethnic groups. And of course there is the issue of those who migrated, illegally but "legalized" or legally, and got a paper saying they belong in said nation while are contemptuous of the native people and see the process as a conquest and are happy for it, and support discriminating against the natives, denying them their nationhood, and bringing more foreign settlers. Fundamentally, homeland's should be made mainly by their own people and minorities that respect the native majority and are tolerated in turn and through small numbers and intermarriage there might be some assimilation.
Too large numbers and too much hostility and the assimiliation goes to the other way towards the postnational state for the natives to be oppressed and destroyed and as a homeland for the conquerors. There are always trade offs when it comes to human rights and different nations, and this is the way that results in the least trouble and mutual respect of the rights of different nations to existence. And preserves world diversity of different nations, over say the world being dominated by the more fertile blacks, or a coalition of foreign groups who subsequently transform the west more in line to south africa. https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/diversity-is-good-actually
The Nazis conduct was of a more imperialist, genocidal nature in general at expense of non German populations under their control, so it isn't productive to compare AFD suggestion to that. In fact it can aid the conduct of anti-Europeans and help create a narrative that reverses the victim with victimizer. Which in this case the victimizers are those trying to destroy European nations.
Belisarius
.
4mo ago
Vegans can be successful athletes but it is more effort to do so. I dunno if one can be among the best athlete and a vegan.
Vegan protein tend not to have all protein amino acids and protein is less bioavailable. So it requires more effort to make sure you are eating different vegan foods that have a complete set.
Realistically effort matters a lot of how averages of people behave. So you are likely going to get a less athletic population on veganism. Plus veganism from what I know would be a bad idea for young children.
In general there is a danger of malnutrition with veganism which can be overcome with effort and knowledge. Since people can not be expected to have the knowledge and make the effort, this does mean that wider adoption of veganism would result in more of such problems.
And this is not entering issues about animal fertilizer, logistics, and more.
Whatever the responsibility of men in the 60s or 70s, it isn't the 60s or 70s anymore and there is also not an equivalence in the current arrangement. Frankly, I don't think we should care that much, about whether men or women are more at fault for the sexual revolution. Do you disagree, and think we ought to prioritize the original blame?
Average men are getting a raw deal which is worse than women. In addition to dating prospects, frustrated men get hostility, while women get pandering.
It is only a minority of men who come as winners in the current arrangement, and that is also at expense of society.
I mostly agree with Scott's Greer take I linked towards which also includes a part about dating apps. https://www.highly-respected.com/p/stop-blaming-men-for-the-marriage
While most women will get plenty of likes and matches, only top-tier men will get this level of engagement. A large percentage of women will match with the cream of the crop because men will swipe on everything. That small fraction of men will respond to this abundance with a refusal to settle down. Due to occasional matches, a majority of women believe they can obtain a guy from this small demographic. Society tells them to not settle for anything less, and they stay single in the hopes of one day getting chad to propose.
Attractive women in their prime (early-to-mid 20s) also have a similar level of abundance and don’t want to settle down either. Family would get in the way of their lifestyle. Their mind changes as soon as they hit 30, yet they’re now less capable of getting the man they think they deserve. The 30-something chads will eventually want to settle down, but they want a girl in her early-to-mid 20s (this reality motivates women’s rage over age gap relationships). But they’re less likely to obtain that dream girl, so they string along 30-something women who they will never propose to.
This situation doesn’t apply to all, but it does explain why a lot of millennial women complain about the dating market. The sense of infinite choice experienced by top-tier men and a large percentage of women diminishes the willingness to commit.
This is important, because people used to date more often through dates being arranged by friends and relatives, or meeting people through their community and in statistics showing how people meet, these have sharply declined, while dating apps have been replacing them.
There is also the issue of women dating up and their overepresentation in colleges and benefiting from affirmative action policies. Now, I recall when looking at statistics a rise in loneliness among women too, although there is certainly less pressure on them, but the current way things are arranged isn't necessarily great for women, even if it is worse for men. And even if there is pro female identitarian aspect to opposition towards changing things.
In any case, I don't think we should be paralyzed by narratives of original blame, on really any issues of consequence, but need to examine if the current arrangement is good, not necessary perfect, but working well, and if it isn't working well then it is time to change things. Of course, this is compatible with conservative changes, and reversing specific previous changes that resulted in things going in a worse direction.
I would reform the education system to strongly encourage people who are smarter and more capable to have more children. And for people in general who are capable and responsible to not fail at the task, which should be the majority, to have children.
Which means directly telling that they should do this and having actual lessons where they are taught by parents with children about how to raise children.
Another idea is to have mentors for the whole youth life of families that keep meeting and keep in touch and help them along and these mentors get a salary and bonuses based on X family raising successful multiple children that are net tax payers. Then this whole system can be adjusted to be X hardcore or Z hardcore based on fertility rate.
Also, the native peoples and I don't use it in the left wing sense should be especially targeted by these kind of programs, from the perspective that it should be a state goal for the continuation of nations under threat of demographic extinction due to lack of fertility and mass migration. This is just one sane reform that ought to be done.
Another idea is to open as a career matchmakers and recreate the old social technology by encouraging religious communities. In the past, even in the 1990s there were a greater share of adults who arranged dates and this strongly declined in the 2000s and 2010s. Obviously the current "free" market of dating doesn't work equally well to the previous arrangement on average, and also the dating platforms don't work. Even in schools there should be encouragement of greater amount of dating and more dances and such activities. So have a profession of match makers that people pay to help arrange dates between people that hire them. And enforce professional standards so they don't exclude people for not being sufficiently woke.
In all things there is a right balance, the goal is to get more young people to be dating and create responsible families earlier on than the current situation, which is better for the people involved and society in general but not to encourage irresponsibility and excessive hedonism. The end goal is young adult monogamous families.
Mandatory Gym class and pressure for people to be fit, and teaching them discipline and having meals that are not obesogenic is a good idea.
Eliminate all woke ideology in the broad sense. This includes any milking of holocaust, slavery, etc, etc. Spent more time attacking modern progressive activists and ethnic and other lobbies and excesses of identitarianism associated especially with the left than complaining about any of the past grudges promoted by the woke types. But don't spent too much time on it. Promote still a balanced understanding than hiding history, but countries should promote a positive vision and focus more on their own national history. Still teach the complete rejection of the progressive stack kind of ideology and condemn as evil and insane the idea that any progressive identity group is incapable of doing wrong now, or in the past against other groups, for any of these groups in isolation and combination including the one that the taboo is the strongest. Teach people an ethic that where one group rights ends another begins and the moral wisdom of concentric circles of concern in combo with the golden rule and trying to respect to others the same rights you want them to respect to you. Attack marxist ideology and any of its ideological cousins that calls for destruction of nations as evil. Teach an intolerance towards the worst radicalisms of our day.
Well, for this paragraph to happen and people to be trained in ethics certain organizations and NGOs and lobbies that captured institutions and even governments who promote the progressive stack need to be banned and kept down.
In western world teach of course about grecoroman history and also based on specific branch of the tree of western civilization, the particular historical people too. Try to create a sense of continuity with ones ancestors and the ideal of passing the torch. Promote the giants of history like Aristotle, Newton and the historical beauty of your civilization. Spent less but still some time about the accomplishment of other peoples too. Give people an appreciation for achievements and encourage the attitute of continuing on the accomplishments of the past. To accept the torch of civilization!
Well, I focused on the cultural/ethical/historical aspects which are the more important and today most lacking.
On the technical side, it does make sense to promote engineering and some level of computer science/A.I. fields, to avoid teaching the most advanced math to everyone, to shorten the high school years, and promote secondary specializations faster, and strong discipline against disruptive students. Obviously woke fields need to be removed.
Maybe an indirect way to foster an increase of intelligent families would be elite schools and then promoting in a more hardcore manner pro natalist encouragement there.
College education must be shorter to the extend possible. Another idea is to the extend there is something useful there that would take time from raising family to strongly discourage it in the 20s and to promote it more for those who have children after they had their children in their mid 30s. People can live a sufficiently long time, sacrificing career and education for their 20s in better from the long term both for themselves in all likelihood and certainly for society (and also to the extend it is common it avoids the effect of fear of missing out on career when others would do likewise). It is stupid to encourage delaying family to the extend we do now. Moreover based on polls people have less children than they claim to want and part of that is this delay that is encouraged by the current way things are set up.
Stop all pro female discrimination in admissions. Make all AA illegal. The only discrimination that makes sense in counries is having special programs for access to native students that recent migrants, or more commonly non citizens are excluded from. I don't have the USA in mind (because this model fits more for nation states dominated historically mainly by one group, although you could adjust it for treating different historical american demographics tm but it is more tricky and debateble there) but it makes sense for elite admission to put people who are part and identify with the population they are supposed to represent. Generally, migration ought to be limited to the extend that will not substantially change demographics and cause problems and people of decent human capital should be the ones who get in, prefferably as same ethnically as possible but for some professions migrants and their especially recent descendants make more sense than others. The ones that are about running and deciding the course of how society operates like say the law, should be more exclusive and try to have clear ethical proffessional requirements that would exclude those who support abuse of the law in favor of favoring or screwing over demographics in line especially with the pervasive force today of the liberal/progressive prejudices (which is what I mean by wokeness).
Wreck the factions that would never allow any of these things which is a prersequite to doing them. Obviously antinatalist which are often antinative racists in my experience of seeing how they talk having an apoplectic reaction and it stinks to them as fascism things that would stop and reverse the decline. There is no compromise that can be had, only by getting them out of the way can these ideas be implemented. Encouraging natalism will get you in trouble with feminists and antinativists.
Another idea is to try to scan for gifted students and give them more advanced education early on so they can progress further.
While promoting those who are gifted, promote still an ethic of noblese oblige, and gratitude of the gifted but not of guilt rather than an ethic of arrogance that encourages those who do better should mistreat those who do worse. For those who do worse, encouraging improvement and to abide by useful habits while not stirring jealous hatred is also a good idea. In general we need coexistence in compatible roles for those of unequal abilities and to punish bad behaviors, not tolerate it based on excuses, nor to foster social class conflict. For ethnic groups, they should fight for their legitimate rights but not be greedy and respect the same rights to others, they should also fanatically oppose any attempt to destroy them and respond to that with hatred but be proud but not arrogant. The goal is to destroy pathological altruism for some and the abuse of it for the others. Which would keep down the particular nasty factions who most abuse the susceptibility of society to it today, but it isn't the goal to enshrine selfishness as the common value.
Part of it is that Hanania reveals the fact that the "conservative" establishment has been complicit to cultural/ethnic far left extremism.
This fake conservative establishment which failed to stop it and in part supported this, and even further radicalized in such leftist direction don't want to stop and certainly don't and want their dirty laundry come to the surface. To be fair, not everyone on the modern historical right has been complicit. It wasn't unanimous.
There are genuine right wingers who might agree with Hanania that are part of the right. Not everyone gets to have his book succeed just cause his book makes a valid point. Hanania's also been attacking the right on various issues so he might had lost some of his popularity from that. His name recognition might not be that great too. Maybe some are also afraid to promote him due to the relation with "Hoste".
The "heterodox" University of Austin promising freedom of speech which was founded by a group including Bari Weiss cancelled Hanania, which is what I expected from any place associated in such manner with Bari Weiss.
The allowed stupid discourse that they originally promoted is telling: https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1495204921141915650#m
So there is a deliberate agenda by some malicious gatekeepers who are suppressing asking the right questions which can lead to genuine opposition. And part of this suppression includes promoting a focus on areas that don't challenge things. And leftists who don't want to oppose other leftists. But if you are like that don't talk about freedom of speech and heterodox ideas. Let those for the actual heterodox. Unless the goal is to subvert opposition to orthodoxy by having the heterodox also be orthodox.
Is there a chance that even if the book remains obscure, its ideas will make their way to the people who matter?
I do think it is having some positive influence. But there are entrenched elites who can't be convinced out of positions they haven't reasoned themselves into. Some of the people who matter will be more likely to pay attention and put pressure, or even replace some of said entrenched elites.
The right wing should do patronage of good culture and right wing culture and abandon an ethos of disengagement and libertarian ethos.
Why?
Because if you know artists, they care first and foremost about doing their things and getting money and recognition. The reason the left has been so successful its because it is willing to provide support, and to deprive them for not aligning with them.
Secondly, people who are actually on your side will also act based on incentives.
And thirdly, because the end result is desirable. A culture of just whining, about leftist cultural output is impotent. There is nothing wrong with complaining about what is bad, but you should also promote what is good. We need a society that promotes good art and and good culture. There is more to life than line going up. And if you don't try to fill that vacuum, someone else will.
What this means effectively? A right wing goverment should defund leftist artists and promote rightist artists and allow people to join the side. Soon you will discover that many artists are actually rightists who were afraid to express themselves.
It also means promoting art programs.
Also some kind of art tends to be of a more negative and leftist form like rap and modern art. Not all but more commonly.
Beyond the goverment, right wingers and not leftists should care more about networking to promote art that isn't left wing. It doesn't have to be explicitly political. Lord of the Rings for example qualifies. Just accurate adaptation of great classics of western literature without left wing ideological blinders would also qualify.
Putting regulations in place to make them illegal or underpromote far left racebending art and make them less financially viable, and giving incentives for art that respects the source material for example.
Of course, someone could object to a certain particularly aggressive moves in terms of what you promote and not promote, and in being excessively far to the right and excessively intolerant. And I could even agree with them in some cases.
However, in the current status quo, things are so lopsized in the direction of the left that it is pushing the culture landscape in a more pluralistic phase to have less race bending far left culture being promoted and more right wing.
This means that more right wing patronage of art is good even from a more neutral, pluralistic standpoint. Which is a general pattern of the culture war, even outside art. If someone is fine with leftist domination and escalation then a position in favor of an impotent disengaged right makes sense. We don't have a sufficiently neutral and moderate status quo though for defence of the status quo to be the neutral position.
More options
Context Copy link