@Capital_Room's banner p

Capital_Room

rather dementor-like

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 September 18 03:13:26 UTC

Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer


				

User ID: 2666

Capital_Room

rather dementor-like

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 September 18 03:13:26 UTC

					

Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer


					

User ID: 2666

we're not putting the genie of 'sexual liberation' back in the bottle of 'no sex outside of marriage'.

Why not? Sure, it wouldn't be easy, but I don't see it being impossible. If nothing else, a total collapse of industrial civilization and global reversion to pre-1700 technology levels would indeed put the proverbial genie right back; which establishes that it's at least possible. Sure, "turning back the clock" would probably require some pretty strong measures to pull off, but I figure a determined, non-democratic far-Right government could probably accomplish quite a lot toward this end.

You don’t say what other things can be done in the present

Because I'm pretty sure I'd eat a ban for doing so. What exactly did you think I meant by "flipping the table"?

Do reactionaries commonly believe it’s actually good to vote for the bad side?

In my circles, no, because it's "bad" to vote at all, being against democracy as we are.

It seems clear a future where the GOP gives up on winning election will not be good for gun rights.

Except you're assuming that right-wingers giving up on winning elections means doing nothing at all.

Plus, you ask us to focus on one small, narrow area where the Right is winning — for now, though the long-term demographic trends point toward an almost-certain reversal down the line — and ignore the many, many more issues where we're losing. Again, it's another version of the assertion that we should be happy merely with losing slowly, on the grounds we could be losing faster.

And, if you’re a conservative, avoiding a bad change is a victory itself.

Well, good thing I, for one, am a reactionary, not a conservative. "Not losing" is not winning, winning is winning.

If the culture war situation was, on average, where it is specifically on gun rights

But it's not, and there's no way within the "rules of the game" to get it there.

for abundant sexual access outside of marriage,

And if we nip the whole chain you lay out in the bud at this stage?

The question is not whether things would be even worse if our enemies had even more power than they currently do. The question is whether the formal system can in fact provide impartial redress for our grievances. I think the evidence is pretty clear that it cannot.

Yeah, when the choice presented is between losing quickly and losing slowly, the answer is to flip the table.

I've argued this same point with fellow right-wingers IRL (and it's interesting which ones tended to agree), to the point of arguing that overturning no-fault divorce should be a higher priority than trying to get Obergefell overturned. First, because AIUA the former is primarily statutory, and passing legislation is generally easier than overturning Supreme Court precedent; and second, because without no-fault divorce, I'd expect gay marriage rates drop significantly even if still legal.

If elections are so rigged against the GOP

My argument isn't that Republicans can't win elections, its that their winning elections doesn't matter. As Yarvin once said, there's a difference between taking office and taking power. It doesn't matter if some Republicans get voted in, real power resides far more in the permanent bureaucracy, the "NGOcracy" non-profit networks, academia, and other such Left-captured institutions, which together have so many ways of blocking temporary, merely-elected GOP politicians, that it doesn't much matter who wins the election, because the Left wins either way.

And I had much more radical things in mind for "where the Right is strong" than the Senate and Electoral College.

I, like the rest of the country, feel like nothing good will come of the election.

I don't respect sore losers, and moreover, I don't like the fact that there is no path forward for the right.

If you thought it was bad before, Russell Berman has a piece at The Atlantic with an even worse scenario: "How Democrats Could Disqualify Trump If the Supreme Court Doesn’t":

Near the end of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments about whether Colorado could exclude former President Donald Trump from its ballot as an insurrectionist, the attorney representing voters from the state offered a warning to the justices—one evoking the January 6 riot that had set the case in motion.

By this point in the hearing, the justices had made clear that they didn’t like the idea of allowing a single state to kick Trump out of the presidential race, and they didn’t appear comfortable with the Court doing so either. Sensing that Trump would likely stay on the ballot, the attorney, Jason Murray, said that if the Supreme Court didn’t resolve the question of Trump’s eligibility, “it could come back with a vengeance”—after the election, when Congress meets once again to count and certify the votes of the Electoral College.

Murray and other legal scholars say that, absent clear guidance from the Supreme Court, a Trump win could lead to a constitutional crisis in Congress. Democrats would have to choose between confirming a winner many of them believe is ineligible and defying the will of voters who elected him. Their choice could be decisive: As their victory in a House special election in New York last week demonstrated, Democrats have a serious chance of winning a majority in Congress in November, even if Trump recaptures the presidency on the same day. If that happens, they could have the votes to prevent him from taking office.

[Emphasis added]

Just picture what happens if Trump wins in November, but a Democrat Congress refuses to certify in January and gives it to Biden instead — totally not an "insurrection," just "defending Our Democracy". Sure, maybe the lefties around you won't "whine and complain for 4 years"… or maybe they'll be complaining about how "racism and sexism is everywhere again" as demonstrated by Trump winning the vote despite being an illegitimate candidate, and what a perilous state Our Democracy is in that Congress had to resort to such extreme measures after the courts failed to do their job, and so on. While, meanwhile, there's certainly going to be even more unhappiness on the Right.

(Though, really, I'm coming around to preferring an outcome like this. Because if this doesn't get Republican voters to accept that "Our Democracy" is fundamentally rigged against them and that voting is pointless, I don't know what will.)

Is there a way for the currents to move right without the undercurrents moving left?

I actually want to discuss whether the currents/counter-currents situation leaves any actual options for non-leftists, and I think that merits discussion.

My first reaction is to say no, there aren't any actual options for non-leftists, we're doomed, all hope is lost, etc., etc. Though, when I express such views online, at best I get people going on at me about how "that's the depression talking" and so on. (And when I push those people for what they consider options, it's mostly of the "vote harder, debate harder, 'own the libs with facts and logic' harder, and somehow overcome all of the left's institutional, cultural, and rhetorical advantages through sheer excellence" sort.) More often, it's lectures about how "despair is a sin" (here, the "solutions" tend to be waiting for Divine Providence to eventually deliver), or even just denunciations as a shill ("are you getting paid for this demoralization op in shekels or yuan?") or a traitor ("getting killed by leftists is the real right-wing victory").

So, in the spirit of trying to be more optimistic — like my therapists keep telling me — I'll limit it to saying there are no options for non-leftists within "the rules of the game" as currently constituted (and so thoroughly rigged against us). As for options "outside the game," well, I don't think I can discuss those here without eating a ban. Thus, I'll vaguely gesture toward Sun-Tzu's comments about not fighting where your enemy is strong and you are weak, but where you are strong and the enemy is weak.

Where exactly would you classify Confucianism in terms of "religion" vs. "not a religion"? I'm thinking both of Confucius's refusal to address supernatural matters, as well as atheist Confucians like Xunzi. Do you see Confucianism as having "worked" only to the extent is was a philosophical adjunct to traditional Chinese "folk religion"?

It would make sense to move as many departments away from DC as possible.

I've proposed relocating the CDC from Atlanta to here in Alaska… specifically Attu island. Claim it's about being better-positioned for future COVID-like outbreaks from China, possible Russian bioterror, re-emergence of diseases from permafrost due to climate change…

He looks for a better job.

So the permanent bureaucracy gets to decide who is or isn't an "acceptable" president, regardless of who the voters elect?

Never give an order that won’t be obeyed

So the permanent bureaucracy gets to decide which policies are and aren't "acceptable," regardless of what the electorate voted for?

"You can get the Model T in any color you want, as long as you want it in black," and all that. And people get on my case for saying "Our Democracy" is nothing of the sort.

If the game is simply that rigged against the right, what reason do we really have not to just flip the board?

Cancel culture doesn’t have the power of the medieval church, thankfully.

Not yet, perhaps, but they also have far better technology for hunting out wrongthink than any inquisitor of yore.

Should note that for the record, I answer all requests from the left to silence the HBDers with "you first; show that you're serious about not supporting 'racial consciousness' and 'corrective' racial discrimination,"

At which point, those lefties just ignore you and keep on "supporting 'racial consciousness' and 'corrective' racial discrimination" (and there's nothing you can do to stop them)

so realistically I don't expect to take any actions to silence HBD discussion during the next 10 years.

They don't need you to "take any actions to silence HBD discussion", they'll do that just fine themselves.

Pre-Trump — IIRC, in 2014. This same person held that Bush II's "compassionate conservatism" made him a Fascist, because it too is "economically 'left-wing' but socially 'right-wing.'"

or can win them over somehow.

And if you can't?

maybe you're doing something wrong

If by "something wrong" you mean having a different vision for the organization, different goals, different terminal values…?

The only path to victory I can see would be Trump firing as many people as he can at the federal level and devolving their responsibilities to the states. hat doesn't solve the root problem with the Left's stranglehold over education,

I can think of alternative paths, but first, I'm not particularly confident of their odds of working (but then, I don't think the path you've outlined here is at all likely to work either), and second, I'm not sure I'm allowed to lay them out here.

It was 2008, not 2016, no one was hyperventilating about "fascists" back then.

I remember left wing folks going on about the threat of "fascists" in America when I was attending college in Southern California in 2000-2005. The person who described this theory to me was a left-winger who did so approvingly, arguing that the failure of OWS due to the Progressive Stack was a good thing for the left, as compared to the alternative.

I don’t think the current mainstream position can hold indefinitely.

Why not? Or at least, if not indefinitely, at least for a few more centuries? So long as one side holds all the power, they can just use that power to suppress all the "heretics" who disagree — see the Medieval Church. One good, hard Albigensian Crusade against HBD, and…

There's a very common conspiracy theory among leftists that Occupy Wall Street and/or aspects of it were intentionally sabotaged by progressives inserting their identity politics into it, as a way to sow division among people of different demographics within the working class.

I've heard a somewhat different version of this, in that it was deliberate, it was done to "gatekeep" out portions of the working class, and that it was done knowing it could prevent the movement from attaining its goals, but that such "sabotage" was not the intended goal, merely a possible — and acceptable — price to attain the actual goal: to keep out Fascists. Because anyone whose position on the economic political axis would put them on board with Occupy Wall Street's goals, but whose position on the social/cultural political axis would cause them to oppose things like the "Progressive Stack" enough to be "turned away" (as opposed to at least holding their nose and putting up with it) is thus in the Fascist Quadrant of said political plane.

So, how does a "boss" deal with an organization full of hostile, recalcitrant subordinates actively opposed to his goals, and working to stymie and sabotage all his efforts, when the HR department actively works to make firing employees as difficult as possible?

and less shared in the mainstream.

And what does "the mainstream" matter? So long as the elites share this moral value, they don't have to defend it, they just have to forcefully impose it on the powerless peasant masses.

The answer, of course, is clear. Find a new character who can reenact the performance. The emptiness of freedom compels the search for fresh veins of righteous struggle

Of course, the best way to make your "righteous struggle" eternal is to make it against reality itself. Oppression is indeed a renewable resource when you're being "oppressed" by the very laws of physics themselves.

The Overton Window has to shift.

Except it won't, because those who would seek to do so lack the power to do it.

But the disparate impact doctrine is much harder to defend without "all races are equal",

Is it, though? I suppose it's not clear on what you mean by "disparate impact doctrine." I'm probably going to have to do that effort-post. But there's a difference between the "disparate impact is evidence of the racial discrimination that civil rights law is intended to fight" position, and the "we define 'racism' as the existence of disparate impact, and the purpose of civil rights law is to achieve racial equity regardless of causes."

There is the view that blacks should not be "overrepresented" in the prison population even if they commit more crimes — even if they are genetically predisposed to higher crime. I've seen someone actually argue and defend this view. It is the position that it doesn't matter if "all races are equal" or not — in cultural terms, genetic terms, whatever — it is our moral duty as a society to make them equal in terms of life outcomes, regardless. That this is what the "fairness" moral axis demands. That "equity" is a terminal moral goal, good in-and-of-itself, and either you share that fundamental moral value, or you don't (in which case, you are a racist moral mutant and an enemy to be defeated).

But the blue tribe's motivation is harder for me to explain to myself. Why do they hate the red tribe so much?

My own theory is best summarized by a tag I often use on Tumblr: "Puritans gonna Puritan." See Albion's Seed and Yarvin's days as Moldbug.

In his posthumously-published The Collapse of American Criminal Justice, William J. Stuntz devotes an entire chapter (chapter 6, "A Culture War and Its Aftermath) to an earlier culture war waged "[b]etween the late 1870s and 1933," essentially by Puritan-descended New England elites, against various "vices." The most famous being alcohol — the one area where they failed — but also Mormon polygamy; lotteries and gambling; prostitution and "white slave trafficking" (see the Mann Act, and the original name thereof); Mormon polygamy; and "obscene materials" (including pamphlets on birth control techniques; see the Comstock laws).

And as a different author (I don't remember which) noted, these moral crusades began pretty much as soon as the spread of the telegraph became possible for teetotal New England Puritans to read in their newspapers about how Borderers and Cavaliers down South or out West lived. Because those people were Doing Wrong, and thus had to be made to behave right.

Mencken defined "Puritanism" as "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy," but a better definition might be "haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be doing wrong." You are your brother's keeper (after all, remember the origin and context of that phrase). "Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." "An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere." And so on.

A friend of mine once told me, years ago, about how a coworker of his came in one Monday morning teary-eyed and demanding a meeting so that the business could decide what they were going to do, collectively, to help address the plight of the Rohingya. A week ago, this woman had never heard of them, and probably wouldn't have been able to locate Myanmar on a map. But she saw a news report about them, and that was enough for her to feel the burning need not only to "do something" herself, but to recruit everyone else she knows to do the same. It's something I see all the time online "you don't want to intervene in [bad thing X]? Then you obviously approve of [X]!" Don't want to send more into Ukraine? Then you must think the Russian invasion was 100% justified, you Putin boot-licker!

There is a certain kind of person for whom moral disapproval and the drive to intervene are one and the same thing, inseparable. To them, a lack of a burning need to stop a thing is proof that you don't actually disapprove of it. It's the classic stereotype of the D&D Paladin played badly: "see evil, smite evil." They are constitutionally incapable of shrugging and saying "none of my business." And the Blue Tribe is full of them.

Consider every missionary of an evangelizing, expansionist faith who has set out to convert the heathen — by fire and sword if necessary — because it's their duty, it's the right thing to do, and it's for the heathen's own good. If you have the One True Faith, the true set of Universal Human Rights, the Objectively Correct Morality, then you have a duty to spread and enforce it everywhere you can.

Why fight the Red Tribe? Because if you don't, you are complicit in every wrong they do. If you let the Red Tribe keep being transphobic rather than try to stop them, then the blood of every trans kid in a Red Tribe area who commits suicide is on your hands. Like Kendi says, you are either actively anti-racist, or you are racist. It's one or the other. You are either fighting evil, or you are evil.

Why does the Blue Tribe hate the Red Tribe? Because it's in their nature to hate anyone who fails to share their values. Because this need to be a moral busybody, a crusader, a Social Justice Warrior, is a core characteristic of the Tribe, woven into their culture (and probably also a non-trivial amount of genetic predisposition).

Why does the Blue Tribe continually attack the Red Tribe, trying to force them to convert, or otherwise eliminate the "Red culture"? Because they're fundamentally incapable of not doing so. They can't stop themselves, and thus they will never stop.

That's my view, at least, for whatever it's worth.