MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
No bio...
User ID: 1678
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
Wasn't Parler thrown off the Apple and Google app stores? Or was that some other company? I forget these things.
In any event, I don't think Kanye understands how politics in the US actually work. If he or his company becomes enough of a nuisance then they will simply be sabotaged in ever more extreme ways.
The major thing he misses, or perhaps only elides to, is that the individualist framework that libertarianism was built on has been utterly obliterated
I think this is the key difference. I also think there's a racial angle here. Whites in the US (and in the West more generally) have been the most ardent defenders and practitioners of individualism. The people who told them to do this were using arguments very similar to the ones employed by Jordan B. Peterson.
How did that go? The right has been losing on nearly everything. The only area where the right has won is on economics, but even here there's a question to what extent we should treat neoliberal victory as "right-wing". Previous incarnations of US conservatism (think late 1800s, early 1900s) were deeply critical, if not outright hostile, to capitalism. Those intellectuals viewed capitalism as uprooting traditional ways of life, destroying the countryside and spoiling nature.
It was only with Reaganism (about the time when Cowen was a young lad) that the shift towards equating rampant capitalism somehow became associated with being "right-wing". Perhaps there is a generational divide here.
So to me, the two big differences with the New Right are: A) understanding that working collectively, including using state power, is necessary and dogmatic individualism has failed to reap benefits together. B) neoliberalism is less important than cultural and social issues and can in fact work against you, e.g. many corporations are very woke and have done next to nothing to push back at social trends that the New Right views as harmful or unwanted.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
The Chinese do not want decoupling. All their actions have shown this abundantly clearly. As such, I suspect their reaction will be muted.
As for Taiwan, it has become a prestige issue but everyone knows whether or not China controls the island makes little concrete difference. The US isn't going to invade the Chinese mainland and there are questions whether the US can even defend the island given the massive missile arsenal of the Chinese that would make life utter hell for any navy fleet trying to intervene. And of course, all this ignores the massive navy that China has built up.
I suspect China will muddle along and build up domestic competitors. Much of the chip industry is entering a bear market with oversupply and weak demand. With China out of the game, it will be Deep Freeze for most of these firms. Almost every day you hear horror stories of CapEx being slashed 60-80%. I don't think the pol sci/lawyer class that runs the bureaucracy has understood this fully, if at all.
I think that's a false choice. Many people cherish free speech. Indeed, if we had true free speech, I suspect the right would notch a lot more cultural victories as there would be far more pushback on social media etc. Why are most of us even here to begin with? Censorship on major platforms like reddit.
So the issue isn't civil liberties. It's that classical liberalism has failed utterly to safeguard the principles that it wishes to uphold. In short, it's not enough to want something. You must also actively create the space for it. This is where the differences from the old, libertarian-leaning right that Cowen belongs to and the New Right begin to emerge.
Many on the New Right wouldn't even blink twice about using the state to force private companies to censor less, or to mandate viewpoint diversity in universities by using state power. But that would be sacrilege if you're a classical liberal. So you "lose beautifully" instead. Such an approach has been an utter failure for the past few decades and the New Right has drawn the appropriate conclusions.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
Almost no one cherishes "free speech" -- most people cherish free speech for themselves, but not so much for those with whom they disagree. They cherish free speech instrumentally, not intrinsically. Which is really not cherishing free speech at all.
That's probably correct and a depressing thought.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
Yeah, I recall playing Cowboys vs Indians as a young boy and nobody as much as batted an eye. Appropriating native Indian identity is old news. What are the Apache and Comanche helicopters if not that?
I think these stories are just part of the new hypersensitive discourse on race.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
That's true. But one has to ask the question why the sudden surge in these faux identities. I'd argue that it is linked to race-based discrimination in educational and increasing professional settings. You didn't see this before.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
Why is he being destroyed so thoroughly?
How many mafia one-liners can you fit into one paragraph? I suppose I'll settle for "it's not about the money. It's about sending a message". In this case, the message is directed to other "right-wing pundits" outside the MSM. Stay in line - or else.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
There was a massive bubble in 2020-21 with web3/NFT/crypto and all kinds of start-ups got insane valuations. So I think the sector is just trimming the fat. Not just within sectors (or entire sectors) but within companies too.
As for HR, my view is somewhat more cynical than yours. I think their primary function is to keep tabs on employees and keeping the company leadership in charge rather than helping to solve conflicts or other fluffy stories they tell others - and occasionally themselves.
So Tucker is under fire from the ADL after Tucker claimed attacks on white women was because they were "key to reproducing the white race" or something to that effect. Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the ADL, has now openly called him a Nazi. Greenblatt in particular seems to have a personal obsession with Tucker, with him publicly demanding Fox News fire the talkshow host on previous occasions. Tucker has also been the subject of a massive frontpage NYT article claiming he was a white nationalist.
An Orthodox Jewish group has decided to never let a good opportunity stirring the pot go to waste, joining the fray by issuing a statement demanding him to resign. Who? Greenblatt, of course! They represent about 2000 rabbis, so it isn't a small group, though admittedly the Orthodox community within the American diaspora is much weaker than they are within the British community.
There are two things of interest to me. First, the intra-Jewish CW on how to deal with rising de facto white nationalism. Even the most generous reader of Tucker's words will have to concede that he is making explicit racial arguments on behalf of a race, namely his own. Whether you agree with him or not is beside the point. He is no longer mumbling or hinting.
But secular Jews, who have historically been most alarmed about white nationalism, are now training their guns on the Orthodox community. The NYT - arguably their house paper - unloaded on Jewish day schools (called "yeshivas") in a front page article some weeks ago. The Orthodox community is growing very fast and unlike previous eras, retention appears to be stronger. So we can expect the American Jewish community to look more like the British one (which tends to lean conservative). Right-wing Jews do of course worry about white nationalism but they tend to not overlook left-wing anti-Semitism as much as secular Jews do.
Just a few days ago, Jerusalem Post carried an Op-Ed predicting the end of the "golden age" for Jews in America. Were Nazis the culprits? No, the author contended. The threat is "Islamo-Leftists". As the Jewish community trends right, a more diverse range of opinions will flourish away from the monolithic focus on white radical right extremism. But at the same time, it is hard for non-Americans such as myself not to notice how open racial appeals are made by folks like Tucker or Ann Coulter. Admittedly, Coulter has dipped her toes in these waters in previous years but even a cursory look at her substack shows the word white come up just as often as conservative. A decade ago, that wouldn't have happened.
As a curiosity, her podcast partner is Mickey Kaus, who is Jewish. So we seem to be viewing two different trends. First, an ever-increasing explicit focus on race from white right-wingers away from generic terms like "conservative" or "Christian". Second, an internal Jewish struggle where the long-term trend seems to favour the right-leaning Orthodox community. Stuck in all of this, you have legacy organisations like the ADL which still has institutional clout. Yet Tucker seemingly cannot be fired despite being openly called a Nazi by the head of the ADL, something that I would not have expected under the era when Abe Foxman ran the organisation. Is this a sign of a weakening hold of the ADL within the Jewish community or a radicalisation (racialisation?) on the part of white America? The answer, it appears to me, seems to be both.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
Ultra-Orthodox is often perceived as a slur within the community. It is not a term they themselves use, because it implicitly frames non-frum communities as the center and them as marginal. In a demographic sense that may be correct, but that is separate from religious designations.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
That said, Carlson and Coulter aren't saying anything that couldn't be found in the National Review or even on cable news 25 years ago. This is probably just because in the fifteen years following 9/11 immigration was less central to the political debate in America than it was in the '90s or is now.
It's true that National Review used to be significantly further to the right in the 1990s on issues like immigration. The founder of Vdare (I forget his name) used to be published there. But I did read some of the texts they published and while they warned about hispanic immigration and "illegal aliens", they were careful not to use explicitly race-based arguments. That is something we're seeing now even if the context isn't immigration but rather 'wokism' for the lack of a better term.
It seems remarkable how little racial tension there is Canada, at least if you compare to the US or parts of Europe. Perhaps it shows that selective migration can overcome a lot of issues with multiculturalism.
Though I also get the sense that Canada has become less selective over time compared to e.g. Australia. In particular, the hugely disproportionate share of Punjabis among new immigrants shows that there are flaws in the system that are being exploited, because typically a small sub-group wouldn't have such a large footprint.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
Apparently the UK's entire net worth was £10.7 trillions in 2020 according to the ONS, their chief statistic agency. What's remarkable is that a whopping 60% of that is "non-produced, non-financial assets".
That's a fancy way of saying land. Why isn't this fact more well known? Should we expect it to be different for other countries? And why aren't more people talking about Georgism?
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
Georgism isn't changing ownership of the land, it's changing the way the government taxes the land.
I think this strikes at the root of the issue, and it's something many seemingly misunderstand. I have respect for people who want a low-tax regime as possible, but even there you can replace a lot of taxes with a LVT, so in some instances the cumulative tax burden could even be lower than before. High taxes are not in themselves a goal worthy of striving to, but tax efficiency is, even if it happens to land a lower level than before.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
Kanye is one of the most significant artists of the first few decades of the 21st century, at least in the West. There's a lot of people in their 30s now who grew up with his music, at least if they were into hiphop. He was together with Drake arguably the most influential artist in rap after the Jay-Z/Eminem/Dre/Nas era.
What sets him apart from the others is that he made tons of money outside of music, far in excess of what is typical. The only other major successful rap artist I can think of who made much more money in non-music ventures would be Dr.Dre with his "beats" peripherals. But Kanye is certainly going to rank higher than Dre when the history of hip-hop is written (if we limit ourselves to music).
That's why this attack is so amazing. He had everything to lose and he didn't blink twice doing it.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
Surprised so few people talk about Brasil here. Their election (2nd round) is today. It looks like Lula is the slight favourite but even his supporters concede that Bolsonaro has a good shot. For those not in the know, Lula is the social democrat with Bolsonaro best described as "Trump of the Tropics".
Yet a complicating factor is that the new congress has already been elected and it was much more right-wing than expected. So Lula's room for maneuver will be significantly constrained if he happens to win.
There does seem to be a structural undercurrent at play here. A very fast-growing demographic in Brasil are the evangelical Christians, who overwhelmingly favour Bolsonaro. Traditionally, Catholicism has been the bedrock of the nation's social fabric, inherited from the Iberians. So a very fervent form of Protestantism is unquestionably a break from the past where Catholicism was viewed as intertwined with national identity. Whoever wins this presidential election will have to grapple with this changed reality in Brasil.
Incidentally, this also suggests the lazy assumption that "as America gets more diverse it will invariably get more liberal" could potentially not come to pass.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
I think the system of racial quotas at US universities will remain, no matter what.
The dilemma for the establishment is the vexing problem of both ever-greater share of Asians in the US population combined with Asians pulling away from everyone on the SAT college exam, which Steve Sailer [wrote]](https://www.takimag.com/article/asian-supremacy/) about recently.
One possible exit route could to be declare racial discrimination illegal but open the door for everyone within the top 10% of their high-school graduating class to get a spot, which would invariably hit against Asians as many high-schools in the US are overwhelmingly Latinx and/or black. Or universities could just ditch the test. Can't break the rules on something you can't measure.
It's depressing to ponder, but it appears that Asians in particular will simply have to get used to doing their undergrad at places like University of Pittsburgh or Boston University rather than the very elite universities, and then move up one step for grad school. To truly do away with racial quotas would mean that black enrollment in many top universities would collapse by 80% or even more. The amount of hysteria that would generate would be very hard for the system to manage. Asians and whites, for better or worse, are more passive and thus easier to steamroll.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
a common mistake is to think that liberalism is the state of being of a civilization in which most people support liberalism, whereas the reality is more that liberalism is the state of being of a civilization in which no authoritarian group has managed to completely dominate the others.
There are plenty of countries where there is no central force and they don't necessarily become liberal. They become riven with sectarian conflict, ruled by a gang of warlords constantly making battle against each other.
Liberalism emerged in Europe under different circumstances. It was to quiet religious conflicts rather than intra-elite competition per se. With the benefit of hindsight, it was a fantastic strategy that while it did not abolish war, it reduced mass casualty events like the Thirty Years War. Nationalism is bloodthirsty enough. When combined with religious fervor, it supercharges. Liberalism essentially tried to sever the link and over time it expanded into more and more areas. The foundation of liberalism is to stress the right of the individual, because collectivism can often lead to violent events.
To answer your question in a succinct way: societies because liberal before they become successful. Even nations we view as "illiberal" such as Russia or China are remarkably liberal in a historical perspective. It's just that the overton window has shifted so much to the left over the past century that a 1950s liberal would be denounced as a dangerous right-wing authoritarian today.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
So Israel had its fifth(!) election in four years a few days ago. I wanted to wait until we got 100% of the votes counted before commenting. The big story is that Netanyahu (henceforth called 'Bibi', which is his nickname) is almost certainly going to be back as prime minister. He has already beaten Ben-Gurion - arguably the most important founding father of Israel - in being longest-serving PM and looks set to extend that lead.
Israel had all these elections because the country is very divided without any faction seemingly being able to take the lead. The previous PM ruled in an uneasy Arab-Leftist-Centrist coalition with even right-wingers like Lieberman supporting them. Lieberman used to be Bibi's defence minister and has very hawkish views, yet he is also a secularist and couldn't stand both Bibi personally nor his religious support parties.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, a coalition which has nothing in common except "everyone hates Bibi" didn't last long.
Bibi is often accused of being corrupt and perhaps he is, but more coverage has been dedicated to the surge of the far-right in the wake of this election. The far-left Meretz party (mostly supported by secular Ashkenazi urban liberals) didn't make the cut to be voted into the Knesset. An Arab hardline party also just missed the threshold. As a consequence, Bibi's coalition will notch up 64 seats in the 120-seat Knesset.
The mainstream narrative is that this represents a "dark turn" in Israel's chapter. The reality, more likely, is that the far-right notched up wins after a surge of riots and terrorist attacks. A very long twitter thread from an Israeli politics watcher makes a convincing case. In other words, it isn't a sign of a sudden religious fanaticism so much as a response to crime and terrorist attacks.
Besides, if the far-left Meretz party would have combined with other left-wing parties like Labour then they would have both made it to the Knesset (parties can combine on so-called "electoral lists"), denting Bibi's margin of victory. If the Arab parties had united, Bibi's coalition would have gotten even fewer seats, likely sub-60. Thereby, Israel's deadlock would have continued. Napoleon used to say that luck was a quality in of its own and some of his generals had it and some didn't. Bibi has proven himself lucky, but counting on this kind of luck going forward is probably unwise. If the opposition learn from its mistakes next election and unites into more electoral lists, it will be very hard for him to repeat such a victory.
I do think Israel has a long-term RW trend but this election probably is a bad case to make for it. A more salient conflict is the religious/secular divide. It cuts across the left-right spectrum, as the example of Lieberman shows. But even secular voters can support far-right religious parties in times of increased tension, and this election proves it.
Going forward, the price for Bibi will be to give the religious parties what they ask for, namely continued lavish funding of their educational institutions without much secular knowledge imparted. This equation sits at ill ease given Israel's high-tech economy, which is supported largely by secular or "modern Orthodox" workers. Such a giveaway with no strings attached is deeply impopular in the secular strongholds like Tel-Aviv. I suspect balancing the electoral compulsions with the preferences of the those who actually run Israel's economy will be more difficult for him than dealing with any outside pressure "expressing concern" over perceived democratic deficits. The ADL is already warning Bibi it won't keep quiet.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
I think his downfall says more about crypto than EA. Feels like he latched onto EA because it was hip.
But more generally, I never thought EA would be revolutionary. It always felt like an earnest attempt by smart people to improve the world in their small way and in that sense, I generally support it.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
With Biden having low approval ratings, rampant inflation and a historical tendency to punish the incumbent in the midterms, the failure of the GOP to win back the senate is pretty stunning to me. It suggests that the GOP message just isn't popular and perhaps Trumpism, for a lack of a better word, is the only viable option as mainstream Reaganism (favored by party elites) is rejected by voters.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
Alternatively, SBF came from a "democratic Deep State" family and just used EA talking points as a skin to wear in service of fooling gullible outsiders. I mean, if you look at his family's history and connections they were knee-deep in the DNC machine. So I don't think it says much about EA. I think we are simply dealing with a corrupt fraudster - potentially even a psychopath - who is highly adept at manipulation and gaining people's trust. The fact that he chose EA as his vector of infection probably flatters EA in some bizarre way, because it implies it is high-status with people who matter.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
1yr ago
Well, I guess it was only a question of time before the ADL condemned Dave Chappelle and SNL more generally for "popularising" anti-Semitism.
Chappelle had a SNL monologue a few days ago where he walked a tightrope between supposedly condemning Kanye and Kyrie before slyly signal-boosting some of their talking points. Kanye comes across as crazy and Kyrie as plain dumb but Chappelle is neither, so this is arguably bigger news. Of course, Chappelle has been courting controversy before, such as his perceived anti-trans comments or complaining about college kids being too sensitive these days.
So I am not sure if this is some kind of cultural shift where black entertainment elites are more willing to criticise Jews or if it is simply Chappelle running towards controversy in order to stay relevant. Maybe it is both. Nevertheless, I think the ADL has by and large been enormously inefficient and self-defeating during these past 6 weeks. It seems even some Jewish publications agree.
So white man's burden 2.0 is basically his solution. Problem is that it's a damned if you do / damned if you don't situation. EU help can easily be used as a scapegoat for local failures by local elites, indeed it often is.
Moreover, the idea that the EU has ever gotten serious on border enforcement is laughable. If the people who run the show in Europe cannot deal with the problem, then the electorate will find someone who will. Recent elections in Italy and Sweden demonstrate that very clearly.
More options
Context Copy link