Walsh would not have said 'your body my choice'.
What are you talking about, I can perfectly imagine him saying that. Specifically on the topic of abortion he had quips like its not your body (because it is child's body). So your body my choice (of protecting baby's life) could actually fit his modus operandi relatively well. Walsh is also a troll such as literally describing himself as theocratic fascist on his X bio as of now. He is an entertainer, positioning himself as some sort of simple redneck delivering shocking statements in deadpan manner - this is the same tactics that other right-wing activists/youtubers/personalities use to move the Overton Window be it Jesse Lee Peterson or Matan Even. When it comes to hoe scaring, he has has pieces with names like This is How We Stop the Festering Disease Called OnlyFans. so there is that
So I am not sure what your mental model of Matt Walsh is, but he is very different from the more snobbish position taken by Ivy League educated catholic Michael Knowles inside Daily Wire staff. In fact I'd say that at least since Kirk's assassination, Walsh actually turned more serious and gloomy, kind of blurring the line between obvious troll for entertaining purposes and serious anger and rage.
This is of course disputed, both excommunicated each other at the same time and both claim apostolic tradition. If anything, the Catholic church is more stable and has more logical standing when it comes to apostolic tradition, since as of now it is even hard to say who exactly "ortobros" are. There are at least four permanent schisms within orthodoxy including two parallel patriarchates in both Antioch and Alexandria - which are not in communion with each other and thus their adherents are banned to receive sacraments between the churches. In fact it is quite messy to follow when which branch of orthodoxy separated itself from the others and for what reasons, it is almost like minoprotestantism in that sense.
What are the Ukrainian people afraid of, being conquered by Russia?
They are afraid of the same things that all conquered nations of Russian empire were afraid of. That they will become second class citizens only to be exploited by Russian elite centers around Moscow and Saint Petersburg. An actually realistic proposition is that Putin will press them into military service and send them to war against Baltic states. You know - the same thing that Putin did to "liberated" and annexed Luhansk and Donetsk republics.
Movember (which is about men's health) and International Men's Day are obviously going to piss off feminists, who can't stand the focus to be on men (except when it's bad).
It is always possible to save the day and make it work for feminism. I could see the same thing going on with Movember - let's say plastering Freddie Mercury posters around with his magnificent mustache and make it about AIDS and LGBT persecution or some such. In fact it is even more of a power flex than celebrating International Women's Day, with much more potential to demoralize your ideological opponents.
Exactly. There actually was a project where Czechs and Slovaks and Germans and Hungarians and Serbs and Croats and Bosniaks and Poles and Ukrainians and Rusyns and other "diverse" peoples lived together for centuries. It was called Austrian Empire. In the end the diversity was not a strength, it broke the whole thing apart.
The fact that the U.S was able to suppress those intercommunal rivalries and, yes, assimilate and to a certain extent dissolve those communities into a broader "Americanness" (or, to put the racial spin on it that both the far left and far right like these days - "whiteness"), is a wonderful thing that I think does deserve celebration despite all the buzzwords and cant that surround it these days.
Yes. USA was able to assimilate and suppress intercommunal rivalries by fighting and winning a civil war against a "community" that defied centralization and homogenization, going through period of national revival, pushing for American identity using new mass media technologies of radio and TV. Plus fighting and winning two world wars also helped. More importantly the total fertility rate of of 5,6 for native population in year 1900 also helped with not getting overwhelmed, even if foreign born population was 13% at that time.
So if by "ideological diversity" authors mean nationalistic or even outright jingoistic propaganda, having things like English-only movement paired with things like banning German language from public during WW1, widespread flag desecration laws, introducing pledge of allegiance and many other things including basically curtailing immigration in 1924 - then I agree.
I do not think that this is especially hard. Meritocracy performs well both in worlds where HBD is highly relevant and in worlds where it is irrelevant.
Except it doesn't. Blankslatism was necessary for meritocracy to have legitimacy and moral foundations. Merit was thought of as hard work or at least something that can be achieved by soft policies. It was never explicitly stated, that merit means good IQ that can neither be improved or worked on either individually, or even for larger swaths of population. You could construct stratified meritocratic society where the underclass is promised, that all they need is better nutrition and education and they or at least their children will have a shot at the top. It is a much harder sell to explicitly state, that they are unlucky and their families are destined to be underclass for foreseeable future, and the best they can hope for is some sort of handout.
That is why there is such an aversion to discuss these issues, as it is unsolvable cognitive dissonance morally and politically.
georgioz
1mo ago
One additional significant attribute that you missed is cult of personality or the duce or Führer principle. Otherwise this is an excellent summary.
georgioz
1mo ago
I read the article and I also watched the Fuentes/Carlson interview. And I actually have a different point of view. For instance here is Hanania
The story of the 2019 “Groyper War” is instructive here. Followers of Fuentes would ambush mainstream conservative figures, most notably Charlie Kirk at Turning Point USA events, and pepper them with questions about topics like immigration and Israel. Kirk, who had once openly supported legal immigration and “stapling green cards to diplomas,” shifted toward a harder line, demonstrating how a fringe online movement could bully one of the GOP’s most connected influencers into changing his tune.
Setting the emotional appeal and Russel conjugations aside, I do not think these questions are out of bounds. Trump and Kirk have America First policy, which is also something that Groypers can get behind. They are on board with tariffs and hard stance of US foreign policies even against allies like Canada or Denmark or Mexico and other countries. It is absolutely logical to ask why should Israel have special place when under the same policy. It is not as if people like Kirk were "bullied" - it is that it is very hard to answer these questions and be consistent with America First messaging.
georgioz
1mo ago
I am not sure what you are babbling about. In fact I do agree with your statement before
I agree with Trump that it could sometimes be good to impose tariffs to get the other guy to back down on their trade barriers. I disagree that this is all that he has been doing. Trump seems to think that overall having some tariffs is better than having no tariffs (hence the 10% global tariff); free trade is not his goal.
Yes, tariffs are a tool that can be used for any number of foreign policy issues. Free trade by itself is not his goal and neither is it for any other country. EU promotes their climate policies, other countries promote their own interests as well. Where do you get this idea that free trade is some sort of ultimate goal?
georgioz
1mo ago
One of the pet theories without any serious digging I have, is that these things may come in waves. From my observation some societies that were considered as most polite societies like Japan or Scandinavia or England were incredibly violent in the past, they were places where you could get your head chopped off for looking at somebody the wrong way. So people created social technology of politeness and elaborate social rituals in order to prevent such a situation from happening - getting challenged to duel or having your balls blown off are some serious incentives for good behavior. Until some new people come around who think that all this politeness and social norms are gay, weak and lame and that they should be able to do what they want. And the cycle repeats itself.
georgioz
1mo ago
I agree with Trump that it could sometimes be good to impose tariffs to get the other guy to back down on their trade barrier
Why are you so hyperfocused on trade barriers, he may use them to save puppies or do some other type of good outside of this narrow trade stuff.
georgioz
1mo ago
Oh, so tariffs are bad for target of tariffs. And maybe some nations with large economies that are not as exposed to international trade are to large extent immunized to impact of counter tariffs. It almost seems as if tariffs are quite a nice tool to threaten or even enact in order to bring the other side to the table and make some diplomatic concessions and maybe sometimes it is actually good to experience some pain in order to gain even more good. I'd say Trump would wholeheartedly agree.
georgioz
1mo ago
Canada may not want to allow the US to hurt its maple syrup producers with impunity even if that helps other Canadians.
And USA may not want to allow Canada to hurt its lumber producers or car producers with impunity, even if it helps other Americans. It's the same logic, the only thing remaining is chicken-egg issue of who has the original blame, which in the end is not really that interesting.
Cooperate-cooperate is better for everyone
That is not the claim of anti-tariff people. Their claim is that tariffs damage local economy. Unless they have some savior complex where they enact tariffs in order to save poor people of country they are in trade war with? It does not make sense.
Also where is the limit, what is the end game? Free trade is not truly free and effective unless literally every single country on planet Earth including Iran, Russia and North Korea "cooperates" - and until such a time we need harsh regime of aggressive trade wars to the last man? There is a list of countries by tariff rate here - USA with 3.3% is among the best - better than Canada or Switzerland or Norway and much better than almost any African countries. Why focus on USA and not some other much more "unfree" country?
One thing that always interests me with these takes is why the other countries engage in counter tariffs. If tariff-free trade relations are such an amazing boon, why even engage in such a retaliation? If US wants to produce cheap aluminum and cars and timber and brandy then why did let's say Canada impose tariffs as some part of trade war? Are they not foolish for not taking nicely subsidized goods for cheap from USA and just produce something else?
I actually think the reasons were more prosaic. Trump wanted secure borders and more favorable trade relations with some additional things like increased defense spending as part of NATO pledge etc. Canada dug their heels and decided to go for trade war and insults back. It of course does not help that both sides were let's say ideologically opposed to certain extent, but the dispute is a real one. Also let's not pretend that the same does not work the other way around as when EU representatives strongarm other countries like Hungary or post Brexit UK or Italy, when elections do not go the way powers that be like.
But in the end it is all besides the point. Canadians may learn the ancient truth of the strong do as they will and weak suffer what they must. USA is not Hungary or some random African nation. Good luck to Canada for next 3 years and potentially number of more years, if some MAGA candidate wins next elections.
Yep, many people view kindness and benevolence as stupidity and weakness bordering on entitlement to it. It reminds me an old joke about a businessman and a beggar:
Businessman sees a beggar and takes pity on him as he reminds him of his own turbulent past. So he gives him $100. The beggar is happy and thanks profusely. Next day the situation repeats and beggar is absolutely besides himself. This goes on for several days but then the businessman does not come anymore. After a month the businessman suddenly appears again with $100 bill in his hand and the beggar asks: Where were you last month? The businessman answers - Oh, I was on a vacation with my wife and my kids. The beggar then mutters: I guess it had to be a very nice vacation given all my money you spent.
georgioz
1mo ago
Paradoxically president does have right to impose tariffs specifically for National Security reasons. Foreign power meddling in election campaigns counts as such a case as Russia gate showed us before.
typical rational actor does not like to grovel. Making the other party grovel will lower their utility function, so in turn their more tangible demands will be higher. If one buys a house only if the seller is willing to give a blowjob as part of the deal, it seems very likely that one will severely overpay for the house.
I don't think it is about groveling. In the past countries like Germany or Canada took USA for granted and even outright mocked Trump when he gave his speech as in this example. I am not even US citizen but I do think that other NATO members really held their noses too high, it was as if they were entitled to everything that USA provides either trade or security wise in exchange of mockery and disrespect. I think demanding respect was absolutely in order.
Paradoxically Euros or other western countries do not have problem groveling before Xi Jinping or Saudis or even before Iranian dictators. But suddenly they are too good to show some respect to USA just because they think they can farm internal US political dispute.
But for all his annoyance, I think Ontario is basically well within it's rights to use ads to affect US trade policy.
That is true. And Trump is well within his right to say fuck you and stop negotiating with a party that finances attacks on him. I think it is absolutely within bounds to require some restrain when it comes to hostile actions and posturing during negotiations. This is negotiation 101 be it nations, companies or individuals - especially if you hold all the cards.
Trump did the same with Zelensky in the past where he also misread the situation. Zelensky was in weak position and came literally to beg for money - but he could not help himself and overplayed his hand. So he got fucked and in turn he fucked his nation - he apparently did not realize that he needs to change his behavior under new administration. Last time Zelensky behaved much better, he even brought his suit.
Now one can still criticize Trump for his style, but it seems to be working. He was able to negotiate peace between India and Pakistan, he managed peace between Israel and Hamas, he managed peace between Armenia–Azerbaijan, he presides over cooling of tensions between Cambodia and Thailand and he even turned Modi and Xi Jinping against Putin with his latest oil embargo. It is not as if he is just a buffoon without results.
I have seen several debates regarding "increasing the power of the executive". The main dispute seems to be if president uses preexisting power due to circumstances or if he is usurping more unique powers outside of legal context. For instance president can achieve to increase budget for his executive and in practical sense he has more power, because he has more money under his control. On the other hand he did not create any unique legal power - he just utilized what he had before.
I heard similar argument regarding using National Guard even against wish of local governor. Of course it is not used often - e.g. when Eisenhower federalized local National Guard to force integration of segregated schools in 1957. If Trump used the same move that was not used for decades - is he increasing his power as it was quite rarely used, or is he just exercising power that was always available to him so there is no power increase going on?
US government has become more centralized and thus more prone to authoritarianism since George Washington himself during Whiskey Rebellion, through Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR and Lochner era of utilizing Commerce Clause to gain more power and virtually every single president ever. The Cthulu always swam toward more centralized power in hands of a few. We may talk abut lawful breaches of decorum or this or that norm being ignored, but this is an old story and nowhere near what happened in the past like Habeas Corpus Suspension Act or dozens more examples throughout the history and for sure in the future.
First, nice summary I would sign under it if I could.
If you don't recognize any of these names, congratulations, you are winning at life, please avoid contaminating your brain by gaining awareness of their existence.
The issue is that these worlds collide from time to time. Hasan himself was touted as a response by Democrats to Gen Z male voter issue. Hasan or Destiny were for some Democrats an answer to their quest of finding their very own Joe Rogan or at least Charlie Kirk or some such. So unfortunately people will not be spared in the foreseeable future.
Yes, I did not investigate it thoroughly. I just googled another instance where Piker moved remote from the shock collar on some other occasion. It is not the same stream, but his dog is in the background all the time for hours on end. She is almost like another decoration and permanent fixture. Also he changed his story. First, he said that when he reaches outside of camera it is for his Zyn. Then he changed the story that yes, there is a remote for collar but it is only for vibration function etc.
In a sense he fed the whole controversy by himself as he just dug deeper and deeper hole for himself. Adding Taylor Lorenz into this whole mess only expands it further. It is actually quite funny - as I said, a simple story now has life of its own way beyond the original thing as it spawned other substories like "why Hasan changed his explanation" etc.
I do not think that there is such a stark difference between these options and specific denominations. You can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can move yourself and your family into religious enclave, creating space for the community to flourish. You can vote for laws in accordance with Christian ethics inside your local community and promote for these laws to go state or even nation-wide. And you can also go into enemy territory and "win the argument".
The same goes for going backwards in time for similar analysis. Yes, protestants were always fractured and individualistic. But they were political power of their own and Christians were able to push for things that David French would now maybe see as unimaginable. For instance, it was absolutely common to have prayers and bible readings in public schools up until 1960s. It was not until 1952 supreme court ruling that stroke down blasphemy laws in favor of supposedly neutral and secular reading of first amendment, the same goes for porn and other things. Christians held bottom up political power, and politicians they voted in had to reflect their moral preferences and uphold their worldview. It does not have to be anything coming top-down from a pope or archbishop.
I think this is exactly what is going on now. For instance if Muslims can create their own communities and then pass laws in line with their preferences like anti-LGBT laws in Dearborn, Michigan - all in line with supposedly "neutral" and pluralistic views, then why cannot Christians do the same? The supposed neutral "French" position does not even make sense in many instances as they are quite binary - you either allow children to tansition or you don't. You either have progress flag displayed during July in your school or you don't. You either allow or disallow crosses or prayers in public schools. In the end, there is no "neutral" position. If you have population of progressives in a city, then they will remove religious symbols from the school and replace them with their own things. What many people start to realize is that they can utilize their political power and implement their ideas in the same way as all these other ideologues do.
More options
Context Copy link