This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The Dread Jim weighs in on the "moderate right".
Basically, to him the right isn't progressing at anywhere near the rate it needs to in order to enact radical change. He uses Asmongold, the popular live streamer, as an example. Asmongold is perceived to be anti-woke, but in reality all of his positions (in Dread Jim's opinion) are moderate/centrist.
For Dread Jim, the only way to save civilization is through the following:
He seems to view this last solution as the most important. Fathers should once again be responsible for marrying off their daughters, and if that's not possible, the state should step in. Similarly, adultery should be punishable by death.
Barring these radical changes "failure to murder everyone who is insufficiently left is likely to also be 'extreme far radical right'".
Luckily for him, he does not even have to fight the federal government for that, because his dream country already exists. It is called Afghanistan.
Sure, he will have to make some compromises as there are no buildings high enough in rural Afghanistan to throw the gays to their death, but I wholeheartedly recommend he goes there and waits for the decadent Western civilization to collapse and being replaced by the Taliban regime.
This sentence has too many negations in it for my taste.
Let me try to dig out the core:
Virtually nobody is advocating for the cleansing of all the people who are not left. Not the GOP, not the Dems, not the woke mob. Even if you say that everyone except literal Nazis is sufficiently left, the position "let us just kill all the Nazis outright" is very fringe. Getting Nazis fired, cast out from society, forcibly re-educated, perhaps put into labor camps for life might all be popular fantasies on the fringe left, but simply gassing them and be done with it is unlikely to be the consensus even in Antifa.
His claim is that this would make Antifa 'extreme far radical right'.
--
More broadly, I think that fringe opinions should not influence our broad categorization of the political spectrum. I can probably find a crazy person who is arguing that we should take "eat the rich" literally and slaughter and barbecue the top 10% income bracket. I could then claim that simply taxing rich people out of their wealth but not eating them is a "moderate left" position, actually.
Afghanistan has many mountains, so there are surely places with long enough drops.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Okay, yeah, universal suffrage and representative democracy do seem like a stopgap measure that is slowly due an upgrade or replacement. So what does he actually suggest? Restoring the aristocracy? Military junta? Same oligarchy as now, but without the pretence of democracy?
That seems close to pointless. Curtailing their ability to advertise and evangelize, sure. But literally killing them? Are the gays truly the most corrosive element in society that deserves uniquely lethal treatment? Not the jews, or the leftists, or the rich, or the muslims, or the elites?
Okay, yeah, either this one or artifical wombs is probably going to happen sooner or later. Making babies is not optional for civilization.
I don't understand this sentence. Please explain for dumb foreigners.
No- for DreadJim, that would be women, and the reason they don't get lethal treatment (though they may be beaten into submission) is simply that they're more useful alive.
He's literally just a feminist with the valence switched (that's what "kill all men" means- when they tell you who they are, believe them). It's not intellectually sophisticated. The fact we permit and encourage unironic expressions of one but not the other is the underlying problem of the modern age, yes (and the fact that it's useful to certain power structures to maintain this state of affairs is as disgusting as slavery), but this is the "peepee poopoo" version of criticizing it.
Raising new workers is more expensive than it was in the past and the current markets thus can't support the production of more people. This is to some degree artificial (enclosure is not an elite thing this time, as it's currently perpetrated by slightly over half the demos), but every single human being in Western society is selected for based on how well they can boss slaves around more than anything else, and some of our solution is simply to increase society's reliance on slavery.
That the slaves in the modern era are powered by lightning and fossil fuel is not particularly material when you're comparing across other civilizations, whose unpaid labor was generally of the human variety.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My first reaction to this is but why though? Why do all that? (besides it being his sexual power fantasy) My second thought was does he actually have any kids himself because a lot of these guys don't.
But we had a much higher birthrate in living memory, in a society much similar to our own, so if you believe we need to urgently raise the birthrate as the number one priority it makes a lot more sense to implement something like the 1930s moral values rather than white shariah. And that's the other thing his call to RETVRN isn't even that. Western Christian society has never had rules like that and Northern Europeans have always had a degree of gender equality. Compare the number of premodern ruling queens in Europe to anywhere else, or the status of Viking women, or Medieval women or convents or another dozen examples. So he's actually trying to implement something that has never actually existed in Western society except among the FLDS I guess. Also there's a lot of evidence that it's more about rural life vs urban life than strict control of women. The 1860s USA or contemporary sub-Saharan both have a higher fertility rate than Saudi Arabia for example.
Speaking of society Jim could actually move to a society that shares his vision much of the Gulf have created a system like that with migrants serving at their pleasure and subjugated women. But he won't he'll say it's cause he hates Arabs and Muslims but that's the problem he wants white ISIS to take over society and brutally murder everyone he hate but white ISIS doesn't exist and never did. It's telling that a lot of his commentators are Indians who do practice the kind of father arranged marriages he wants. Basically any white Christian conservative from any point in history would be pretty horrified at a lot of his ideas. And the vast majority of Republicans would as well. Contrary to Democratic party talking point most Republicans aren't motivated by extreme racism or sexism. So I don't think Jim's ideas of what the right wing should have much baring especially since he has different goals than the vast majority of conservatives and his preferred solutions seem to be more because he likes solutions. I've skimmed through his blog and he has several failed predications (mostly about Ukraine) without an attempt to recalibrate, and just seems like a crank. he wants to restore civilization but is method for doing so is take over society and kill everyone I don't like which is what every barbarian everywhere does. He hates everyone everyone is wrong except Jim I wish he would at least have the decency to found a fringe political party which is what the extreme leftists who also, want to kill everyone that disagrees with them and force people to do the "right" things do. But as far as I can tell he's entirely alone and thus doesn't have to deal with other humans. For someone who wants a society heavily based on Christianity does he even go to church?
Also the way he talks about women makes me pretty uncomfortable I honestly just get the vibe he hates them. Not just because of wanting to reduce them to chattel (though also that) But I've never read so much talk of "wet pussy" in my life including in relation to pubescent children and Disney movies. It just seems incredibly vulgar for someone who wants to return use to traditional chaste society and no pious Christian man I know would talk like that.
I'm not convinced that returning to the moral standards of the one time in US history that the urban birthrate was lower than it is today is a good way to fix low TFR.
You daily reminder that the 20's and early thirties were, themselves, a sexual revolution that was if anything more earthshaking than the sexual revolution of the late sixties.
Indeed- the 20s and 30s were a massive expansion in progressive thought to the point that the Americans installed a dictator and underwent a socialist revolution in the mid-1930s.
Modern feminism might be potent, but not "two Constitutional Amendments" potent or Civil Rights Act potent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The most notable thing about him when the shock value wears off is the depth and breadth of his hatred. The man has been railing nonstop about how women should be reduced to sexual chattel and raped by their husbands, along with how all non-white people in the west should be slaughtered for the better part of 30 years now. He was, when I was much younger, a pretty key part in me deciding who my ideological enemies would be though so I guess there is that.
Eh. There's a reactionary idiom that is the reverse of political language everywhere else. Where most people use euphemisms ("I'm pro-life"), and a stalwart minority of fair-minded folks speak prosaically ("I'm anti-abortion"), reactionaries actively and intentionally use dysphemisms ("I'm pro-Men-Controlling-Women's-Bodies"). They take speaking blunt and coarse to its extreme, to the point of not even being accurate.
Having read a few reactionaries a lot, I am 100% confident they don't literally mean what they say. Why are they speaking like this then? I think this strange affectation is (a) a reflexive emotional rebellion of what they call 'the longhouse', which gags everyone's language and thinking in daily life, (b) a gatekeeping mechanism to keep out "containment conservatives" in the brand of James Lindsay, who operate the modern political ratchet by policing discourse to their right.
Yes, Dread Jim clearly believes in returning race and gender norms waaaaaaay back. Leftists would certainly describe the world of the late 1800s as "reducing women to sexual chattel" and "genociding browns", which is why he delights in calling his politics that. But, really, do you actually think, prosaically, that's what 1890 was like?
no, but he often gives the impression that he thinks that's what 1890 was like, and I don't trust him to actually moderate in the heat of the moment.
I think you are right about your assessment of dysphemisms. Sometimes one needs to accept a label to stop it from having leverage on one's thinking. On the other hand, the solution to being called a monster by progressives is not actually to become a monster.
More options
Context Copy link
You can only say "I want to reduce people to chattel I can rape at will and kill other people" for so many decades nonstop before I believe you. I am fairly certain he is serious in his political aims and objectives I have no reason to give him any charity at all as he has never given any other group any at all.
Would you willingly live with the rights of an 1890s woman?
There were far more of these than commonly thought. Women in the west haven’t been property, unless they happened to be slaves, ever.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure. Obviously in this scenario I'm transformed fully into a woman (mentally and physically, with no one including myself remembering my being a man), and all other women would have to have the same rights.
I think the sexual revolution was terrible for society. It was also pretty bad for women themselves.
How about some bullet-biting: It was terrible for society and possibly bad for women on average, but also eliminated many of the worst-case woman situations, and created some new best-case man situations, and you can't undo it because it's too attractive in the short term.
It did not eliminate many of the worst case women scenarios. There are still women being beaten by the man in their lives and feeling too controlled to leave. I’m not sure how much domestic violence has actually declined, even.
More options
Context Copy link
That's a useful and charitable framing. Kudos.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ok I will rephrase. Would you be able to live a happy life having had rights and then having them taken away from you? Could you go from person to non-person?
Sure, happiness is a state of mind, not a state of being. Men in POW camps in war have found tremendous happiness before, to give one example of many. And I am willing to bet that a significant chunk of women in Afghanistan are happier with the Taliban back than they were under US occupation, especially the more devoutly religious muslim women.
I think you would very definitively lose that bet. Fig 4A has the cross tab for women.
I never claimed all or even a majority might like it, just a significant chunk. And that chart is only overall life satisfaction, with the male drop being almost as big as the female.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a pretty annoying leftist framing of "rights". Are children not people? Are foreigners living within another country not people? Are the mentally disabled and elderly not people?
Of course. Here, the example of expats above is helpful. And indeed, in practice I did experience losing freedom of speech when I was a teenager, having learned things and come to opinions that are de facto illegal in my country. The Boomers lost freedom of association in the 1960s and they managed well enough. And voting? Please. Voting is a joke. The right to vote is the right to be ruled by whoever controls the media.
Do you think not being able to say nigger or keep black people out of your dad's car dealership is equivalent to being a woman in the 1890s in terms of rights lost? I am going to be honest, I really don't think that you do.
The principal difference between the 1890s woman and the 21st century man is that the 1890s woman was legally defenseless against abuse from her husband, while the more fortunate 21st century man is merely legally defenseless against career criminals, mentally ill violent strangers on public transportation, police officers, his boss, every woman who works in his HR department, his wife, and rioters who have the correct politics.
More options
Context Copy link
Why not? Speech is fundamental for political coordination under any system, but especially in a democracy. You can sneer and call it "not being able to say nigger", but you know it's not limited to it, and that the point is disenfranchisement.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am a right-wing extremist. I am aware of "The Dread Jim" from many previous discussions through the various iterations of this forum.
His proposed solutions are not feasible, nor are they necessary, nor does he appear to possess insight or a track record that makes him worth listening to or discussing in any significant way. He, like many similar "right-wing extremists", appears to be possessed of a combination of panicked fearfulness and abstracted zealotry aimed at a sort of imaginary, narrative-based glorious final battle. He, like many others, lacks the necessary coldness of heart to effectively prosecute the culture war.
His suggestions are similarly foolish.
How do you convince people that life was better when they were really "people" in the same way men are without a jackboot? This went away for a reason in the west, all the religious and mythological reasons were shown to be "fake" (as far as society is concerned, I dont want to engage in a theological debate) how do you put the gene back in the bottle?
The past is not an unknown world to us. We have solid evidence of what the world was like before the progressive era, and it did not consist solely or even primarily of dehumanized women and tyrant men. Men and women have loved each other and cooperated together for all of recorded history, and they can do so again. The brave new progressive world has made both men and women wretched. Currently, it is expending vast effort to try to paper over its deficiencies on behalf of women in particular, usually by the use of blatant social and legal double-standards. Remove some of these, and maybe we can get back to something resembling constructive engagement once more.
This is the inverse of your criticism of Jim. Jim believes you that the past was pure evil, and wants to return that evil you both agree we've lost to the modern world. I do not believe you that the past was pure evil, and want to return the non-evil we've lost to the modern world. Your system has not solved men abusing women. It has not solved rape. It has not solved sexual harassment or coercion. I believe my system can do better on all of those things that yours, and I think we can and possibly have proven it.
Crime in the first world is the lowest it has ever been at any point in history. You are in less danger over the last 20 years than any other person in the history of the world, for the most part by a significant margin.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Simple: all the pseudoscientific and pseudoreligious reasons for a society based on the sexual revolution have been shown to be even faker.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Or in other words, he's too busy thinking with his dick.
The feminists are correct when they point this out, especially when discussing those sorts of people who can't really handle modernity; it's just that instead of fixing the problem, they simply replaced one set of destructive fetishes with a different set of destructive fetishes (they get off on the oppression narratives just as men get off on the possession ones).
Humanity in general has a hard time dealing with that, given the destructiveness of those fetishes never had to be dealt with before (as it evolved alongside the state of nature) by either gender. Hence we see a lot more DreadJilling (eliminating political power for the vast majority of "normies" and all men, executing straight people, conscripting wallets).
I hesitate to even call DreadJim right-wing, for he is not. That label belongs to whatever the "entrench corruption harder/50 Stalins" faction is in society, and that faction is the feminist one. His faction has simply fallen completely off of the reform -> conserve -> ossify/tradition political treadmill.
More options
Context Copy link
This is a more generous assessment of Jim and his ilk than I'd be inclined to give. I think there's less foolishness there and more evil; the pursuit of a good end by bad means has long since given way to a pursuit of a bad end by bad means. I don't think that Jim merely disbelieves that stabilization, security, and sound life decision-making can be achieved by loving relationships; I think he deplores loving relationships in a vacuum. There's some kind of tipping point you often see people running over where reasonable paternalism gives way to an all-consuming hatred.
"Evil" and "bad" are meaningless unless one shares values-coherence with the people with one communicates, which is not true for Jim or people who think he's correct, and cannot in general be assumed here. I certainly do consider him evil and agree with the rest of your analysis as to why, but I try not to assume that others share my moral values.
One of the most poetic things to ever happen is that the great fascist powers were met in their own framework by their enemies and crushed through strength of arms, thus in addition to destroying there power and killing many of them, also defeating them ideologically in the only way that really mattered as far as they were concerned.
Speak plainly, please. What is the relevance to the present discussion?
If anyone can be called a fascist without hyperbole, it's Jim, and he operates on this level with this exact mindset. He does not see right and wrong, only will to power. I find it satisfying that his ideological forbearers were defeated in the way that they were.
This is unfair and untrue. Jim very much does see a distinction between right and wrong. In his recent "Genocide", for example, you can see that he differentiates between legitimate genocide, when a defeated group refuses to stop fighting, and illegitimate genocide, such as the Tutsis in Rwanda, which was committed "for utterly trivial, wicked, evil, and frivolous reasons".
Similarly, in his earlier "How to Genocide Inferior Kinds in a Properly Christian Manner", he argues that you cannot just kill savages and take their stuff, because that undermines the high trust equilibrium of strong property rights that makes civilization great. Instead, he recommends legitimately purchasing the land and tempting them into committing unspeakable crimes, and then killing them and taking their stuff.
The beauty of this approach is that it will only work if the savages are genuinely inferior; an intelligent people will not sell their land for immediate consumption goods, the way a modern ghetto dweller will take out a payday loan to buy Air Jordans or a PS5, and an honorable people will not react to losing out on the deal by waging war against the folks that purchased the land, the way that same ghetto dweller will burn down the pawn shop for predatory lending. Thus, their destruction is legitimized by their own wicked natures.
This is a recurring theme in Jim's writing, explaining goodness in terms of game theory and material consequences. As he notes, this ends up to a large extent rederiving traditional Christian morality; risen killer apes and fallen angels are basically the same, so it doesn't really matter if you get your ethics from Darwin or from Jesus.
Pretty much doubt. I mean, I'd probably have to wade through a bunch of garbage to distill out an actual attempted derivation; it's much more likely to be a loose collection of handwavy claims than any sort of serious deductive argument.
It's kind of funny how all sides of the atheist internecine war want to make claims that the core of their morality is game theory. Of course, this game theory is somehow "not objective", meaning that other people can't simply rederive it from the premises... but good luck asking them to explain how that's supposed to work. And more funny is that they all seem to come up with quite different conclusions about what their handwavy game theory premises are supposed to imply (derivation often not shown). I'm pretty confident that the folks here who appeal to it don't think it directly derives traditional Christian morality. ...especially not Jim's version.
More options
Context Copy link
So I read that article and am pretty unconvinced. For one a lot of nonwhites are already here and are thus neighbors according to Jim's reading if the parable. The other is most of the starving African children that Jim references are Christian and there's all sorts of stuff in the New Testament about helping brothers of the faith. I feel like Jim's Christianity is about as true to the text as Episcopalians which is to say they really really want to ignore the parts of the bible that conflict with their internal morality. He references the old testament genocides but all of those were towards pagans not towards believers.
More options
Context Copy link
erwgv3g34 thers nothing I think I could say to you that wouldn't violate TOS other than "May your blade chip and shatter"
More options
Context Copy link
Nobody is evil in their own mind. Of course Jim has rationalizations for why beating and raping women is good and why genocide is virtuous. You only buy these rationalizations if you agree with him in the first place. The same is true for people like KulakRevolt, agitating daily for race war and genocide, and our resident Jew-haters. No one says "Yeah, I just hate these people and want to kill them." They construct elaborate rationalizations for why the people they hate deserve it and they are acting morally --in self defense, even.
More options
Context Copy link
Like the Irish and Polish. In fact, quite a few European peoples could have been genocided under this framework.
More options
Context Copy link
I am skeptical that the difference between these two is meaningful. How does this model apply to the Melian Dialogue?
Goodness, at least my own understanding of it, is not reducible to game theory and material consequences. Based on your description, Jim does not appear to have any meaningful understanding of Christianity, and I certainly do not appreciate his appropriation of my faith for his own ends.
It may in fact not matter whether you get your ethics from Jesus or Darwin; I do not observe Jim to be winning to any appreciable degree, and do not think his fortunes likely to change in the future. I observe that many people have proclaimed Darwinian fitness where Darwinian fitness did not in fact exist. I note that my own values appear to by highly adaptive, but it seems to me that a good deal of what makes them adaptive is a willingness to adhere to them whether they appear adaptive or not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thank you.
I'm generally skeptical of the term "fascist" for people who don't choose it themselves, but don't particularly disagree. If the Jim Party somehow secured power where I live, I think fighting them would likewise be the morally correct option, and would have every confidence of victory.
Yeah even ignoring all the murder the level of government control he want would be intolerable, in addition to micromanaging personal interaction I suspect the Jim party would wind up suppressing basically every Christian denomination as "heretical churchianity"
More options
Context Copy link
As an aside, just because I often muse about this whenever he's brought up, is there a consensus estimate on how fucking old Jim is at this point? The absolute low ball has to be 60 but he could be like 80 and still doing this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think ISIS went a bit similarly: the promise of a new caliphate brought out a big chunk of violent fanatics that otherwise would have been terrorists hiding from view, gave faith that they would win battles in a traditional type war with God on their side, and pitted them against a number of local powers backed up by Western air and ground forces. They lost.
I'm not conspiracy minded, but it would at least be an interesting one that this was done deliberately as a honey pot, but I have zero evidence of this. I also can't speak to it's long-term effects on the region --- how many of those dead IS fighters would have fought with the Houthis, Hezbollah, or Hamas in recent conflicts?
Very few for all those. The Houthis and Hezbollah are Shia who ISIS thinks are heretics that deserve to be brutally murdered and most recruits from Gaza just join Hamas and Hamas has few foreign fighters.
I agree with the general thrust though ISIS probably sucked a lot of people in who would have committed terrorist attacks in Europe.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
With respect, I think you're trying to have it both ways; you call yourself as an "extremist", but your suggested proposals and the congeniality with which you express them are not really outside the mainstream in 2025. Maybe a bit outside the Overton window, but not by much. Like this
is not a controversial statement. Uttering it does not make you an extremist.
It sounds like you want to go back to the 90s; Jim wants to go back to...I don't know, the 16th century and also kill a lot of people in the process.
As with all these conversations between "normie" right-wingers and people like Jim, the distinguishing factor is race. Race is of paramount importance, and by extension immigration and demographics are the only issues that matter.
Jim doesn't want to go back to anytime. The level of control of women he wants has never existed in Western Christian society and the relief efforts of the Catholic church in South America during the 16th century would be intolerable churchianity to him. He wants contemporary Afghanistan not anything that's ever existed Christendom.
More options
Context Copy link
That absolutely is a controversial statement. Saying it would get you fired from virtually any top-tier job.
More options
Context Copy link
I am on record that large-scale, open-ended political violence is a preferable outcome to the political outcomes Blue Tribe appears to me to be aiming for, and further that I believe Red Tribe can and will decisively win such a fight. I have argued at length that the Constitution and rule of law are dead, and that their corpses provide little advantage to our present situation. I have argued at length, and continue to argue, that reconciliation between Reds and Blues is probably impossible in the foreseeable future, and that the culture war is terminal for our society as presently constituted. If you think that these positions do not qualify me for the label of extremism, I'd be interested in hearing your arguments as to why.
What separates me from Jim and his ilk is that I have a better understanding both of why that violence should be delayed as long as possible, and why we have advantages in executing it that are not necessarily compromised by such delays. If I am not mistaken, Jim himself, and certainly many others like him, argued that we were already past the point of no return, that political solutions were impossible, and that in fact we had already compromised our ability win an outright fight, leaving fighting immediately as a desperate last resort. And then the 2024 election happened, and suddenly our position is considerably better.
I am curious, I disagree and think civil war is very unlikely, but I think that if this does happen and if defeat were imminent, unleashing a nuclear holocaust on the US and cleansing it would be preferable to the red tribe being allowed to conquer and rule over the ruin of my Northeast. Does that make me an extremist as well? If so, which kind?
Yes, it makes you a Blue Tribe extremist. It also means, in my opinion, that you lack imagination.
Expound
Why not move somewhere else? Why nuclear bombardment? Why do you ignore forms of defeat that do not result in Reds ruling you with a jackboot; for instance, a new norm of strong federalism where Blues have blue laws in blue places and reds have red laws in red places? There's also the part where Reds would survive Nuclear bombardment a whole lot better than blues, and would in fact likely rebuild; the threat here is asymmetric to your side's disadvantage.
If Blue Empire were eternal despite all we Reds could attempt, if we were crushed as badly as the Christians in 1600s Japan, I think I would flee elsewhere before resorting to nuking the country. No evil rules eternal; sooner or later, often sooner, it burns itself out.
I think you are making a similar mistake to Jim; you also lack the inner coldness-of-heart, are also carried away by the narrative glories. You lack temper to lose.
In an actual scenario where they start a civil war and win, why would the Reds not rule with a jackboot? Even if they assure you, as a member of the Blue team, that they will not, as they try to persuade you to put down that big red button, why would you believe them?
I wouldn't trust any belligerent in the culture war to be magnanimous in victory on the best day, and here we are in a subthread where we're actually talking about the blog by some redtriber who is very openly fantasising about jackboots and lots of other redtribers are assuring us that he is very important and influential.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean my nuclear hellfile in this case is a metaphor for an artificial pathogen engineered to inflict maximum casualties on red tribers, but I get your meaning, retreat is probably a better option than mutual annihilation. I would need a way to make sure the red tribe wouldn't be able to complete an AGI for that to be reasonable, but on the whole, I would agree.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Depends on what outcomes you're referring to.
Too broad of a statement to analyze, need specifics. Aren't these things that Blue Tribe blame the Red Tribe for as well?
I don't see why this statement makes you an extremist. Maybe just a political realist?
I think you misunderstand the far-right position. Jim thinks we're past the point of no return because 50% of newborns are non-white. What's your political solution to that?
No, you're just operating from totally different first principles.
Responding to the edits:
"Where did things go wrong" is an important element of social critique. My answer is that things went wrong with the Enlightenment, which was not the triumph of rationality over superstition, but rather the opposite. That's a long and involved conversation, though.
I do not think my model is accurately summarized as "go back to the 1600s", more along the lines of "stop making a simple (but for some highly lucrative) mistake we made in the 1600s and have been continuously making ever since." This would be a better summary:
Skepticism, rationality and empiricism, and even instrumental materialism, do not mean believing that studies show.
In any case, I do not wish to "go back to the 90s". Free speech and human rights are a spook, "rule of law" is doomed because no set of rules can ever constrain human will. Values-coherence is a prerequisite for the formation and maintenance of a functional society; the aim is to achieve values-coherence with others, band together for mutual benefit and defense, and prevent rule by those who hate you.
That is certainly one point of contention. Jim and similar "right wingers" believe that the problem is blacks and browns, and wish that Reds and Blues could coordinate against them. I believe that the problem is Blues; if it were possible to coordinate with Blacks and Browns against them, that would be an entirely acceptable outcome. Browns and Blacks are a problem to the degree they empower Blues; if blue power is broken, disputes with blacks and browns are solvable in any number of ways.
Blue Tribe's goal is sociopolitical closure, to shut anyone who disagrees with them out of the economy, the political arena, and to the greatest extent possible society itself. In the classic formulation, they aim to make peaceful revolution impossible, and to the extent that they succeed they make violent revolution inevitable. The part people have missed, though, is the degree to which they have not succeeded in making peaceful revolution impossible.
Sure, and they're occasionally correct, after a fashion. But let's put it bluntly: the first amendment does not protect my speech, and the second amendment does not protect my right to keep and bear arms. What protects my rights is my ability to coordinate action among those who share sufficient values with me to be allies. There is no way to share power long-term with those who do not meet this basic criterion.
Creating a polity where Blues hold no sway, and hence browns and blacks are not an appreciable problem. encouraging blacks and browns committed to blueness to leave for blue areas seems like a pretty easy and bloodless solution. to the extent that this is not possible, it is because Blues still have too much power, which is again a problem I think we are in the process of solving.
Indeed we are. His are wrong and foolishly so.
I have to ask, becuase this seems like a pretty important wrinkle in your thesis here. To what degree and type of values-coherence do you require? You are a Christian, so I presume you are against pre-marital sex. In your ideal society, would anybody who thinks pre-marital sex is fine be expelled? Would anybody committing it be imprisoned?
My question really is how much values-coherence is enough; that is, where is the line? And how can you even quantitatively/rigorously determine where the line is?
In my tradcath filter bubble the normal response to fornication runs the spectrum from ostracism(for a seducer) to a shotgun wedding(for a courting couple that made a stupid mistake) with the median outcome being a mutual no-contact order. The man is held primarily responsible. 'Fornication is OK' is outside the overton window, 'Fornication sometimes happens and worrying too much is a cure being worse than the disease' is at the far end of it. People are not popularly held to have a right to privacy wrt past fornication, and it's very likely to restrict an individual's marriage prospects by a lot- but no one asks questions about a first child only taking six months or so.
I'm pretty sure we're a bit more conservative than @FCfromSSC on questions like that.
More options
Context Copy link
Have you read Conservatives as Moral Mutants?
That's an example of what not enough overlap for society to function looks like.
Zunger was straightforwardly correct:
i am indeed a Christian. I don't require people to also be Christians to live in peace with them. I don't require the laws to be Christian laws to live in peace under them, since there is very little the law can do to secure Christian ends. I am happy to cooperate with people who disagree with me on some things to achieve the other things that we do agree on. I am willing to extend liberty to others to the extent that they are willing to extend liberty back.
On the other hand, the more cohesive my community and the more fringe the demand of tolerance from those at its fringes, the more it seems to me that people who are incapable of fitting in should simply go somewhere else. This principle works the other way: I and mine should not casually intrude into the lives and communities of those alien to us. We should interact with those we can tolerate, and those we cannot tolerate we should separate from and avoid. This is not out of any high-minded principle, but only the practical wisdom of circles of concern. People far away are not generally as much of a problem as those close by; you are never going to conquer the whole world and institute global utopia, so the best thing is to make your bit as good as possible, and let those far away do as they will.
There is no definable "line". Either people are willing to cooperate or they are not. Either you can tolerate others or you cannot. Both maximizing and minimizing tolerance have serious downsides; you need a happy medium, and there is no way to rigorously define where that medium is. There is no way to codify it into a set of legible rules. If you have too much tolerance, values drift and society collapses. If you have too little tolerance, you fall into purity spirals and infighting and society collapses. There's no substitute for prudence and sound judgement.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
much confused! The Blues have succeeded in making peaceful revolution possible?
I observe that Blues tried and failed to make peaceful revolution against them impossible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But, if I’m reading you correctly, ultimately your end goal is to form a regional society of people who share your moral intuitions. If Blacks and Browns refuse to relinquish Blueness, or at any rate refuse to become sufficiently compatible with your Redness, doesn’t that mean you will either have to quell them or expel them? And if so, isn’t TDJ just skipping the middle steps?
What solutions were you envisaging?
Sure, or enough of them to limit the scope and scale of political conflict to something survivable.
If they can't secure blue power by winning a vote, and they can't compromise law enforcement, why do they need to be either quelled or expelled? If they are content to live as a political minority, well and good. if they are not content, they can move somewhere that seems more congenial.
Blue Power comes from several sources, among them political machines, long-term control of the knowledge production and dissemination apparatus, entrenched bureaucracy, and entrenched legal precedent. The foundations of most of these sources are visibly decaying. Without them, I do not think Blue Tribe is capable of the sociopolitical closure they threaten. Without that threat, the geographical sortition that has been ongoing for well-over a decade should make it possible to simply allow them to stew in their own shitholes, far away from me. and if not, the sword will remain a viable option for the foreseeable future.
Fair. I would consider ‘no meaningful political or extra-political power’ as ‘quelled’ but that’s really quibbling over semantics.
I would say this is optimistic. The fact remains that the high-paying and high-status jobs are all in Blue areas and are likely to remain so. Your children and their children are likely to have to grapple with some level of Blue domination for as long as this is the case, although having a reliable bolt hole might make this more comfortable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Agreed. But I think many conservatives do not want a bloodless solution. They want to overcome liberalism's tolerance of mediocrity and comfort. They want a return of martial values and spirit. They're Occidentalists, seeing bourgeois values as soft and unworthy of emulation.
Can you give some examples of these "conservatives" of which you speak?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So then a progressive effort to scrap that, you'd just be indifferent? Waste of time to try and do anything about it?
No. You use the progressive efforts to coordinate united opposition from your own tribe. Such opposition has, in the past, involved both voting and passing laws in some cases, and shooting federal agents and bombing federal buildings in other cases. What you cannot do is assume that "playing by the rules" is the sum of valid responses, because "rules" do not work the way the "play by the rules" narrative assumes they do.
Blue efforts to kill the second amendment de jure or de facto should be resisted, because even as a corpse the second amendment is a powerful rally point. But at the same time, one must remember that the second amendment, alive or dead, was only ever a tool, and the aim that tool was designed for must be pursued regardless, within or without the law as may be necessary.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As I keep saying, society advances through the counter-révolution by building a more functional parallel society which bides its time to take over the prevailing superstructure while growing by being better. This entails being acceptable/appealing to at least a noticeably large subset of women, and ‘property, but might like getting beaten and raped at will’ will not do that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This post is very bare in substance. You haven't done much more than link a fringe blogger and write a summary of his latest post. Dread Jim is very much a Culture War figure, but you're not offering anything in the way of opinion or commentary of your own, just "Hey, look at what this guy said." What do you want to conclude from this? What sort of discussion were you aiming for?
This is the only forum I know of, outside of X where it's not nearly as convenient to have back and forth discussions and there are too many trolls, where extreme right-wingers are given any credibility. Further, this places is a repository of knowledge on obscure far-right bloggers. @erwgv3g34 in particular seems to be an expert, which is not surprising given his other interests. It's quite impressive; I don't know of any other existing forum like this place. So yes, he is certainly fringe in the mainstream – in fact, he's totally irrelevant – but from what I've gathered there are more than a handful of people here who share his opinions. Is there any other message board (again, outside of X) where Holocaust deniers, the openly racist, and male supremacists commingle? It's very impressive.
As such, this was just a summary meant to start a conversation on the feasibility of his suggested solutions.
Then don’t summarize, write an effort post. You’ll notice our resident Holocaust denier does this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Never heard of Dread Jim. Based on your summary of his views I recommend he move to the country that has at least partially embraced his ideals. I'm talking of course about Iran.
Googling their TFR shows they have fewer children per woman than the US. I guess executing gay guys didn't help.
Iranian women have far more rights than Jim wants, though. Afghanistan is the society that most closely matched his ideals.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Help me out here, please. Who is this guy? What makes him notable?
The Dreaded Jim is pretty much the most right-wing blogger on the internet. Many of the controversial positions that are now considered inside the Overton window of The Motte, such as HBD and the disaster of the sexual revolution, were first popularized through his blog.
He is legendary for his bluntness, explaining in ten words what others do in ten thousand, sort of like an anti-Moldbug. Readers who are not scared off get redpilled twice as fast as by any other source.
Jim has been doing this for a very long time; the original blog dates back to 2005, the original website to
20021998, and you can find mentions of his name on Usenet archives going back to the 90's.His actual pseudonym is James A. Donald, or Jim for short, but Scott called him The Dreaded Jim once, and it stuck.
I'm actually laughing out loud at this. He is famous for spending well over one hundred thousand words and over 30 years of blog posts to express the idea. "Women and minorities are inferior to me, and I want to rape and kill them."
More options
Context Copy link
Where does Kulak fit into this heirarchy?That dude seems pretty extreme to me...
Kulak is more of a grifter than Jim. It cannot be denied that Jim is consistent and has written his views for a very long time. Kulak only recently took on his revolutionary genocidal catgirl persona, and I think it's very questionable whether he's actually got skin in the game or is just engagement-farming for Twitter bucks.
More options
Context Copy link
The briefest, most accurate description of Kulak is that he is a pagan who worships violence itself.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Has he ever talked about how many children he's fathered?
More options
Context Copy link
I think you are giving him too much credit. I'd consider Vox Day more influential than Jim, and neither of them are really well-known outside the highly politicized Very Online. I am skeptical that Jim was the first to "popularize" HBD or criticism of the sexual revolution.
Jim was popular enough to get his own "Heroes of the Dark Enlightenment" trading card; Vox Day wasn't.
Okay? No idea who created those cards or what their criteria were.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m pretty sure The Garbage Generation predates Jim, at least, and that’s very popular audience and critical or sexual liberation.
More options
Context Copy link
Is Vox Day still relevant these days? I haven't heard much of him since Rabid Puppies and that one alt-right comic book attempt.
Don't know if he's relevant but he has a substack that pops up on my feed every now and then: sigmagame has 7k+ followers but a few hundred like per post. I didn't realize it was a person at first (who names their kid Vox Day?) and if you told me it was someone writing as someone else using AI I'd have to take it on faith.
Vox Populi, Vox Dei.
More options
Context Copy link
I think his real name is Theodore Beale, or similar.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He's still around but he lost a lot of his audience when Blogger kicked him off, and Rabid Puppies was pretty much his 15 minutes of fame in the outside world.
I read him for a while in the dark days, but pretty quickly noted that he made a lot of predictions that did not pan out, with zero effort to calibrate. I concluded that either he was smart enough to be deliberately manipulating his audience, or else he was stupid enough to not recognize the pattern. Either way, not worth listening to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Im rarely exposed to “extreme far radical right” but when I am, I inevitably feel like I’m back in my early 20s reading some Marxist drivel. It requires me to completely buy into the premise of the civilization collapsing, that we are going to be replaced, that everything currently is so bad, that we require some drastic civilization-altering action, nothing short of complete revolution to survive, where we’ll kill landlords/poofs, enslave women/peasants, etc.
I just don’t see it, the collapse of the Western civilization, or the climate change wiping us out, or capitalism turning into “Neo-feudalism” and enslaving us all or white replacement. There are problems, but none of them induce the doom and gloom in me that ultimately summons the revolutionary zeal. My life’s pretty good! People around me are living normal lives, with the usual ups and downs, but nobody’s miserable to the extent the workers in UK were during the Industrial Revolution.
I say the same thing both to the suburban Maoists and to the fascists: if you see it, go do something about it instead of writing yet another blog post.
Yeah, mine to. I don't understand why you think this is a good argument
How many people are having kids?
We're trying. What's wrong with writing a blog post sometimes?
Anecdotally, a surprising amount, a lot. The majority of my coworkers approaching 30s, myself included.
It’s just funny to see those grand declarations and nothing else. Speaking to the in-group only, reinforcing the feeling of doom within the in-group, exactly the same way the leftists do it. I’m probably much closer to “a normie” nowadays, so the internal rhetoric feels jarring, detached from the reality of my own life to a tremendous degree.
Statistics tell a different story, though.
Funnily enough, I don't see much connection to reality in this criticism. Why is everyone screeching about "far right" parties performing well in Europe? Why is Europe adapting it's laws to enable more online censorship? Why is the UK arresting comedians for tweets? Those are not things that happen when a group is out of touch with the normies.
Far right is a snarl word, come on now. Reform and AFD would fit comfortably within mainstream right parties; FN might not but it isn’t that far outside the window.
More options
Context Copy link
No, they don't. 86% of women aged 40-44 (as of 2016) had at least one child. Perhaps you meant to ask a different question?
Despite the screeching, none of the far right parties want to throw homosexuals off rooftops, strip normies of the franchise, or 'conscript wombs'. That's why they are popular.
Yeah, we can quibble over the precise formulation, if you want, but the birth rates are what are. So I'm not sure what point you're making here.
Also... the statistics you cited are from nearly a decade ago for some reason?
Sure. I'm not exactly one of those types either, but his criticisms targeted a much larger group (like people worried about capitalism turning into neo-feudalism, which would include that well-known far-rightwinger Yannis Varoufakis).
There's a bi difference between women aren't having kids and women aren't having enough kids. According to those stats most women still have at least one child.
And how many of those are single mothers, either through divorce raping an innocent husband, or through having sex with a man who any fucking idiot could have told you was not going to stick around (edgy bad boys, bohemian drifters, married men, etc.)?
Not only are we going extinct, but what's left is fast becoming a civilization of bastards, incels, fuckboys, single mothers, and cat ladies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The point is that "people aren't having kids" is a strong statement that's clearly evidence of some kind of catastrophe, which is presumably why you framed the question that way. People having one or two kid instead of two or three is less clearly so.
Unfortunately that's the most recent chart I could find for this.
Literally who? His party has zero seats, so this is another point in favor of the people OP is criticizing not being popular.
Not really. Yeah, literally zero kids is "extinction event within our lifetimes (or should I say, just barely after)", < 1 / < 2 kids, depending on were you live, combined with mass migration, is "replacement" the very idea he was mocking. So no, it has nothing to do with why I framed it that way.
You might still be right, but it might be a bad idea to so confidently deny my claim then.
Huh, I always took you for a fellow Euro. And if you are, that's an odd thing to say. Maybe you're just a bit younger than me.
Maybe he should have tried being a right-winger then, might be a bit more popular now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link