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 -
There's a hard limit on appetite for explicitly ethnonationalist politics in Britain, from the native side at least. This is just not a world view that anyone subscribes to. Even the most hardcore 10% of the population have a conception of nationalism that includes "the good ones" nowadays. How likely do you think they'd be to win a general election by going full blood and soil?
Rupert Lowe's twitter account might hint at a full throated vision of what could be, and yet that's also a mirage, he doesn't believe half the stuff that gets posted, the full consequences of "deport everybody" aren't discussed or confined, and instead net out to deporting foreign/dual national criminals, recent Boriswavers, and destitute non-citizens. This is effectively the same as the Reform 2024 manifesto commitments.
This is clearly shifting, Farage has long been a Fabian about these things, purging UKIP of it's nonsensical elements whilst the British public wouldn't stand for it, and yet look where we are. He's a wave surfer perhaps if you're being discharitable, but he clearly isn't a pure grifter. The man was in the trenches speaking to grumbling boomers in village halls in the dark blairite years.
And regarding prim and proper: they decided to stand a candidate in one of the most important by elections in years with an explicitly shit posting, "scaffolder humour" past, haven't backed down from the choice, and are now engaged in an all against all war against the BBC and uni party over language policing regarding the Nowak case.
Incessant doomerism isn't necessary. Obviously he's not perfect, but considering where the British political scene was in 2021 this is better than I could have hoped.
I don't disagree. My point was that the state of affairs Farage represents is what got us to this point in the first place. And as your post implicitly reiterates, Farage does pose any threat to that state of affairs. Instead he is riding the wave of suffering and strife it creates, without any logical recourse to end it.
If the British public is not ready to assert their claim as the rightful and sole owners of their lands, then that's a problem that needs to be realized and solved. But as I said, Farage does not represent any move towards that direction. The realization I'm trying to convey is that the best case scenario for a Farage government would be a more skillfully managed decline of the British nations. It's better in the short term, but the long term result is the same. The end of the British people.
This is an established paradigm in modern right wing politics. Historically there are two camps that believe in some form of solution to this existential crisis of the west. The Secretly Based Camp and the Accelerationist Camp. The SBC believes that there are secretly based politicians that are playing electoral politics, hiding their power level just enough to get elected so they can save the country. The Accelerationist camp believes that the accelerated deterioration of the native populations QoL is a mechanism that can wake them up to act in a more radical way in their own self interest.
To summarize, Farage represents the worst option. He's neither secretly based nor trying to upset the status quo. Instead he is cashing out on all the pent up pressure that the negative effects of the status quo create without representing any chance to correct the course.
Now, maybe Farage represents something different and new that exists outside this paradigm. One can only hope. But I don't see why one would think that considering we now have an established history of SBC candidates failing to live up to the hopes that were tied to them. Farage seems to fit neatly into the established paradigm as what's commonly referred to as a Release Valve. I don't think that's an unfair description until proven otherwise.
I agree in the sense that no politician on the right (or centre-left for that matter) has fully grokked the Moldbuggian "what is to be done" stuff here. I'm not entirely sure who the SBC predecessors are. Boris? The European context is dominated by based candidates getting elected into minor satrapies sublimated to the EU, with no room to manoeuvre at all. It doesn't seem obvious to me why a British situation couldn't work out differently in principle.
Reform are expressly standing on manifesto commitments to repeal vast swathes of Blairite era legislation, so in theory should be able to push it through if they got a majority. Would they also have the guts to overthrow the civil service, reform Councils etc. etc. No, almost certainly not. But anything close to the level of radicalism that we saw between say 1997-2001 or 1945-1951 would be a good starting point.
If Farage does prove to be a completely useless release valve that achieves nothing of any sort (a la Meloni perhaps?) then the electorate will bring someone else in (or begin looking at other avenues).
Sometimes I do have the twinge of fear at the scale of what is facing us. But what else is to be done? We need someone to win the next election, and no one is going to be coming at it from a standing start - Reform are about as fast as one can go in these things (within the British parliamentary tradition). I imagine one failure-mode may be the emergence of Northern Irish style politics (and non-politics) in the urban rings. In that situation perhaps a radical solution will self emerge. Argentina is another oft floated end point - slow terminal decline - but Argentina doesn't have the ethnic element which makes conflict semi unavoidable.
Regardless, I'm confident the problem is much smaller than that of the US or even France, because of both the scale and our political system.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link