site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 2023

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.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The problem for the dissident right types is that the dissident right only really exists as a subset of the woke. In my experience the average HBD is even more of an ardent true believer in the correctness of progressive talking points than the average democrat. For all the talk of combatting wokeness it's clear at a glance that these people don't want to see wokeness defeated, they just want to reorder the intersectional stack so that thier favored groups are on top. This is why HBDers are always framing their policies in terms of race instead of the problem they claim to be fighting. Some HBDer will make some comment about how we could reduce criminality if we deported all the blacks, and I'll comeback with "What if we just deported all the convicted felons instead" only for them to stammer something about group differences in IQ, the 14 words, etc...

Simply put so long as identity politics and internal vs. external loci of control remain the core points of disagreement between the mainstream right and left, the only place the dissident right has any hope of gaining any traction is amongst their fellow leftists.

Edited to be less inflammatory

This is a real uncharitable interpretation. I have never seen an HBD person ever advocate such a thing, not counting white nationalist subs or 4chan.

On the other hand, opposition to skilled immigration seems super common amongst HBD people here. While not as egregious, that's pretty close, especially because the definition of "skilled" can easily include things like English ability or other markers of ability to assimilate.

This is the main reason I don't really trust the stated motivations of the average HBD person. Race is at the very best only a super loose proxy for the things that actually matter and you can always easily measure and filter on much better proxies instead. Not noticing this and asking to filter on race is super suspicious.

On the other hand, opposition to skilled immigration seems super common amongst HBD people here

Aren't you that South Asian rationalist guy who audaciously implied that ethnocentrism is an entirely alien notion to you since you're not white, and that it is impossible to have «reasoned debate» with people who don't want you to immigrate to their countries, because they have «blue-and-orange morality», so the only way to deal with them is censorship?

You sure are good at assimilating: you can learn English and slatestarcodex lingo and whatever else is needed to «pass». I'm sure you pride yourself on this ability to mimic superficial markers of a cooperating agent. But what matters is not how much you look the part: such «assimilation» is not worth more than changing skin color. What matters is actually, you know, cooperating, including respect for host's values, even irrational ones.

I've already said all I had to say about you years ago.

Perhaps this «opposition to skilled immigration» is not about skill, nor even primarily about race, but is specifically opposition to sociopathic, uncompromising immigration that immediately sides with one's political enemies and gloats about disempowering legacy population.

If anyone reads this, you may explain to them how such an opposition is illegitimate or founded on alien moral precepts.

(On another note, it's really funny how @HlynkaCG has corncobbed himself with his philosophical notion of woke Neo-Nazis and other clever inversions. Will we see him arguing that DEI values follow from literalist interpretation of the Constitution and are more American than apple pie, if another moderately suave progressive happens to aid him in his dunking on woke HBDers?)

Aren't you that South Asian rationalist guy who audaciously implied that ethnocentrism is an entirely alien notion to you since you're not white,

No, I never really participated in /r/CultureWarRoundup nor am I Asian. Not that I see it mattering all that much if I were.

As myself and others keep pointing out, intersectionality/identity politics is basically just a re-rebranding of Marxism with a bunch race and sex stuff in the place of economic class. Maybe you don't notice because you grew up in the Soviet Union surrounded by literal Marxist so to you it's just the default, but to someone like me who grew up in a very "we stand for the flag and kneel for the cross" sort of space where irony was almost a dirty word, it's practically impossible to ignore. There is just something deeply alien and (for lack of better terms) "eastern" and "unchristian" about it.

Guys like you and @fuckduck9000 keep accusing me being delusional and "tying myself in knots" but where have I contradicted myself? If you can point to specific statements of mine that you believe are objectively and demonstrably false, I will do my best to show my work/defend them. The way I see it, the thing that you don't seem to grasp is that our disagreement is not on points of fact, it is on the nature and validity of your entire reference frame.

As myself and others keep pointing out, intersectionality/identity politics is basically just a re-rebranding of Marxism with a bunch race and sex stuff in the place of economic class.

Well, using this mode of analysis, everything is Marxism. When Ugg in they year 2,000,000 BC called his tribe to club heads of the other tribe on the other bank of the river, he was the first Marxist ever.

Other people keep pointing out that words mean something, including people like this lifelong Christian fundamentalist anti communist fighter Gary Kilgore North.

Cultural Marxism Is an Oxymoron

Ignore Anyone Who Says Marxism Is a Threat

But the postmodernist caravan goes on.

Maybe you don't notice because you grew up in the Soviet Union surrounded by literal Marxist so to you it's just the default

Unless @DaseindustriesLtd is really ancient, he grew in totally disilusioned society where it was easier to meet abominable snowman than "literal Marxist". If he remembers anything at all, he remembers indifferent teacher droning something about Lenin to indifferent class.

The teacher knew it was BS, the pupils knew it was BS, the teacher knew the pupils know it is BS (plus all possible permutations).

Well, using this mode of analysis, everything is Marxism.

I get how somone who filters everything through a post modernist lense of "all words are made up" and various things thier leftist poli-sci teacher told them might arrive at that conclusion but thats also the sort of thing i'm talking about when i say that im not just disagreeing with Ilforte on points of fact, i am questioning the validity of the entire underlying framework.

Edit: likewise i feel pretty confident saying that the weird finge guy urging you to lower your defenses is not doing it out of your interest.

If "Seize the means of production to free yourself" is Marxism and "Chop off your dick to free yourself" is also Marxism, what is not Marxism?

Why cannot be "Go to church to free yourself" also Marxism?

Hlynka you're drunk, go home.

Joke's on you, I'm already home.

I've already said all I had to say about you years ago.

Do you mind explaining what the point of your comment is then? Are you expecting this to lead to some sort of productive conversation?

Perhaps this «opposition to skilled immigration» is not about skill, nor even primarily about race, but is specifically opposition to sociopathic, uncompromising immigration that immediately sides with one's political enemies and gloats about disempowering legacy population.

If anyone reads this, you may explain to them how such an opposition is illegitimate or founded on alien moral precepts.

Did your English fail you? Or is this some subtler issue with failing to assimilate into the society and morality of Earthlings after your alt-historical non-tribalist India?

Did your English fail you? Or is this some subtler issue with failing to assimilate into the society and morality of Earthlings after your alt-historical non-tribalist India?

This is unnecessary antagonistic. If you find yourself at an impasse, just walk away.

Between this post and this one, you seem to be getting overly belligerent and personal.

The fact that you write eloquently, verbosely, and opaquely now seems to be something you're trying to take advantage of (namely, by throwing as many personal digs into your rebuttals as you can). Stop it.

you write eloquently, verbosely, and opaquely now seems to be something you're trying to take advantage of

Is this just a cutesy way to imply that my post is a loquacious personal attack without merit?

Verbose I'll give you, but nothing is opaque in my writing on the subject. On the other hand, this guy is being opaque, circumspect and passive-aggressive with his doctrine of moral aliens, and so I plainly accuse him of being disingenuous and manipulative.

It is fair to point out both the general absurdity of framing nativism as an «alien moral intuition» and the specific issue that his background ought to have contained plenty exposure to nativism as a mainstream policy preference; his rhetoric about it amounts to gaslighting. It is even fairer to keep hammering at the fact that he gradually adapts the framing to make it more palatable, but never responds to this line of critique and falls back on the administrative resource. Between this and his previously expressed tribal antagonism towards Western right wingers couched in opaque lesswrong-style jargon, I think it's perfectly clear where I'm coming from and what I'm saying.

You personally do not give @SecureSignals much leeway with equivocations about trips of DeSantis and minutiae of Holocaust. Why do I have to tolerate this clever talk to the effect that we should all get along, by means of both sides dehumanizing people who don't share his (allegedly universal) values?

Ironically, I'm irritated on behalf of both white nativists and other South Asians, chiefly @BurdensomeCount, whom you sometimes whack for the same gloating attitude of a successful immigrant elite – only revealed in more honest, direct and masculine language. And to think he's accused of being coy!

I am aware you're moderating for tone, not content. But several rules allow to interpret his kind of cleverness as violation, and it makes at least as much sense as what you levy against me here.

Is this just a cutesy way to imply that my post is a loquacious personal attack without merit?

I'm not judging how much merit there was to it. But it was a loquacious personal attack.

You personally do not give @SecureSignals much leeway with equivocations about trips of DeSantis and minutiae of Holocaust.

No, but I don't think I've ever modded him for it, and I definitely don't unload with my unfiltered sentiments about what I think of him personally, even cloaked in eloquent, loquacious verbosity.

I am aware you're moderating for tone, not content. But several rules allow to interpret his kind of cleverness as violation, and it makes at least as much sense as what you levy against me here.

Yes, you could interpret anything anyone else says that you don't like as a violation of the rules. Many people try to do this, especially when they get modded themselves. But I don't do that.

Making arguments you don't like, even arguments you personally (and maybe even justifiably) feel are crappy and bad, is not against the rules.

Making arguments personal, and more about what you think of the poster than the post, is.

big difference between "X should not come in" vs. "kick X out"

If HBD/average human capital concerns are that important for you, there isn't really that much difference. Furthermore, shouldn't it be a much lower bar to let people in vs. kicking them out? Unless you're some kind of extreme Malthusian, there are far fewer bad moral side effects to increasing skilled immigration than to forced deportations---like this big difference makes opposition to skilled immigration even more bizarre.

Anyway, I hope you noticed the convenient demonstration of the extreme vitriol bringing up this argument always seems to produce in this community---it's like a pattern match to the storybook reaction to cognitive dissonance. It's also the one topic where the moderation team is ok with constant personal attacks being made instead of arguments.

Interactions here have made it quite hard not to conclude that a very large fraction of HBD-talk here is really motivated by exactly what @HlynkaCG was pointing out in his comment---it's simply a convenient argument for an ultimate goal of a world where people are judged by what they were assigned at birth instead of what they control.

it's simply a convenient argument for an ultimate goal of a world where people are judged by what they were assigned at birth instead of what they control.

You know, this really is something of a blue-and-orange universe. Are you sure you can comprehend Western morality enough to imitate its outward expressions?

Are you sure you can?

The dark irony is that the Nazi-types are directionally correct about Jewish thought-leaders undermining and corrupting the West. Most of the leading figures in early socialism including Marx himself where secular jews after all. Where they're wrong is about who the actual carriers of the disease are because it's not society that's succumbed to corruption but themselves. It is their belief in collective guilt and collective virtue. It is their desire to judge based on nebulous groupings rather than individual worthiness or behavior that marks the true departure from "western morality".

opposition to skilled immigration

It is a wage suppression scheme aimed at the middle and upper middle class in America. Boring material concerns are probably the real reason for opposition rather than HBD informed racism.

I have never seen an HBD person ever advocate such a thing,

Only because you don't pay attention. We had a user do it in this very thread. As @atokenliberal6D_4 points out, if concerns about dysgenics and the national average IQ were the real motivation opposition to skilled immigration wouldn't be as high as it seemingly is.

You can call it "uncharitable" all you like, I still think my interpretation cleaves reality at the joints.

You keep making this argument and it keeps making no sense because you conflate HBD types with the white-identity types. The white identity types obviously want to reorder the stack the way you say. I'm pretty sure the majority of the HBD believers would be fine to let the chips fall where they may, and believe that doing so will likely result in black people being worse off and Asian people being better off (statistically) and that's acceptable. An ordinary HBD type might be happy to deport all the convicted felons rather than all the blacks, but get pissed off if you insist that the racial distribution of deportees must match the racial distribution of the population.

You keep making this argument and it keeps making no sense because you conflate HBD types with the white-identity types.

What if it's not a conflation? What if you and @aqouta are two out of the three principled libertarians in a coven of a zillion witches and my reply is "Find me 10 righteous men in Sodom".

That you might have been caught in the blast radius doesn't mean that HBDers on theMotte don't deserve to be bombed.

Non-identitarian HBDers on the Motte used to talk about this stuff all the time. Several things happened. One, the moderators in the previous place (and you were one at the time) became hostile to it. Two, some of the people who used to talk about it left, partially as a result of the moderators being hostile. Three, there really isn't much left to talk about. The numbers are what they are (especially in the US), they stubbornly remain despite all interventions based on !HBD, and no amount of moral suasion or coercion is going to actually change the facts. You and Amadanb want to call me a monster because I follow the facts where they go and don't try to soften them with leftist platitudes or use them to support some sort of transfer system, fine. Eppur si muove. Kenyans are tops at marathons and Asians are tops at the SAT, and that's not going to change because of your smears. So the only people who even bother nowadays are the identitarians -- and usually identitarian trolls, at that. Doesn't mean the rest don't exist.

I wonder sometimes if your recollection is really this faulty or if you just aren't capable of framing things in a way that fits actual events and not your internal narrative.

One, the moderators in the previous place (and you were one at the time) became hostile to it.

I wasn't a mod at the time, yet I still remember this. What happened was that HBD was sucking up all the oxygen and the mods got sick of HBD dominating every single thread all the time, and the heat and lack of light it generated, so they put a temporary moratorium on it. To this day, you and a few others have carped "The mods banned HBD discussions because they were afraid of The Truth!" to death.

Two, some of the people who used to talk about it left, partially as a result of the moderators being hostile.

Partially. But mostly because they were pure heat culture warriors who did nothing but post their pet theories about untermenschen and were insulting and condescending to anyone who disagreed with them. They could not follow the rules (unlike our still sizeable retinue of HBD enthusiasts and Holocaust deniers who are still around despite this supposed hostility from the mods) and didn't want to follow the rules because they thought the place was a soapbox for them to proselytize their racial obsessions and not to challenge and be challenged.

Your take is as accurate as saying "marxbro left because the mods were hostile to communism." Which is his take to this day. But anyone familiar with actual events knows that is not an accurate description of what happened at all.

You and Amadanb want to call me a monster because I follow the facts where they go and don't try to soften them with leftist platitudes or use them to support some sort of transfer system, fine.

I've never called you a monster or implied you are a monster. I don't think you're a monster or anything like a monster.

I don't think you're even capable of honestly and accurately describing what I believe about any given topic, let alone what HlynkaCg believes.

What happened was that HBD was sucking up all the oxygen and the mods got sick of HBD dominating every single thread all the time, and the heat and lack of light it generated, so they put a temporary moratorium on it.

To this day, it remains the only topic that happened to. After an outside article generated that flurry of interest, no less.

I've never called you a monster or implied you are a monster. I don't think you're a monster or anything like a monster.

Uh:

Modern HBDers, by contrast, are at best indifferent and at worst hostile to the plight of non-whites. Their approach is not one of trying to improve race relations or the human race. They're tribalists, and HBD offers a convenient narrative why Our Tribe is superior and Their Tribe is awful.

Because I think there is a certain amount of "I Fucking Love Science"-level understanding in the HBD crowd, where they say they are just being race realists, but while the science might support "black IQ scores are lower on average," it does not support Dread Jim-style racial hot takes.

To this day, it remains the only topic that happened to. After an outside article generated that flurry of interest, no less.

What other topic has been harped on in such a singular fashion, aside from election year rounds?

What is your point? What part of what I said do you think was inaccurate?

Uh:

Uh what? Shall we break that one down? Where am I calling you (or anyone else) a monster? Is that how you feel about any kind of criticism of your views?

Not directly related, but in support of your point about HBD (descriptively!) - what happens when we search HBD on twitter? this (you have to be logged in to use search now on twitter, which I'm seething about)

the first result invokes the term "TND", which means "total nigger death".

This doesn't apply to most themotte HBD believers though, who are mostly either non-alt-right rightwingers or libertarian/center, as far as i can tell.

@The_Nybbler too, for good measure.

I wasn't a mod at the time, yet I still remember this. What happened was that HBD was sucking up all the oxygen and the mods got sick of HBD dominating every single thread all the time, and the heat and lack of light it generated, so they put a temporary moratorium on it. To this day, you and a few others have carped "The mods banned HBD discussions because they were afraid of The Truth!" to death.

When you say "sucking up all the oxygen", I think people who were not there might be left with the impression that non-stop debates about whether or not Blacks had lower average IQ at the population level were cluttering up the thread. This would lend credence to the idea that The Truth Was Being Suppressed. The problem for me is that I was there as well, and my memory is that this would be a false impression.

What I recall is that HBD was increasingly being used as a fully-general explanation to any question pertaining to differing outcomes of any sort. The initial arguments over whether Blacks had lower IQ were left far, far behind in a spiral of increasingly absurd extrapolations. The picture that emerged, for me, was a belief that higher IQ was the determining variable in all outcomes, period, end of story. A lot of people appeared to believe IQ was the only variable that could ever conceivably matter, in any situation, ever. It became routine to see completely unsupported just-so stories about how some phenomenon obviously was caused by HBD, complete with speculations about the mechanism involved, without a shred of supporting evidence and to a level of granularity that was frankly absurd. Then there'd be a big debate, often between different "HBD" enthusiasts arguing different but equally ungrounded theories for the purported mechanism, without a shred of actual evidence or even logical rigor visible. And when people grumbled about how absurd this all was, the response was "you're suppressing the science!"

A concrete example from this thread might help: take this comment as an example of the form. The chain of logic seems to be that people who get enslaved have lower IQ, slaves who get sold abroad have lower IQ than slaves retained locally, and that any genetic contributions to ADOS from whites can be safely ignored. The first claim is plausible but unproven, with Greek slaves in Rome being an obvious counterexample. The second claim appears completely unsupported, and the third claim is implicit in the logic but likewise unsupported. None of this meshes at all with the frequently-cited statistics about native africans having sub-70(?) average IQs, to point out only one obvious complication.

Comments like that are neither rigorous, nor evidence based. The fact that American Blacks have lower IQ than American whites is, I think, well-established. The fact that Africans generally have lower IQ is a whole lot less well-established, since Africa hasn't had the thorough population-level scrutiny the US has, but I'd grant it as a reasonable hypothesis based on what evidence has been gathered, and partly on the continent's general dysfunction. "Slaves can be safely assumed to have lower IQ because they got enslaved" is not supported at all, and counter-examples spring readily to mind: the many Greek slaves taken by Rome, for example. "Slaves sold overseas can be safely assumed to have lower IQ" is likewise not supported at all. These are just-so stories.

My memory is that just-so stories like this used to be absolutely rampant, and that this rampancy was what the topic ban aimed to suppress. I think it worked reasonably well, though not without considerable cost. Maybe it have been better to just spot the pattern, trace its outlines, and then point it out whenever it showed; that's the pattern that eventually worked on a number of other emergent or engineered problems in the forum. I contend simply that it was a serious problem, and it deserved to be addressed because it was notably degrading the perceived quality of the forum for a lot of users.

Maybe my memory is wrong, and I'd be open to contrary evidence. I waffled on turning this into a top-level post next week, but eh.

Maybe my memory is wrong, and I'd be open to contrary evidence. I waffled on turning this into a top-level post next week, but eh.

No, I think that's a fair summary, but I'd add that I do recall that there were a lot of posters who just seemed to want to turn every thread into yet another polemic about how all problems in the American culture war go back to blacks and their low IQs.

What if you're just typing letters in a sequence that make recognizable patterns but have no real meaning?

This is a 'touch grass' moment, you are setting up and knocking down nightmares of your own creation. There is (virtually, effectively, pick whatever term you like) no one on 'your team' who would not say 'sounds great!' to deporting all the violent felons. The problem is that 'violent felons' are wildly disproportionately black so everyone else screams 'racism!' whenever one of us attempts to be colorblind

Agree or disagree, there's plenty meaning to his words and you well know it.

Some HBDer will make some comment about how we could reduce criminality if we deported all the blacks, and I'll comeback with "What if we just deported all the convicted felons instead" only for them to stammer something about group differences in IQ, the 14 words, etc...

Where was this? Stormfront?

I got into a top of the thread argument with someone on this very forums previous reddit incarnation on this very topic.

It's not all HBD'rs, but they are there.

I believe the deportation thing, I don't buy that someone quoted the 14 words at him.

They might not have quoted them but I've had someone respond by asking if I ams familiar with them wich I consider "close enough"

Where was this? Stormfront?

/r/theMotte

HBD believers aren't a homogenous constituency, much like those who believe that earth is not flat there are all sorts of reasons to recognize the truth.

Some HBDer will make some comment about how we could reduce criminality if we deported all the blacks, and I'll comeback with "What if we just deported all the convicted felons instead"

My last comment before reading this one was responding to someone making quite a similar appeal and I agreed that there was no reason for it to be racial and yet I believe in HBD. I resent being shoved into a misfitting box by your theories.

If true, what do you think the political implications should be? What policies should follow, in your view? I think it more likely than not that HBD is true also, but I routinely find myself on the opposite side of discussions about what we should do about it.

We should do nothing about it. Well, we should stop doing some things as well probably, but primarily we should treat it the same as if we found out that blondes really are dumber on average and just collectively not care. Anything but constantly trying to make sure every board rooms has a blonde in it and hounding organizations that happen to hire too few blondes as discriminatory. I'm so tired of hearing about race. I never wanted to know these things and I'd gladly forget them if it wasn't constantly needed as an alternate explanation for blood libel.

I'll comeback with "What if we just deported all the convicted felons instead"

Okay great thanks

I think they’ll ultimately win. It’s just that really they’re still in the foundation stage of the movement. Almost any real political upheaval is a generations-long process of first creating a philosophy and ethos and then unify around that philosophy and work to implement it. But if you’d have judged the communist movement by what it was in 1870 when it was first taking shape, you wouldn’t have predicted the Russian revolution. The tumultuous nature of the current generation of reactionaries doesn’t mean much because I believe it will eventually settle on an ethos that will be United enough to win real power.

It seems to me that it's the fraction of angry young men you have on your side that matters more than the absolute number. If your side has all the kids, then you will have disproportionate power regardless of how many octogenarians hate your guts.

Is there really? Old men don't fight wars, the octogenarian legions might look mighty in a democracy, but if you're angry enough all the old people yelling doesn't matter if you're holding the gun.

Indeed. Also, the armies, police forces and militias that successfully put down rebellions of angry young men in the past were themselves recruited from huge pools of young men living in fecund societies. And also, fecund but stable societies in the past drew their stability from masses of married or at least paired-up young men having an investment in the future stability of that society. In demographically imploding atomized societies, there won't be many of them around either, so the two factors cancel each other out.

Is that right though? Actual boomers are well into the senior citizen bracket, and I think there was a bit of a baby bump for millenials/early zoomers which gives them a pretty big numbers advantage over genX.

We are smarter and would win in a fight obviously -- but honestly most of that generation seems if not on board with the status quo much too coddled to do anything about it.

That comparison isn't really between revolutionary societies to current western societies. It's between pretty much every other society, nearly all of them (revolutionary and otherwise) in the past and most of them in the present, to current western societies.

I doubt that failed anti-government rebellions were ever normally put down by men in the 50-60 or 40-60 age bracket.

I wonder how it's going to pan out with the current demographic trends. Past societies weren't really getting the old/young ratios to properly test this theory. How is it going to feel to be young in a society where every young voice gets shouted down by a hundred angry grandpas?

I mean, Japan is ahead of the West and the ruling party is as strong as ever.

Yeah, but Japan is the poster child of "falling fertility rates" and the infamous work culture there probably won't last much longer than its elderly population.

Generation X already got this.

I would guess an uneasy detente until one group of kids decides to stop respecting their elders and bowls them all over.

Angry young men is a bit ambiguous, though, and I'm not sure the "angry young men" of today are comparable to those of the past. Before, the rabble were employed as productive labor in critical economic activities and had broader real-life social connections with one another. Now, at best they're criminals, and at worst they're living in their parents' basements addicted to porn and video games. The past cohort was a much more fertile ground for revolutionary impulses and organizations to develop.

I also suspect that due to selection effects (or lack thereof) for the last several generations the average quality of young men qua young men is simply lower.

People also go on about testosterone but didn't Scott write something questioning that?

All of the antivaxxers, former alt-right, chuds I know are having kids.

It's pretty safe to say that a majority of the white kids being born now have right-wing parents, and if the current anti-white family culture persists, new heterosexual white pairing will be a far-right exception.

Now I also expect some of these to seek more hospitable lands in Asia.

There seems to be a short windows before the current Jan6 activists dwindle, but there should be decent returns on a balkanization strategy, simply making White Flight official.

The question is, united how? I hope the comparisons to the Russian Revolution aren't followed to their conclusion, where the dissident right winds up putting a Stalin type in power, believing it to be their salvation.

It's my sincere hope we get a Sulla instead, if that only buys us a generation or two before we get a Caesar instead. I mean, read this and try not to get excited.

In total control of Rome and most of Italy, Sulla instituted a series of proscriptions (a program of executing those whom he perceived as enemies of the state and confiscating their property).

Proscribing or outlawing every one of those whom he perceived to have acted against the best interests of the Republic while he was in the East, Sulla ordered some 1,500 nobles (i.e., senators and equites) executed, although it is estimated that as many as 9,000 people were killed.[40] The purge went on for several months. Possibly to protect himself from future political retribution, Sulla had the sons and grandsons of the proscribed banned from running for political office, a restriction not removed for over 30 years.

Near the end of 81 BC, Sulla, true to his traditionalist sentiments, resigned his dictatorship, disbanded his legions and re-established normal consular government.

All that aside, it's hard to argue with his thesis. The America I knew as a child is utterly dead and destroyed. There is no saving it. The only hope to avoid the boot of people who hate me on my neck, and my descendant's neck, for all time is fedposts

Fun aside: Sulla started out relatively poor, and only got wealth (and political power) after his mistress Nicopolis left him a sizeable inheritance. She herself was a former slave and earned her fortune through... prostitution.

Is the next Sulla currently out there dating an OnlyFans model?

The black son of that minor DR personality who married the only fans girl is going to be a caudillo?

I think he was one of the weird twitter pagans? I wasn’t really watching the drama. I just know he married an only fans girl and adopted her interracial baby.

He’s talking about Helios (or something like that), some twitter lowbie with like 1000 followers or something who fancied himself a big BAP guy who proposed to an OF e-girl with a huge diamond ring who he had never met and had on the day of the proposal uploaded IR porn and who had a half-Black kid. Everyone clowned on him and he’s never been seen on the site since.

try not to get excited

Can you explain why you think a massive political purge via execution of a ruler’s personal enemies would be something exciting?

Sulla is one of the most cursed figures in Roman history for a reason.

A new broom sweeps clean. I don’t want people executed, but I think a revolution that disempowers current elites cannot help but be a good thing as our current elites have no interest in solving real problems, instead, they’re busy arguing over fake problems and using said fake problems to expand the military state and social control over the population to absurd heights.

Just a random list, but these are some of the big problems not addressed: AI and technological unemployment, street crimes, spree shootings, income inequality, infrastructure, a shitty K-12 education system, college costs, pollution and global warming, and media/social media unitary censorship.

What we’re doing instead: micromanaging whether or not a state can ban porn-adjacent books from elementary school classrooms, trans rights, indoctrination into woke thinking, pride and race pride, and putting visibly trans people into positions of power or at least inviting them to the White House.

I don’t think anyone sane could possibly come to the conclusion that it’s better to have outdated, crumbling roads, but porn in school libraries, or street crime being less of and issue than proper pronoun etiquette, or accessible higher education being lower on the list than making sure that the White House has a resident military trans woman and invites more trans women to the White House.

IT’s anarcho-tyranny. We can’t or won’t solve real problems, so we’re busy remaking culture at gun point to be things that most people are ambivalent about if they don’t oppose it outright.

micromanaging whether or not a state can ban porn-adjacent books from elementary school classrooms

It cuts both ways, though. Assuming you're talking about Florida, I could easily argue that the state is spending too much effort micromanaging schools and waging a quixotic war on Disney for having the gall to publicly criticize that micromanagement, all the while the state has a murder rate higher than "woke" states like New York and California. If the elites are in control and can do whatever they want then the opposition is defined by what they're actually opposing, and choosing to oppose bullshit about trans people seems to be pretty low on the priority list apart from its value as culture war fodder.

I mean they are too. Nobody’s completely innocent here. The larger issue here is that the needs of the people won’t be met as long as the elites — in both parties— are more concerned about symbolic cultural issues than they are about meat and potatoes issues like a functioning school system, streets you can safely walk down at night, train tracks that don’t cause derailments, or subways and mass transit that aren’t mobile homeless hotels.

And I think removing the old guard (hopefully peacefully) will at least put the new guys on notice that they better get to work fixing things for average Americans need fixed. At this point, I’d much rather public schools be explicitly Christianized and Nationalist but teach kids how to read and write and do math at a level needed for 21st century living than have a woke school that produces functional illiteracy and innumeracy. I’d rather the flag be changed to some nationalist thing with an eagle and see a il dulce photograph in every building i& it meant not being afraid of street violence or spree shootings. Going down the list, honestly I don’t care about anything other than solving the real problems. If it takes a Sulla or Caesar or Mussolini to put American civilization back on track, then fine.

The Great Replacement theory is good at motivating people. However, as is also the case with Holocaust denial, the kind of people that it attracts are about 5% smart, sometimes even quite smart, but 95% very stupid. The reason in both cases, I think, is that it is hard for anyone who is familiar with history and is capable of even somewhat objectively looking at politics to believe that elites are both aligned enough with one another and competent enough to pull off conspiracies of the scale that faking the Holocaust or globally coordinating to destroy whites would require. As for why these ideas sometimes attract smart people, well, smart people's intelligence is uneven.

This, perhaps, is the far right's fundamental problem. It largely attracts imbeciles and literally mentally ill people. Now, this statement might come off as uncharitable, but I think that it is objectively accurate. Look at 4chan /pol/ for example. It is mostly made up of people who are some combination of 1) so ideologically minded that they interpret all politics through a simplistic theory (which makes them incapable of grasping nuance), 2) too stupid to follow even very simple chains of logical argument, and 3) literally mentally ill.

They do have some political strengths. For one thing, their stupidity and emotional frustration makes them doggedly tenacious. For another, they are willing to say some unpopular and taboo truths. However, despite their tenacity it is hard for me to imagine such people being competent enough to take over any society in which their opinions are not already very widely popular. And although they do speak some taboo truths, they shoot themselves in the foot by also being so ideological that they frequently accompany those truths with utter nonsense.

There are subsets of the left that have a similar problem in that they are largely made up of tenacious idiots. However, they have better branding than the far right does because those leftists' declared goals are basically "peace, love, equality, tolerance, and puppies" and to understand why their politics are a problem you have to be smart and knowledgeable enough to realize what sort of damage those people are doing and are likely to keep doing in their supposed pursuit of peace, love, equality, tolerance, and puppies. To understand how and why the far right might cause problems, on the other hand, you basically just have to have heard of Adolf Hitler.

Now, someone might say "but Stalin and Mao...". Yes, they are popular with tankies but very few wokists go around trying to defend Stalin and Mao. When it comes to the far right and Hitler, on the other hand...

Now, someone might say "but Stalin and Mao...". Yes, they are popular with tankies but very few wokists go around trying to defend Stalin and Mao. When it comes to the far right and Hitler, on the other hand...

I’m not sure that’s true. Barely anyone even on the far-right defends Hitler.

On the other hand, it’s fairly common to find who excuse, or are apologetics for, the USSR and pre-Deng China — more often for Mao and Lenin, perhaps less often for Stalin, but surely still more than for Hitler!

On the other hand, it’s fairly common to find who excuse, or are apologetics for, the USSR and pre-Deng China — more often for Mao and Lenin, perhaps less often for Stalin, but surely still more than for Hitler!

I don't know about this. I see a lot more rightists defending Hitler than I do leftists defending Stalin and Mao. Certainly here on the Motte, you will find more rightists at least implying that the Nazis had the right idea, whereas I can't recall any leftist defending Mao or the USSR since marxbro got banned way back when. Granted, the Motte is not a representative sample size, but this matches what I see in more normie online places as well (those few in which you can still find far rightists and far leftists coexisting).

That’s fair.

Conversely, my anecdotal experience is that something like a quarter to a third of the actual far-leftists I know will be like “Lenin/Stalin/Mao had the right idea, just went too far/did some things wrong”, “Great Leap Forward is capitalist propaganda”, “Communists would have succeeded and created utopia on Earth if it was not for evil capitalists sabotaging them”, etc. Usually not “everything they did was right”, but absolutely bending over backwards to excuse any “mistake” they made. I’ve heard someone claim that the Great Leap Forward was actually the US’s fault!

I have never seen anyone in real life defend Hitler, like, ever. Not even outside of the West where it’s less of a taboo.

I have never seen anyone in real life defend Hitler, like, ever. Not even outside of the West where it’s less of a taboo.

Of course - if you cheer for Hitler you are spitting on everything Western culture sees as sacred, you are the true counterculture and true rebel, and such rebellion has consequences few people are willing to pay.

Waving red flags with hammer and sickle can make you feel like rebel, but everyone knows it is harmless pastime.

Firstly, the claim was this:

I see a lot more rightists defending Hitler than I do leftists defending Stalin and Mao.

Secondly, that doesn’t hold nearly as well when I hear people say that Mao was “misunderstood”, mm? I think that goes beyond “harmless pastime”.

Secondly, that doesn’t hold nearly as well when I hear people say that Mao was “misunderstood”, mm? I think that goes beyond “harmless pastime”.

Well, TPTB are not worried of world workers revolution, are not worried at all that people with hammer and sickle in their twitter handle are going to seize the means of production and expropriate the expropriators.

Communism in the West was not always perceived as harmless, but it is now.

I mean, I agree with you in that sense; but I still think that both the absolute and the relative number of people who are legitimately, unironically tankies in the left is still greater than bona fide Hitler-did-nothing-wrong neonazi types in the right. That the establishment doesn’t feel threatened by them doesn’t affect the sincerity of the belief.

More comments

Conversely, my anecdotal experience is that something like a quarter to a third of the actual far-leftists I know will be like “Lenin/Stalin/Mao had the right idea, just went too far/did some things wrong”, “Great Leap Forward is capitalist propaganda”, “Communists would have succeeded and created utopia on Earth if it was not for evil capitalists sabotaging them”, etc.

You have a very different sample than I do, then, because I know some super-leftist, super-woke people, and while they tend to be very enthusiastic about socialism, they think it's all "Scandinavia style socialism"; I know literally none who think the Great Leap Forward is just capitalist propaganda or that Lenin/Stalin/Mao had the right idea but just went too far.

Granted, I don't know any actual tankies in real life.

Also granted, I don't know any actual neo-Nazis in real life.

My suspicion is that I’m undercounting actual neo-Nazis, but I think my intuition that there are a lot more actual tankies than literal neo-Nazis is more accurate than not, especially in the urban West.

(This is different outside of the West, of course. Though Hitler endorsement is also probably less useful as a signifier of far-rightness outside of the West.)

this matches what I see in more normie online places as well (those few in which you can still find far rightists and far leftists coexisting).

Well that's just the thing isn't it? What places are those? Because I haven't been on twitter in a long time, but there were so many USSR fans on there a few years ago that people would refer to tankie twitter like black twitter or weird twitter. Radical leftists don't have to hide in forums for pedantic contrarians.

Well that's just the thing isn't it? What places are those? Because I haven't been on twitter in a long time, but there were so many USSR fans on there a few years ago that people would refer to tankie twitter like black twitter or weird twitter. Radical leftists don't have to hide in forums for pedantic contrarians.

Tankie twitter is still there, while neo-nazi accounts are still mercilessly deleted.

Dunno why Elon does not put his big hammer down, why he does not give order to treat hammer and sickle accounts just like swastika accounts. Normie conservatives would be in high heavens, while normie liberals would have to tie themselves in knots explaining why banning Nazis is heroic fight against hate speech, while banning Communists is nazi censorship.

Basically: Neo-Nazis and their ilk don't have their shit together. Unlike the OG Nazis, they kind of suck at being bad guys and furthering their agenda.

No, the OG Nazis also sucked at being bad guys. Hitler's leadership style was to deliberately give contradictory orders to different departments, not allow them to coordinate to try and sort out what actually would work, and let "the stronger" agency win.

They were far better at accomplishing their goals than the current crop of Nazis. 'Mustering 50 guys to attend a rally' and 'Running a whole country; very nearly winning a massive world war' aren't even in the same town, much less the same ballpark.

In not on the far right or even the right but while it’s certainly true that insane people and morons make up a significant portion of the e-right (possibly a majority) I don’t think it’s necessarily a larger portion than on the e-left.

I also am not sure that the fraction of the far right that is openly Hitlerist is that much bigger than the fraction of the far left that is openly Stalinist or Maoist. It’s east to overestimate how common such people are if you spend too much time on Twitter or 4chan.

AOC is not going to come out as pro-Stalin but neither is Tucker Carlson going to start openly praising Hitler.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a larger portion than on the e-left.

The current right tends to attract insane/stupid men, the current left tends to attract insane/stupid women.

[The opinions of] these women are seen as less threatening and get the benefit of the doubt for sociobiological reasons (even by portions of the right in a way the left does not- that's the main difference between traditionalists and right-sympathetic liberals), and as such they're invisible enough that they have to do other things to stand out, like dying their hair.

People who end up rejecting the system and seeing the establishment right for what it is – fake opposition – end up where we are now called something like ‘dissident right’.

This quoted part pretty much answers your question. The one political factor that was sorely missing in German in 1933, in Italy in 1922, in Spain in 1936, in Chile in 1973 etc., was a decisively large establishment right-wing party capable of drawing widespread support, even attracting large numbers of hardliner rightists, and persuasively presenting itself as a political force curbing the influence of the far left.

After Tucker Carlson’s exit from Rupert Murdoch and Paul Ryan’s Fox News, the “persuasively” part is rapidly diminishing.

Watching his interview with Ben Shapiro I came away with the opinion that Tucker Carlson has a very distinct set of policies he endorses and in favor of.

Is there a precedent for Tucker to flop between politics, or is it simply "every single media talking person lie all the time"?

A lot of us were. The events of 2014-2015 invalidated a lot of peoples' conception of libertarianism.

What exactly happened then for libertarians?

Modern progressivism molted off its libertarian-friendly aspects, demonstrating that almost all Libertarian victories over the preceding decades were fake. Libertarian advances required common knowledge that the norms they'd been establishing were durable, reliable, stable. Watching bedrock Libertarian institutions like the ACLU abruptly and undeniably abandon those norms the second it became practical to do so gut-shot the movement. Not only did thirty or forty years of gains evaporate overnight, but the hard-built common knowledge that made those gains possible was destroyed, and replaced with common knowledge that all the arguments those gains were made on were in fact lies.

Skokie worked because it appeared to be a durable principle. Opposition to McCarthyism worked because it appeared to be based on durable principles. We now know that both were merely who, whom, so neither will ever happen again in the foreseeable future. Principled Libertarianism has no constituency. It's a train people ride to their desired destination, and then get off.

More comments

One step at a time...

Wasn't CEDA a large, establishment right wing party with widespread support in Spain in 1936? Actually I kind of think that fits because I don't see the Nationalists as being far right (though there were far right elements), they seemed pretty happy to line up behind Franco who I would classify as more of a traditional conservative than far right.

Debatable whether the CEDA could be referred to as an "establishment" party because Gil Robles was very open about his intentions to set up a 'corporatist' dictatorship if he ever actually managed to get into power, which was why Alcalá Zamora (no leftist) refused to give him the prime ministership even when the right won the elections pretty decisively in 1933. The PSOE was almost a mirror image, insofar as it was increasingly radical and people like Largo Caballero were increasingly open about their intentions to use the Republic as a stepping stone to socialism.

The problem with Spain was that there was no real 'establishment.' There were only a very small number of people committed to the liberal-democratic process and they could only hold the center for so long.

I don't see the Nationalists as being far right (though there were far right elements)

An openly anti-democratic militarist movement with the goal of setting up an authoritarian, confessional Catholic state? Is that not far-right?

An openly anti-democratic militarist movement with the goal of setting up an authoritarian, confessional Catholic state? Is that not far-right?

Wasn't that pretty much what Spain was until 1931? And then wasn't there a lot of intimidation, murder and violence shortly after that? I can't remember the exact timeline since it's been a couple of years since I read about this, and the book I read was pro-Franco so maybe I didn't get the whole picture. Monarchism + Catholicism seems like pretty standard conservative stuff at least for the time and place. I think authoritarianism isn't a great way to distinguish right vs far right since you can have an authoritarian government that's left, right or center.

Your point about authoritarian is well-taken but left-wing dictators tend to at least pay lip-service to democracy (not that I think this makes it better, just to be clear). Even Stalin’s USSR was officially a democratic state (most democratic in the world in fact).

Outright, “democracy is bad, actually” authoritarianism tends to be a right-wing thing.

As far as Spain is concerned, there was a political spectrum in the Republic. The center-right was occupied by the misleadingly named Radical Party (which had in fact been a revolutionary leftist party under the monarchy but moved right under the Republic). Further right was the CEDA which was willing to work within the confines of Republican democracy so long as it was convenient. At the farthest end were groups that wanted to do away with the Republic immediately. It was these sectors of the right that primarily influenced the military uprising in 1936 so I think it’s fair to call it ‘far-right.’

I can agree with your points, but it seems clear that civil war couldn't be averted by 1936. The CEDA lacked the influence to marginalize the far right and to neutralize the violent far left.

Not all states have open primaries, though. 9 states have completely closed primaries, and a further 18 only have open primaries for unaffiliated voters. Another 9 states allow you to change affiliation on election day but the change is permanent (i.e. a Democrat voting in a Republican primary will henceforth be considered a Republican unless he changes his registration again). Generally speaking, though, people vote with the party they're registered with unless that primary is uncompetitive at all levels.

Well, at least two of the more prominent and intelligent voices in the online right (BAP & Yarvin) basically don’t see a path to power for the right until the current regime collapses on itself. I agree with you that I don’t think there’s much of a chance for the right to obtain power either. As academic agent says though, there’s many different factions with different goals and preferred destinations.

I think there’s 0% chance of establishing New Hyperborea, but I think there are at least a few avenues for the right to pursue that most factions would see as an improvement on the current regime, and have at least a slim but non-zero chance of working. You note that even the average red-blooded American, even those that are nominally conservative, find racism/sexism/etc. distasteful. But I think the left has shown that public opinion on a lot of these social issues is downstream of policy rather than vice versa.

So I think Richard Hanania’s idea of repealing the civil rights act, and (contrary to Hanania) actually enforcing immigration laws (deport illegal immigrants and don’t let any more in) would go a long way to accomplishing many of the online right’s shared goals. These ideas are obviously not very popular, and are opposed by basically every powerful institution in the country in addition to most normal people (which is why neither of these things will ever happen), but you could theoretically do them through underhanded but legal political lawfare, judicial rulings, executive orders and such, which the mainstream right has been able to successfully use in the case of 2A/abortion. To successfully do this I don’t think you’d actually need to “clear everyone out” down to the local librarian. You’d need republican majorities in both houses, and a president who is willing to fire the higher level heads of the federal agencies/military and install competent and loyal people in their place. Then use those agencies to actually aggressively enforce your ideology on non-governmental of sub-federal governmental entities. Over time, public opinion will follow.

Of course the problem is in getting the electoral mandate and a president who understands that it’s friend/enemy all the way down, and who is competent enough to get it done in the face of overwhelming resistance from our current regime. The only reasons to think this has more than a 0% chance to happen are that we are starting to see mainstream republican politicians who are at least trying to fight back, dissident-right political theory is seeping into the mainstream (Moldbug has been on Tucker), and as our institutions decline further maybe there’s some small chance that the stars will align and there will be an actual major conservative backlash in electoral politics.

Wouldn't deporting more than a certain fraction of illegal immigrants crash the US economy? US citizens are not going to want to do stuff like fruit picking, meat processing, restaurant kitchen work, and landscaping for the kind of money that illegal immigrants do it for.

US citizens are not going to want to do stuff like fruit picking, meat processing, restaurant kitchen work, and landscaping for the kind of money that illegal immigrants do it for.

Other countries without substantial illegal immigrant populations seem to manage just fine. But yes, wages for those jobs would surely go up, and consumer prices along with it.

Robotics and AI would probably solve that problem within the next two decades

Fruit picking and meat processing seem extremely difficult to automate.

In the US due to economics. Meat processing in Europe is more automated.

deleted

Lower labor costs in the US dissuade increased investment in automation.

Most developed countries don’t have 15 million+ illegal immigrants - what happens in those countries? I imagine the same would happen in America.

Groceries and restaurants cost dramatically more and there’s far fewer nicely landscaped grounds.

Nah, you have seasonal workers.

Yes, US citizens are not going to want to do that stuff for below minimum wage and without the workplace and labour protections that they have fought for over the years. If nobody is willing to do those jobs for even the minimum wage, then those jobs either don't need doing or deserve higher wages - I personally think that this would actually be a positive change in the long-run, even if there were a few growing pains early on.

I mean, the actual issue is, for some of those jobs, you actually have to pay more than other jobs that are actually more skilled. If you give somebody an option between making say, $15 at an Amazon warehouse, $13 working at a Starbucks, or $20 working doing fruit picking, a lot of people will pick option A, and some will still pick option B.

You could still have foreigners do it, just don't let them stay. Have a work visa where 75% of your pay is held in an account and gets paid out when you leave the country. If you over stay it's forfeit.

I’m not really trying to argue for the merits of these ideas- but that they are major issues the various factions of the online right care about, mostly agree on, and are theoretically possible through normal politics.

Isn't yarvin's path to power 'converting many of the elites', and doesn't depend on complete collapse? I don't think it is worth taking specific factual statements BAP makes seriously, it's more of a metaphorical, artistic thing.

If I had to guess, the right/far-right won't win in significant senses, but given the future depends on the combination of all human action and organization technological development, it's pretty hard to make confident claims about. Even in a total economic and political collapse (clearly not happening, every claimed sign of it happened in the 1900s and 1800s), I don't see why something nrx/altright would have an advantage over anything else. Without it, the far-right either needs to ... ride some new technology, or win over a massive number of elites / people? Which seems hard.

Judging by the last couple Gray Mirror articles I read, Yarvin’s path is “fuck around and sell out.” He seemed much more interested in complaining about niche progressive culture than in actually trying anything different. Maybe this is building rapport with marginal elites?

Well he also has kids, wife died, has alleged relationship trouble, etc. Selling out for a few years and being comfy isn't a bad decision on his part.

Electoral mandates might matter, but they might not.

It identifies who it's against just fine: "the people in charge". It's hardly an ambiguous label, and more than precise enough for the task at hand. It also identifies what it's for just fine: "Americans saying true things", the spaces that allow them to do so, and the opposition they form to "the people in charge".

At this stage, what more is necessary?

Isn't it a bit ambiguous? Are the people in charge the Biden Administration colluding with Corrupt Corporatist CEOs? Is it the diffuse consensus of the cathedral that's in charge? Or is it a few hidden puppetmasters pulling the strings? People who believe all three love tucker's statement, despite them being contradictory. And what are they doing wrong - too much welfare, or too little welfare (for the white working class)? Transing the kids? Replacing us with browns? Etc

People who believe all three love tucker's statement, despite them being contradictory.

These statements do not appear terribly contradictory to me. If the biden administration is colluding with corrupt corporatist CEOs, why would they be doing that if it weren't for the diffuse consensus of the cathedral? How do either of those preclude a few hidden puppet-masters pulling strings?

It seems obvious to me that all three of your statements are true. There are definately puppet-masters pulling strings, there is definately a diffuse cathedral consensus, and there is definately collusion between the Biden administration and corrupt corporatist CEOs. Blue Tribe is vast and highly complex, comprising at least several dozen million people, many of them from the upper strata of society. Why would its workings be reducible to a single story? If we tried to describe the politics of renaissance Italy, would it be reducible to a binary "it's the medicis" or "it's the doge"?

If you want to reduce it down to a single cause, you have to get really, really general: It's Enlightenment ideology doing what it always does.

And what are they doing wrong

Again, lots of things.

If tucker gave a specific answer encapsulated into a sentence or two, it would either be incomprehensible to a general audience, or so vague as to be meaningless. Either way, I suspect you'd object to any such simplification as being excessively reductive.

What he actually does is what Reds are increasingly doing: making a statement in favor of status-independence from the Blue Tribe. There's plenty of time to drill down to specifics, but first we must agree that we are not going to grant Blue lies power over our thinking any longer. Blue status attacks are flatly illegitimate, and their methods of enforcing conformity must be rejected. That's the start of overthrowing their order: recognizing the demand for consent, and refusing to grant it.

It's not ambiguous at all to his intended audience.

It's basically the final paragraph of @FCfromSSC's reply below.

He doesn't have to. Almost all of the interesting things happen on the "is" side of the is-ought distinction. You don't say, "we ought to ban transgender athletes from women's sports." You say "people born with penises aren't women," and the ought becomes obvious.

Of course, the reason this works is that the left is already using is-statements as a shortcut for oughts. On this matter, the ought-debate has been near-completely abandoned.

There is no ought debate, there is only reeeeeee-ing on twitter or hitting eachother with rocks.

Atleast there is an is there to have a debate about.

You know the joke about the communist dissident arrested by secret police for handing out blank sheets of papers in public?

What do you mean, “communist”? That's present-day Russia: https://youtube.com/watch?v=TbzV1it1YPY

Nick Fuentes claims that he's a spook

and that he is leaving Fox after being exposed by the Dominion lawsuit.

Some text message in which he claims he has been thinking every single day for 4 years that Trump is a demon.

Our current orthodoxies won't last.

Meh. Ideologies have no natural expiration date. They can last for months, or they can last for millennia. Imagine watching Christianity rise to power in late antiquity and thinking "it won't last, it's too braindead, no one actually believes this..."

True, nothing lasts forever, but you're dealing with a timescale of 2,000 years, not 20 or even 200.

A sizable portion of the population is bought into wokeism for life. They will never ever change. The people in their 20s and 30s now who have been permanently indoctrinated with wokeism will play the role that the conservative Moral Majority did in the 80s and 90s. In another decade or two there may (keyword may, it's not guaranteed) be a youth rebellion movement that challenges wokeism, but they will necessarily face resistance from the entrenched power structure.

The christianity of early christians has not that much to do with how it was practiced later.

Well, you can say so, and I can disagree.

Who practices community of goods now?

This is a spectacularly non-central example.

We don't appoint leaders by lot any more, either.

But to answer the question, monastics do.

It was pretty obvious watching 3rd century christianity that some large portion of these people were true believers. I don’t think this is true for the woke- what wokesters face actual-factual martyrdom? The histrionics about trans genocide are just that- histrionics.

The problem for you guys, when it comes to a "youth rebellion," is a right-wing one hasn't happened in forever, at least among the West.

Even the shift to the Right of young voters in the '70s and 80's, wasn't because of some great moral turn by Gen Xers (as we see that the height of teen pregnancy, drug use, etc. all happens near the start of the 90's) or rise in racism or sexism or bigotry, but because of bad economic times, plus the conservative movement (previously split between the GOP & Dixiecrats) accepting mostly defeat on the big questions of the 60's and 70's - there would be no resegregation, no putting women back in the home, no repeal of Medicare, and so forth.

The median 18 year old in 1985 was more liberal personally and possibly even politically, than an 18 year old in 1965, it's just the GOP wasn't continuing to fight the fights of the previous generation, as the current GOP and right-wing movement might end up doing.

Just draw the rest of the owl.

For a more realistic and coup-partial rather than coup-complete solution, I’d suggest a citizenship buyout program, which I believe I’ve commented about before. This is something the “dissident right” could possibly implement if they somehow manage to get some representatives in power.

In exchange for relinquishing citizenship, Americans could receive a sum and a one-way ticket to a pre-arranged West African country. A la the Will Rogers phenomenon, this could increase the average IQ of both the United States and the receiving African country.

Such a program would be akin to how Birthright is marketed to US Jews, but somewhat less temporary. It could be race-neutral, but by its nature it’d appeal more to the “We Wuz Kangz” types, which social media marketing could help target. The program would be voluntary and non-violent, which warms the libertarian parts of my frigid heart. The US government spends a lot of money, might as well put a small fraction of it to good use.

According to the US Treasury, the U.S. federal government spent about $6.5 trillion in fiscal year 2022. Suppose 1% of that were allocated to a citizenship buyout program—that’s $65 billion. If $10,000 is offered to each citizenship buyout participant, that’d potentially be 6.5 million Americans that can be relocated. Each year! Shedding 6.5 million Americans that are disproportionately low in wealth and IQ, and high in discount rate, would more than move the needle on average GDP, criminality, and net-tax transfers. Not only would it behoove the US to have fewer low IQ, low impulse control citizens—but to have fewer of their children, as well, given the high heritability of cognitive traits.

The 6.5 million Americans would be largely composed of black Americans, thus depriving progressives a large chunk of their IdPol foot-soldiers. Fewer net-tax recipients, fewer no-go neighborhoods and school districts, fewer affirmative action claimants in schools and work-places. With a large voting constituent thinned, both the Democrat and Republican parties would shift away from IdPol progressivism. Republicans, in current form, are supposedly the White Supremacist party, but mainstream Republicans play by the progressive rulebook and try to claim DR3: “Democrats Are the Real Racists.”

$10,000 is obviously some nice round number that I arbitrarily picked out of a hat to temporarily serve as an example. Maybe The Number is lesser or greater than $10,000. I know $10,000 might not sound like much to readers here. Many of us make well-more than 10,000 USD on days like today just due to stock market fluctuations. However, the median American household net worth is under $10,000 for those under 30. So $10,000 is a lot of money for a lot of Americans, especially young people of low IQ and high time-preferenced, a key demographic given the potential of children.

This could be a massive win-win. Perhaps some people are in need of a change of scenery, especially disaffected young men on the left side of the American IQ bell-curve. Maybe it’s better to be a big fish in an small African pond than a small fish in a big American pond, especially with the tail wind of some quantity like $10,000. If a young man is into black chicks, $10,000 can support a harem of girlfriends and “girlfriends” in West Africa for quite a bit. “I spent my citizenship buyout payment on women, alcohol, and gambling. The rest I wasted” — some hypothetical citizenship buyout participant, possibly.

Black Americans could find themselves much higher on the totem pole in West Africa, with a higher IQ genetically (due to higher white admixture) and any environmental factors. They had a pretty fun go at it in Liberia last time... although perhaps not as fun for the local Africans.

Just enforcing current US immigration and equal protection laws for Whites and Asians would go a long way, and better policing/punishing of crime—especially violent crime—in general. Less anarcho-tyranny toward the treatment of crime and self-defense. #StopAsianHate quickly lost momentum when it became too apparent who was actually committing acts of Asian hatred. #RooftopAsians never made it positively in mainstream, just relegated to crime-think corners of the internet like /r/politicalCompassMemes at the nearest to the Overton Window. Don't think I need to beat a dead horse with regard to the treatment of purported white-on-black crime vs. confirmed black-on-white crime.

But even that’s also coup-partial and something that would require the dissident right to make some major moves.

Fewer than 200,000 American Jews have emigrated to Israel since the Jewish State was established in 1948. Out of a population of over 5 million. They weren't given financial inducements, but Israel is a much more attractive option than Ghana, and Ghana is about as good as you're going to get in West Africa. How much would I have to pay you to agree to leave your home country permanently for a country that was, by all objective measures, less desirable?

Don't think I need to beat a dead horse with regard to the treatment of purported white-on-black crime vs. confirmed black-on-white crime.

You're assuming this would be good for America because race is a good proxy for IQ and criminality, but even if I agree with that, why use a proxy at all? Why not just focus resettlement offers on criminals and dumb people generally? It's not like these things are hard to measure without proxies. Furthermore, there are 40 million blacks in the US. Relocating 6.5 million of them represents 16% of their total population. All you'd be doing is reducing blacks from 12% of the total population to 10%, which is about what the proportion of blacks was in 1960. It would probably be unnoticeable for most people. During the Civil War there were some serious plans for resettlement of freed slaves, but black leaders such as Frederick Douglass met Lincoln at the White House and voiced strong opposition for the plan. After a failed attempt at resettling some volunteers in the Caribbean the idea wasn't seriously brought up again. It was a dumb idea then and it's a dumb idea now.

why use a proxy at all? Why not just focus resettlement offers on criminals and dumb people generally?

Because crime isn't tearing apart the (mostly-white) elite and wrecking our culture; the progressive religion which has as one of its chief tenets the evil of whiteness (always with the lower-case) and the corresponding martyrdom of Blackness (with the capital-b, of course), is.

Because crime isn't tearing apart the (mostly-white) elite and wrecking our culture; the progressive religion which has as one of its chief tenets the evil of whiteness (always with the lower-case) and the corresponding martyrdom of Blackness (with the capital-b, of course), is.

Then, why not change this official religion, why not turn around propaganda both official and unofficial?

"Blackness good, Whiteness bad" is out.

New line is: "Americanism good, unamericanism bad. What is unamerican? Everything that divides Americans against each other over such minor details as color of skin, everything that splits our beloved Eagleland is unamerican and everything unamerican is treasonous."

"Why are lighter skinned Americans overrepresented among wealthy and educated professions, while darker skinned Americans are overrepresented in poverty and prison, you are asking? Only traitor would ask such question. Are you a traitor?"

If you have power to deprive of citizenship and deport millions of native born Americans, you have power to do this (and tell all media, education and entertainment complex to follow the new line, or else).

No need for full bore white supremacism, imagine normie conservatism with teeth.

You're assuming this would be good for America because race is a good proxy for IQ and criminality, but even if I agree with that, why use a proxy at all? Why not just focus resettlement offers on criminals and dumb people generally?

Because identity politics makes people stupid, and HBD is just Id-Pol by another name.

Hell, just have the offer be the IQ test.

Considering the number of West African elites doing everything they can to immigrate to America despite what they can get with their wealth in their home countries I doubt many people will take up that offer willingly. Perhaps if we were talking about the prison population specifically, more people would be interested in a combination of early release and exile to Africa. Not many countries would accept such an arrangement, but we could have done it somewhere we were occupying like Afghanistan if we had truly wanted to engage in [new] nation building. It should also be noted that in the case of Liberia it ended quite badly for the descendants of American blacks, though it took nearly two centuries to play out.

Yeah, almost nobody is taking only $10,000 to move to [insert random African country here]. Or hell, most countries. This is where "race-conscious" people's views of frankly, black people's intelligence fail them. Even prisoners would realize that 10k isn't getting them far, even in the poorest nation's on Earth.

Like, maybe 100k? Maybe? Even then, it'd only be the very bottom, most desperate, frankly kind of moronic ten percent who'd take the deal (and quickly end up dead, broke, or both), and frankly, that wouldn't make much of a difference, because the smart criminals could find plenty of possible low-level criminals from the next ten percent.

As you mentioned, with Liberia, the native African's had basically no connection with the outside world and the freed slaves had every advantage, including kind of implied American backing. So yeah, drop a aircraft carrier off the coast, and somehow give some poor black people laser guns and they might be able to pull that off again.

yeah the aircraft carrier would need to be there for sure, as the colony full of wealthier than they are scary expats would be like the ultimate honeypot for any local warlords to raid. being sent to africa with 100k in cash sounds more like a death sentence to me than exile. Like getting thrown into a pool of sharks but you get a free duffel bag of wagyu beef.

Yep. This plan does not account for these dudes just getting fucking robbed. That's the biggest damn hole in the plan. Maybe you could have some Special Forces guys train these guys and build a fortified compound? But at that point, you're just another bushleague African warlord, this time you speak English and have great training. And don't forget that $10k, you'll need it to buy guns, ammo, food...

Black Americans could find themselves much higher on the totem pole in West Africa, with a higher IQ genetically

this is almost certainly false. Black Americans are the descendants of west african slaves sold overseas, so not a random sampling of west african peoples, and the slaves cohort would have had a lower average iq than the non slave cohort, and the slaves sold overseas would probably have been lower quality than the slaves kept locally, at least you can assume the pretty women were not sold off but were made into wives of the victorious tribe.

this is almost certainly false. Black Americans are the descendants of west african slaves sold overseas, so not a random sampling of west african peoples, and the slaves cohort would have had a lower average iq than the non slave cohort, and the slaves sold overseas would probably have been lower quality than the slaves kept locally, at least you can assume the pretty women were not sold off but were made into wives of the victorious tribe.

Except it's exactly what happened the first time the U.S. tried this - founding Liberia. That country was run by a cabal of slave-owning, ex-U.S. freedmen, who dominated mostly-illiterate locals for the better part of a century before it all fell apart incredibly bloodily.

Black Americans are something like 17% white on average due to interbreeding. They have substantially higher IQs than stock Africans.

Instead of 10k * 6.5M people, I think 100k * .65M people would work much better. 6.5M is 2% of the country, which might be rather destabilizing, especially if (likely) concentrated geographically.

Given the cost per capita of citizens in low income brackets, even if they're not involved in crime, you could bump that up greatly while still net spending the same. Back of the envelope, five trillion in US income taxes is 17k/person, or 170k/decade/person. Assuming half of people generate twice their share and half generate none and consume the other half's, you then double the per-person savings: 340k/decade.

Either my math is terrible, or you could give real near half a million bucks per person (100+340)!

The bottom 50% actually pay about 2.3% of total tax revenue. Source. I really wanted to get pre-2020 data, ideally straight from the government, but had a hard time on mobile.

What’s really bothering me is that, even with this data, I still can’t tell if your half-and-half split is generous or stingy.

This ignores that people will take the money and then can come back..Pay the danegeld...etc.

I don't think enough people are autistic libertarian contract obeyers for this to work sorry.

A question.

How do you keep these guys from just being robbed of their $10,000 once they arrive in Africa? If you can't solve that problem, only a few fools go for this program, get robbed/killed for their money, and then everyone realizes this is a terrible idea.

Same way the local who own more than $10k avoid getting robbed?

Mostly through security companies, gated communities etc

If you look at far-right takeovers in history, they usually come after defeat in war or economic collapse. Both in the case of Germany. Italy technically won WW1, but they got suckered in the peace negotiations and were very angry about it.

Say China suplexes the US Navy, takes Taiwan plus makes some arrangement with South Korea where most of their semiconductors go to China. I'm confident that South Korea would start negotiating very quickly, they've got a land border, no nukes and no food security. Japan would be in a similar boat.

The West would face many economic crises in quick succession. You'd have the implosion of the high-tech economy, sudden currency crises, a huge political realignment as countries like Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia start switching ship, the housing market would probably implode, a lot of equities would fall significantly, debt crises, inflation... Every systemic economic problem we've been putting off would hit instantly. The whole political system would be systemically delegitimized if wages fell 20% overnight, in real terms. Greece briefly went far-right after the GFC and they were in the EU, constantly being pulled back to liberal democracy. What if there's nobody left to pull?

People would not be inclined to trust the old ways anymore, they would be very very angry. They'd stay angry as long as the economy was wrecked, which it would be for years and years. At this point, it would be a conflict between the far-left and far-right. The far-right has an advantage here since they can say 'our navies were all trained more for DEI than combat (there's actually a govt report that basically says this), those clowns lost us a war, plus the Chinese ARE communists - it's right there in the name'. They can say 'let's seize the wealth of these Jewish billionaires - Goldman Sachs and co invested so much in China, they're traitors, along with Blackrock and the NYT'. Every mainstream media org who said 'this war is justified and good and we'll win' will have a huge amount of egg on their face. And they'll all support the war because they always do.

What can the communists say? Seize everybody's wealth?

It'd certainly be tumultuous. But - implosion of the high-tech economy? TSMC getting wiped off the map wouldn't destroy existing computers or servers. There'd be a lot of pain in the half?-decade it'd take to get domestic fabs up to par, but we wouldn't stop using twitter, MS teams, or most of the hundred thousand specialized pieces of software that dot our economy and lives. It'd be a financial implosion - stocks would drop, companies would shed workers - but the industry itself would make it.

There'd still be a right-wing turn in politics, ofc, 9/11 is minor by comparison but still united the nation against a common enemy. But it'd be of a different character to weimar germany - no doomed political system, no clash between ancien regime and revolution, no paramilitaries fighting in the streets. And 'real wages falling by 20%' - if managed properly - doesn't mean anyone goes hungry. A decline in living standards today means - on average - less variety in food and products, less generous medical care . Which is altogether different from famine. Now, economic shocks hurt some a lot more than the 'average' - but effective redistribution could compensate. And a war economy provides exactly the jobs / economic stimulus to combat that depression.

Surely the effects of losing this kind of major war would be at least as bad for the US as what happened to Greece in the GFC? It got pretty bad in Greece, a lot of brain drain, suicide, closed businesses and so on.

The Greeks had been running 10-15% deficits due to the financial crisis and covering it up with dubious accounting practices. They were sitting at about 120% debt to GDP, the US is at about 120% debt to GDP (federal, government debt). The US has been running similarly large deficits 10% in 2021, 5% in 2022, 6% in 2023. Presumably wartime deficits will be much higher.

The problem was that the Greek economy nosedived, so their debt to GDP went up to 190% pretty quickly, so they had to raise taxes to pay it, so the economy got worse. It was pretty bad. It'd be a lot worse without bailouts. There's nobody willing or able to bail out the US. Who is going to buy US government bonds in this scenario, who is going to enable the US to spend itself out of a depression?

Without steady supplies of chips, modern economies are finished. Chips are needed for cars, for everything. I'll bet they're needed for semiconductor plants, and in large quantities. What is Apple without steady production of high quality chips - almost all of which come from Taiwan or South Korea? The whole company might as well disappear.

And 'real wages falling by 20%' - if managed properly - doesn't mean anyone goes hungry. A decline in living standards today means - on average - less variety in food and products, less generous medical care.

What about all the debt Americans are in? There are all these statistics floating around about how many Americans can't afford a sudden $1000 expense - can they afford the whole economy crashing, a currency crisis, enormous numbers of jobs lost...

Without steady supplies of chips, modern economies are finished. Chips are needed for cars, for everything. I'll bet they're needed for semiconductor plants, and in large quantities. What is Apple without steady production of high quality chips - almost all of which come from Taiwan or South Korea?

Semiconductor factories can be blown up, but they can also be built. There's already a factory in Arizona capable of making M1 chips. If we get to hot war threatening South Korean semiconductor production or availability (extremely unlikely without going to full WWIII), the sorts of regulations that prevent expansion will either tend to melt away, or at worst more factories will be built just south of the US-Mexico border (and run by former Taiwanese, probably). This is regardless of who is in charge in the US, perhaps unless it is the California State Assembly (which isn't very likely for obvious reasons).

What about all the debt Americans are in? There are all these statistics floating around about how many Americans can't afford a sudden $1000 expense

You've heard the old saw about "lies, damned lies, and statistics". That's that kind of statistic. Bankrate runs that survey on a regular basis and the media lies about the results every time.

The survey asks "If hit with a $1,000 expense for an emergency room visit or car repair, you would:"

One answer is "Pay the cost from your savings". This is 43%. This is then used to claim that 57% of Americans can't afford the sudden $1000 expense.

When the nybbler is biting back on the blackpill it significantly changes my priors.

Is the needle cooling?

Speaking as a leftist, the $1000 expense thing, along with the "paycheck to paycheck" polling is one of the dumbest things my fellow leftists point too as proof of how horrible it is for America, when there's plenty of better things to point at. Now yes, do I have a spare $1000 lying around? Not really. But like most American's, I've got credit cards with healthy limits for a true emergency.

Now yes, people in say the bottom third are legitimately in real trouble, which is why as a leftist, I support a massively expanded welfare state and all the other stuff most of this site thinks will lead to the end of society. But, a random nurse and teacher living in suburban Wisconsin are fine if ya' know, a transmission goes out. Yeah, it'll suck, and they'll only be going out to Applebee's 1x a month instead of 2x a month for a few months, but as long as nothing else screws them over, they'll be all right.

as long as nothing else screws them over

My broader point is that everything else will be screwing them over, simultaneously. Structural fragility in the US socio-economic system might be exaggerated now - but in this specific scenario a lot of things go wrong. You've just had the mother of all supply-chain meltdowns for the last few months (global war), intense paranoia about fifth columnists, hoarding, panic, financial crisis, capital flight. I can't even be sure of knowing everything that can go wrong, this scenario is totally unprecedented. There hasn't been a great power war like this since WW2.

There are major difference between Greece and the United States. The most important is that the U.S. can print money. Greece can't because it is part of the EU.

In fact U.S. debt to GDP has already fallen a lot thanks to money printing and inflation. (134% in 2020 to 120% today). Keep in mind that some of this debt is just a fiction anyway, being owed to the Federal Reserve not to any real counterparty. Take out the Fed's share and we're below 100%.

Even without being destroyed the chip fabs are reliant on American and American aligned expertise and supply chains to function. The Chinese couldn't make use of them even if they remained intact and the Taiwanese workers didn't flee.

That could make sense at strategic or operational levels of decision making I suppose.

I'd put money on this being a somewhat realistic path to power for the far-right, but I will also note that the US Establishment likely has a fair few ideas on how to handle the "China takes Taiwan" scenario that will avoid the "China takes Taiwan" part altogether--or at least making it painful enough for the Chinese to regret it. Maybe I'm just too Dase-pilled, but I think the US is rather like the mythical Atlas, capable of bringing down the entire Earth with it if pissed-off sufficiently. Even just destroying TSMC before the Chinese can capture it would be the least of the Samson Options available to The Powers That Be.

Sure, who knows what will happen? The US and allies certainly have a few tricks up their sleeve. And who can say how capable the Chinese are?

I still think the US is rather overconfident. The US Navy is actually shrinking because their shipbuilding is a complete shambles, they're retiring recently completed Littoral Combat Ships because they're useless and expensive. Around 20% of F-35 B and C variants are capable of completing all their missions (I know in peacetime they're not necessarily supposed to all be fully capable but it's still not great): https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58942#_idTextAnchor000

Furthermore, you don't see the Chinese scrapping newly completed warships, crashing into container ships by accident (Fitzgerald), or burning down warships in port (Bonhomme Richard). This is the sort of behaviour we expect from the Russian navy, which is not well known for its combat prowess.

The Taiwanese simply need a fairly modest quantity of high explosive to destroy TSMC.

I think you're largely correct.

There will be no recognizably right-wing government or establishment in Germany for at least another two generations. The well has been too thoroughly poisoned. And anything that may come later is more likely to be islamic than nationalist.

You're forgetting that what causes the right to rise is the left, and (just one example) in Austria the communist party is about to get seats in parliament for the first time in generations

If the recent fortunes of the German communists are any indication, then it won't take any involvement by the right for them to falter and slide back into oblivion.

Nice historical tidbits in there and overall quite right, but I think one can tentatively say that it did not age well since the last election.

I might as well ask: how so?

Let's go party by party. I'll not try to hide my biases, and I'm not going to look for sources unless you insist.

Merkel is out of office and out of politics, and it didn't take anything drastic. I'd say it was simply a combination of exhaustion and national crises that a politician of her type was ill-equipped to deal with. As the article says, her M.O. was to remain above politics - but that was really workable only so long as politics stayed out of people's lives. Mass immigration and hysterical covid responses both actually affect people and thus reflected poorly upon Merkel, and my guess is that she's really happy to have gotten out before needing to respond to the war in the Ukraine or to take responsibility for the economic effects of the environmental policies she put underway. There's not much else to say about the CDU. They have a core of loyal voters who'll keep this party going for as long as they live. Sadly the party has absolutely no idea what it stands for or what policies it espouses. The CDU is first and foremost a club for doing politics, getting posts, and maybe keeping the other parties from screwing things up too badly, but only if it's not too much of a bother. Right now their leadership is undecided on whether to pretend to be environmentalists or conservatives.

The NPD hasn't mattered in any way in a long time. Everyone's new favorite scarecrow is the AfD, and the AfD really soaked up any sizable voting blocks the NPD ever had.

The AfD, coincidentally, has gotten into several state-level parliaments and was prevented from government participation only by opposing coalitions. They're not doing much, as all the other parties are still doing their damndest to sabotage them even if it means throwing parliamentary protocol overboard or inventing new rules, but they're also slowly taking root in the east where people are getting downright used to them.

The fortunes of the SPD have been wild, fluctuating between near-irrelevance a few years ago and somehow getting really lucky and becoming the largest government party and providing the chancellor in the last election. The War in the Ukraine really threw a spanner into their works though, and as I see it they haven't recovered yet. The German left's brand of pacifism has a hard time coexisting with their cathedral-approved hatred for Putin. Some of their ministers are still trying to just power on and do what their party is ostensibly there for, protecting the working class by forever expanding the bureaucracy, but they're also running a little scared at the prospects of what the Greens are cooking up.

The Greens are by now one of the strongest parties, with what I'd guess to be the second-largest block of loyal voters - second in size only to the CDU's, but also much younger and thus more likely to last, and they're firmly the woke/progressive/cathedral favorite. They're also in government and really getting things done. Their co-ed candidates for chancellorship ended up not getting the post thanks to the SPD's outrageous luck in the election, so they instead grabbed the ministries of foreign affairs and of the economy, and they're both trying their hardest to make names for themselves. The M.o. Foreign Affairs, when she isn't loudly proclaiming the age of feminist foreign policy, is also our standout warhawk in matters of Ukraine - a position most unusual for someone of her hardcore pacifist party. The M.o. Economy is instead leaning into the environmentalism, actually going through with Merkel's policies for national economic ruination, and adding a few more of his own to make sure that every German household gets to really feel it.

The FPD also made it into the current government, and their most known ministers are those of Law and of Finance. Their two standout contributions are respectively playing along with the other two parties to get a sexual-minorities'-rights law underway, and sabotaging all else as hard as they can to keep especially the Greens from destroying Germany's economy overnight. They've been rebranding themselves as a party that's socially progressive and economically not insane, and it seems to work. Naturally most young Germans hate them and blame them for causing the end of the world, and tend to completely ignore that the FDP did the legwork for the sexual-minorities'-bill and ascribe that one entirely to the Greens instead. Someone should tell the FDP about conflict theory.

In short, the last election went unexpected ways, and the war in the Ukraine broke a lot of people.

Thank you, this explains a lot.

More comments

From the footnotes:

...and the British did what they always did: Invent a tax that didn't bring in significant revenue while antagonizing the natives...

Facing armoured columns carrying tax-free Belgian coffee through the Ardennes, the British decided that fighting through the Ardennes three times in as many decades was enough and they'd rather not enforce the tax, thank you very much.

Any idea where I can read more about this tax (and the British Occupation Zone more generally)?

In case this means Die Linke, my understanding is that it's arguable that their bad fortunes are the direct result of power moving from the old East-German, SED-successor parts (who at least had a certain history of governance) to the anarcho-liberal West German radicals.

That's certainly one partial cause of their malady, but hardly the only one.

IMO it's important to keep in mind that the vilification of all things right-wing is probably stronger in Germany than in any other democratic country in the world. By far. By orders of magnitude. I suppose I needn't explain why or how. The German moral compass consists of "nazi" on one end and "good" on the other, and any political activity will attempt to place itself right on the good end, moving away from it only so far as practicality demands, and such practicality must always be accompanied either by a certain amoral or asocial streak, or by extensive burden of justification.

What this means is that it's trivially easy to just be an uncritical, perfectly fanatical, purity-spiralling ever-more-extreme leftist in Germany, and even in establishment Germany. By being maximally distant from the moral pole of all evil, and pushing further away from it, you automatically have the moral high ground and you can rightly consider yourself beyond reproach, and no reproach will come to you from polite society.

This in turn has the consequence of the left being absolutely loony, and there being no mechanism to reign it in. And naturally this effect is strongest in the nominal Left party, Die Linke.

In my view that's the strongest cause for their misfortunes - their increasing disjunction from reality, which can only increase over time due to the German moral compass.

Unrelated: The German right is also insane, also due to this moral compass, but in different ways. It takes madmen to go and occupy the moral pole of all evil.

That definition of "Far Right" is strict, and it's difficult to extract value from it. If you loosen your definition of it ever-so-slightly and you start getting christian nationalists/christian technocrats/crypto statists and evangelicals, the path to "Far Right" takeover becomes much clearer.

Honestly it seems like hardcore Christians and crypto-fascists get along ok but want the DR to stop being so openly white nationalist.

If you were to ask me if it was white nationalism, anti-semitics, or the sinophiles being the issue that keeps the group from being cohesive, it's most certainly the sinophiles.

Christians and White nationalists are many things, but if/(when?) they realize the extent to which sinophilia pervades the cryptos, it will be difficult to keep them unified.

No.

deleted

If you're asking specifically about more information on my thoughts on the pervasiveness of sinophilia in cryptostatism, I suggest reading Nick Land's works. His CCRU prophecies are still available, and though using esoteric diction and grammar, relatively approachable.

In fact, this maps exactly onto the trinity NRX tried to make happen.

Parvini being big on Elite Theory knows that he needs an ascending elite if change is ever to happen, and I would argue technocapitalist are the best situated to challenge managerial rule, provided they can be organized.

I'm iffy on Christianity as an organizing ideology if I'm honest, but it can be surprisingly potent.

Yes to ascending elite, however I am skeptical of technocapital given that it was unable to counter the managerial elite to begin with, and was present in western society, albeit in another form, before them.

aren't most technocapitalists liberals?

Liberal is a very broad term. Wasn't Henry ford a liberal too, a liberal techno capitalist of the time?

An Ascending Elite would probably be the best bet if the main parties would want the US to be/stay independent. There's still an absurd amount of untapped nationalist fervor, and R's gains with minorities showed that most people are still not willing to hop on Popper's wild ride. (That could, perhaps, stem from the terrible messaging of the Hillary 2016 campaign being wildly self-defeating)

Long-term, Christianity is a losing proposition, I agree there, but they only need to hold off long enough for their policies to get in place. Since most Christians are older, own land, have kids, the amount of relative power they have over the country versus the new-age atheists is insane. As such, appealing to older, "family values" and general christian sensibilities makes intuitive sense.

However, in the end, I think they misjudge just how far the average Westerner, and particularly American, has moved away from them. People broadly suppost some level of immigration (and even a sharp reduction wouldn't head off "replacement"), don't think twice about interracial relationships, and like Jews. The white nationalist project of reimposing segregation is particularly baffling to me on logistical grounds alone.

I feel like this is an underappreciated point. I am under the impression that, within living memory, a great deal of the states of affairs dissident-right-types would like to return to obtained (in the US at least). Within living memory we had strong restrictions on immigration. Women and racial minorities were legally subordinate to white men. LGBT individuals were firmly in the closet across most of the country.

We transitioned from that state of affairs to the current one somehow. Even assuming we could get back to that state of affairs, what is going to prevent society from going through the same process again? Are women and racial minorities and LGBT people just going to accept their subordination this time? Are sympathetic white men going to somehow be prevented from gaining power? Of the 535 members of the 88th Congress, the one that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a whole 4 were black and 14 were women, after all. Most of the people wielding political power to the benefit of women, minorities, LGBT people, whoever are straight white cis men!

just going to accept their subordination this time?

What kind of “subordination” do you have in mind? What specific policies are being advocated that you find objectionable?

I am under the impression DR types are generally in favor of state-backed discrimination against racial minorities and LGBT individuals (ala Jim Crow laws). As well as in favor of policies restricting women's ability to participate in society and politics as equals to men.

There's a very wide diversity of viewpoints in the DR. Claims made by one person may not be valid for another.

generally in favor of state-backed discrimination against racial minorities

The DR is in favor of racially homogeneous societies. There shouldn't be any racial minorities around to discriminate against in the first place, because they should be living somewhere else, among their own people where they can be governed by laws of their own making.

policies restricting women's ability to participate in society and politics as equals to men.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some influential figures in the DR who supported this. But in general the DR doesn't spend too much time talking about women's issues, because they're viewed as secondary to racial issues. More of a day 2 item than a day 1 item.

For what it's worth, one of the leaders of the UK group Patriotic Alternative is a woman, and the National Justice Party's official platform summary says nothing about women. So they're not exactly frothing at the mouth to put women in chains or anything.

The DR is in favor of racially homogeneous societies. There shouldn't be any racial minorities around to discriminate against in the first place, because they should be living somewhere else, among their own people where they can be governed by laws of their own making.

So, what are the implications of this for racial minorities that live in a society? Hard to see how one goes from a racially diverse society to a racially homogenous one in a way that does not entail the subordination of minority races.

For what it's worth, one of the leaders of the UK group Patriotic Alternative is a woman, and the National Justice Party's official platform summary says nothing about women. So they're not exactly frothing at the mouth to put women in chains or anything.

It's worth nothing. As long as there has been a movement for women's equality there have been women arguing for their own political and social subordination. The anti-suffragettes existed.

The basic issue is despite some famous by Internet standards people giving the idea that the median under-30 white male is some angry dude who thinks wokeness is destroying everything, not only is the Democratic vote among white males under 30 higher in 2020 & 2022 than it is among 65+ white males, the Democratic vote is likely higher today, than among those same 65+ white males when they were under 30.

So, not only is the "dissident" right losing the pure numbers game, due to immigration and intermarriage and everything else, they're losing any kind of possible support among their target demographic.

This is largely the result of women, no?

No, the youth vote even among young white males in 2022 was still D+4 Democratic. Obviously, that's not as good as the D+31 young white women have, but it's better than any other white male demographic. Even among young Latino's males, 57% went for the Democratic candidate, despite talk of Latino's going away from the Democrat's. In addition, as also noted in that data, that narrowness among young white males is driven by rural youth voters, who went 64-33 for the GOP, as opposed to 66-31 for suburban and 67-28 for urban voters.

I'm not saying it's a fait accompoli, but there's no actual evidence that ya' know, manosphere Youtubers, alt-right Twitter, 4chan, or anything is actually moving young males to the right by any large degree. It's a combo of already conservative guys going even further right, and basically, teenage kids being idiots and going 'norrmie' once they actually get laid or have to actually get a job and interact with different people.

https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/youth-are-not-monolith-how-different-young-people-voted-2022

Are women and racial minorities and LGBT people just going to accept their subordination this time?

I have one question for anyone that genuinely believes this:

Are you high, fool?

Not enough effort. Banned for three days.

Of the 535 members of the 88th Congress, the one that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a whole 4 were black and 14 were women, after all.

How many of these people or people's descendants live in a racially-integrated neighborhood?

How many of these people, when asked if they would vote for it again, would say yes?

Are sympathetic white men going to somehow be prevented from gaining power?

Like you? The idea is that white men like you are not having kids, so whatever genetic component of ethnic tolerance there is is getting eliminated from the white gene pool.

Most of the people wielding political power to the benefit of women, minorities, LGBT people, whoever are straight white cis men

But isn't that a problem for the current regime? Once you've fixed that problem on your side, the only ruling white men will be ruling white tribes.

Most of the people wielding political power to the benefit of women, minorities, LGBT people, whoever are straight white cis men

Yes, white men gave democracy to the world and white men can take back democracy. Just like that.

Whether by going extinct or doing something else.

Even so, of course, many communist elites were of bourgeois middle class origin (certainly in the top decile by income distribution, and with some status and power); Xi's ancestors (before his father's rise in the CCP) were wealthy landowners in Shaanxi, Lenin was upper middle class, etc.

This wasn't the rule. Let's take a look at the postcard and see what families the top two rows were from:

  • Lenin: gentry (and was classmates with Kerensky)

  • Stalin: peasantry

  • Zinovjev: bourgeoisie

  • Kamenev: working class to middle class

  • Trotsky: bourgeoisie

  • Sokolnikov: bourgeoisie

  • Bubnov: bourgeoisie

  • Podvoysky: clergy

  • Unschlicht: burgher

  • Sverdlov: burgher

  • Nevsky: bourgeoisie

  • Uritsky: bourgeoisie

  • Bokiy: gentry

  • Ioffe: bourgeoisie

  • Molotov: working class

60%, sounds rather high. But let's compare this with, say, Politburo of 1940:

  • Stalin: peasantry

  • Voroshilov: working class

  • Kalinin: peasantry

  • Molotov: working class

  • Kaganovich: peasantry, could've been a trader

  • Andreev: peasantry

  • Mikoyan: peasantry

  • Zhdanov: clergy to PMC

  • Khruschev: working class

At most one out of nine, 11%. The purges have removed practically all traces of bougie communist elites.

In addition, the 20th century in Russia and the US alike saw colossal material gains in quality of life that quite naturally resulted in vast numbers of people rise the class hierarchies of their countries.

That's a very valid point, I agree that measuring the composition of the Soviet PMC wouldn't show us the destruction of the pre-revolution PMC.

I am not sure I can reliably estimate the average fate of the pre-revolution PMC. The actual ruling elites (political and mercantile) were replaced almost wholesale. Lenin's father was a school inspector, which might be a scary figure if you're a parent waging the culture war in modern America, but on the national level he was a nobody.

On the broad PMC level there were measures in place that punished you for belonging to a privileged class before the revolution. Until 1936 you and your children were formally disenfranchised, barred from obtaining education beyond primary, employment beyond menial jobs and so on.

I am sure that some families clawed their way out of this situation while some didn't. But I don't have statistics, only anecdotes. Fot example, I know the daughter of a "lishenets" (police detective before the revolution) who never received any education beyond primary, but married a talented peasant's son. That peasant's son became an engineer designing some pretty important classified and ultimately ended up with a government-issued apartment and a car with a personal driver, with his wife being able to pay a black market tailor and a hairdresser.

Does that count as the continued existence of the old PMC? Or is that two different families, old PMC and new PMC, bridged by marriage?

Communists in China and Russia somewhat successfully replaced traditional elites, but in China the elite largely fled (and there were complex dynamics around the Qing court anyway), and in Russia they either fled or died (in the case of many sons of leading aristocrats) in the First World War. Even so, of course, many communist elites were of bourgeois middle class origin (certainly in the top decile by income distribution, and with some status and power); Xi's ancestors (before his father's rise in the CCP) were wealthy landowners in Shaanxi

Indeed. Also see Persistence Despite Revolutions:

The pattern of inequality that characterized the prerevolution generation re-emerges today. Almost half a century after the revolutions, individuals whose grandparents belonged to the pre-revolution elite earn 16 percent more income and have completed more than 11 percent additional years of schooling than those from non-elite households. We find evidence that human capital (such as knowledge, skills, and values) has been transmitted within the families, and the social capital embodied in kinship networks has survived the revolutions. These channels allow the pre-revolution elite to rebound after the revolutions, and their socioeconomic status persists despite one of the most aggressive attempts to eliminate differences in the population.

individuals whose grandparents belonged to the pre-revolution elite earn 16 percent more income and have completed more than 11 percent additional years of schooling than those from non-elite households.

That... isn't very much though. If you took today's elite and told them their grandchildren would only have 16% more income than an average Joe, they would recoil in horror.

I think we have to accept that there really was a wholesale replacement of elites in China.

It's a fairly broad definition of elite (6% of the population, consisting of landlords and rich peasants and apparently excluding commercial and urban elites), and it's useful to compare the old elite class to the new elite class. From the same paper:

We begin by comparing the income premium enjoyed by the descendants of the pre-revolution elite with that enjoyed by the emerging, post-revolution, Communist elite (see Table 3, Panel A). The pre-revolution elite are largely excluded from the post-revolution, Communist elite — in fact, the correlation coefficient between these two elite membership remains at around -0.9 (s.e. = 0.008) across the parents and children generations. We find that the pre-revolution elite’s income premium is 70.9% of that exhibited among the post-revolution, Communist elite (see Table 2, Panel B). This indicates that the descendants of the pre-revolution elite have regained their elite status, at least in the economic domain, to a level that is comparable to the new elite of the current Communist incumbent who directly benefit from many structural factors such as preferential access to jobs in the public sector and state-owned enterprises.

As far as the new elite, they're ahead of the old elite, but not crazily so. Communist elites make ~25% more than the average Joe, while the old elites make 16% more. It's plenty fair to say that the old elite suffered a great loss in power and status during the revolution (at the very least), but they persist.

You'll have to excuse my skepticism that the English way of perennial long lived tradition is normal.

Here on the camembert eating continent we had two centuries of the elite being wholesale replaced constantly, sometimes without skipping a generation.

Most people aren't Talleyrand.

The record-length Roman dynasty was five emperors and less than 100 years. And it was more or less downhill from there.

Rome was the most powerful country in its time and heavily persecuted early Christianity. What they did was flee to the underground or to rural areas to live as hermits. In other words an internal exile from mainstream culture where they could hide until they were able to take over.

Stripping Jews of political power and mass deportation is far right? I’ve never even heard of groups advocating for these things. Like msm tells me the Proud Boys are far right. I think the most extreme things they want is putting women back in the kitchen and being moms instead of corporate wage slaves.

As far as how they come to power? If it was 2010 and you told me I would see serious high level sports with a man taking first place I would laugh at you. So anything is possible.

How would they come to power? I don’t know. I could see it in Europe far easier. Africa is booming in population. If suddenly 400 million poor low hbd people entered Europe I have a feeling every native would turn into a hard rightist. This scenerio seems plausible to me in the next 50 years.

He's referring to what was called the 'alt-right'. There are a lot of people on the internet who are very far-right, many of whom are explicitly antisemitic.

"A lot"? There are fringe miniscule minorities that are this way online. Enough to fill /pol/, but that's a miniscule portion of the population.

A lot in an absolute sense, at least a few hundred thousand antisemites i think. The community is pretty diffuse due to all the censoring, but as an example - This pro-hitler tweet (screenshot since his acc was since suspended) got 7k likes on 4/20, and the account that posted it (nature_and_race) had ~ 40k followers.

here's a screenshot https://twitter.com/Somnio64/status/1649467510763270144 - and yeah it is quite international and multiracial

edit: for some reason archive.org worked this time, http://web.archive.org/web/20230421110536/https://twitter.com/Nature_and_Race/status/1649047391818108928

Extremist politics online is mostly just virtue signal to seek any kind of validation. I remember seeing a map on twitter which geolocated most racists online. I can't speak for its veracity nor do I remember the exact source, but it produced some interesting results. Apparently, upwards of 70% of online wignats live in India, Brazil, Mexico and Philippines. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised after the twitter race war between Blacks and Indians.

Yep, the alt-right, the most "diverse" and international anti-internationalism pro-mono-ethnic group around.

So Proud Boys are not alt-right? I mean I use to read chateau heartiste. And those ideas weren’t present.

I envisage a time when collaboration with the current regime will be treated like collaboration with the Mid-Century Germans after the Nuremberg Trials.

Largely ignored except in the most cases of the most horrific crimes against humanity? To quote Mallory Archer in the interest of illustrative hyperbole:

After the war ended we were snatching up kraut scientists like hotcakes. You don't believe me? Walk into NASA some time and yell "Heil Hitler" whoop! They all jump straight up.

I can't take anyone seriously as a political thinker advocating real regime change if they're not intimately familiar with the difference between de-Nazification and de-Baathification. His use of post-war Germany as his measuring stick for how things will look after his Glorious Revolution means that he's either a braindead moron or attempting to covertly signal that he really doesn't mean this entire article. Occam's razor suggests blah blah blah.

Academic Agent is advocating for de-Baathification, which was such a ludicrous and laughable failure on every conceivable metric that anyone seriously advocating for it is obviously retarded, and should be sent to the kids corner with all the rest of the Stormfront reading smoothbrains while the actual adults have a serious conversation.

I’m thinking more of a reverse Maoist revolution. Completely remake the culture, ban the bad stuff and purge those who advocate it from all positions of power. Remove cultural artifacts that promote that same bad stuff. Promote the new culture: traditional families, American traditional culture, Christian ethics, and capitalism. Promote useful education and the study of the Western canon.

Christian ethics, and capitalism

i know people like to define christian ethics however they like but jesus in the new testament does not seem to agree with the capitalist mentality:

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

Jesus's teachings were impractical. Typical millenarian preacher; world is going to end soon, why bother with Gnon-compliance? Focus on making sure you are ready for the next world. Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand.

Which is why actual Christianity is mostly based on the teachings of Paul, not Jesus. As long as you tithe your 10%, show up to Church once a week, and make a token effort at avoiding sin, you can live a normal life pursuing money and status and still go to heaven.

It's intellectually bankrupt, but it works; whereas a civilization of holy fools would be unsustainable.

I do find it hilarious that this is how people identify the difference between Paul and Jesus, when the very Wikipedia article you linked on becoming a fool for Christ has a section linking the phrase and concepts to Paul’s teachings.

I do find myself wondering how different I would be living were I to separate myself from the world and try to turn more people to Jesus by being a spectacle of His providence, like the Apostles Jesus sent out, owning nothing except the clothes on my back. Yet I remain embedded in the world, attempting occasionally to be salt, adding the flavor of hope where I can. This too is Jesus’ teaching, not Paul’s.

I have worked for a Christian capitalist. His family’s livelihood is tied up in providing low-cost services to the community and employment to his workers, and his goal is to be able to pass on to his children an education to do similarly while maintaining a strong faith like his. He’s one of the few people I’d emulate, were I to attempt a small business of my own.

Most people who push the Jesus-Paul distinction are progressives who accuse Paul of corrupting Jesus's original message. Usually atheists who believe in Jesus the community organizer rather than Jesus the son of God. "Well, he's no Obama or anything, but he was fair for his day; a great moral teacher!"

On the contrary, I applaud Paul for turning Christianity into a viable religion that has stood the test of time for two millennia, something Jesus's original teachings would almost certainly not have done.

Though, to be fair, Jesus avoided the most common failure mode of millenarianism; using the end of the world as an excuse to party (eating the seed corn, slaughtering cattle, abolishing private property and monogamy, etc.)

Which is why actual Christianity is mostly based on the teachings of Paul, not Jesus.

This makes a lot of things click into place for me. I guess I know now how the tension between the scripture and the people who read it is resolved.

At the risk of going all 'gdp line go up' meme show me on this graph where de-Baathification was

such a ludicrous and laughable failure on every conceivable metric that anyone seriously advocating for it is obviously retarded

(To speak plainly 'de-Baathification' was apparently less disruptive than the first gulf war)

I'm libertarian and have a bit of experience fighting losing political battles. I have to say I'm often suspicious of any group that claims to need some form of total victory for any success to be seen. Because they tend to quickly turn towards violence when their victory is not immediate.

There should be intermediate changes in any political plan, here are some reasons why:

  1. You can verify that the underlying belief system is good and useful. If intermediate changes produce obviously bad outcomes then you need to rethink stuff.

  2. Your followers can be happy about something.

  3. Your enemies will see you going slow and they won't all fight as if this is an existential crisis. (some minority will treat it like its existential anyways, politics attracts crazy people)

As it is, that plan is basically going to wind up being "kill my political enemies, and then things will be great".

Of course one can use this as modus tollens.

As you readily admit, incremental change has been the method of losing political battles all this time, which doesn't make it an attractive proposition in the slightest to people who actually care about political goals more than peace.

Hoppe is more realistic than the LP.

I'm libertarian and have a bit of experience fighting losing political battles.

I've met quite a few former libertarians in the alt-right.

What's the libertarian plan to create a society where people capable of being libertarian are reproducing?

Your enemies will see you going slow and they won't all fight as if this is an existential crisis. (some minority will treat it like its existential anyways, politics attracts crazy people)

That plan would work if a guy didn't catch multiple life sentences for having a car accident during a riot.

Before they banned another guy from the internet for making a joke about it.

Before they sent people to jail for months for 'trespassing' in a public building.

Before they shot unarmed protesters.

Before all the rest. Being moderate has been tried and the result is not much different from full-on fedposting.

As it is, that plan is basically going to wind up being "kill my political enemies, and then things will be great".

Or the political enemies can repent. They're not gonna un-sterilize the teenagers, they're not gonna resurrect their dead babies, they're not gonna turn back the slave ships, they're not gonna un-tear the statues and the old buildings and the rest.

But they could stop their current destruction.

All they wanted was to play video games after all.

Your enemies will see you going slow and they won't all fight as if this is an existential crisis.

Of course your enemies can figure out the same thing. Gun rights supporters will oppose pretty much any incremental attempt to impinge on gun rights because they know very well that their opponents are following your plan.

You can also look on this as a sort of polluting of the commons: If you disguise an extreme plan by using a series of small changes, you use up people's tolerance for actual small changes.

I'm libertarian and have a bit of experience fighting losing political battles. I have to say I'm often suspicious of any group that claims to need some form of total victory for any success to be seen. Because they tend to quickly turn towards violence when their victory is not immediate.

I have long shared this suspicion. On the other hand, it sees trivial to find examples in history where the political problems really were so locked-down that revolutionary violence was the only way out. The pre-civil war era in America for one: John Brown and Fort Sumner are examples from both sides of stepping off the brink for lack of an apparent better option. Russia, or any of the big Communist states show the pattern more starkly: once they consolidated power, there really was no fixing things in an incremental fashion.

Incrementalism is to be strictly preferred to revolution, but it requires some minimal level of cooperation to operate. Whether that level of cooperation exists is a really important question.

They probably don't. Even 80 years ago, when from what I understand most of the West's population agreed with the opinions of today's far right in direction though not in degree, the far right only managed to take over a few second-rate countries for a couple of decades before being destroyed. That is, even in a time period when the average person in the West assumed that whites were superior to all or most other races, was suspicious of Jews, and was socially conservative by modern standards, the far right failed to accomplish anything more than to take over something like a third of the West (depending on how you define the West) for a few years.

To be fair "far right" and "far left" are relative. Even the Nazis and the fascists with the mass-quality of their movements would have been objectionable to the reactionaries of the French Revolution.

"They probably don't" because you're ignoring the United States/USSR and their role in maintaining leftism worldwide.

With United States gone, and China famously declaring they do not give a shit how you run your own country provided you treat them with respect, things could easily change.

Second, this is the only formula that might realistically appeal to two spheres that are only dissident right adjacent which are the coalition that has built around anti-Covid restriction policies – having a massive real-world impact right now

There's no necessary requirement for opponents of covid restrictions to align with the far right. Indeed, in practice, the peak of their power (disregarding countries they run already such as Sweden, Nicaragua, Belarus etc) and the closest they've come to 'Clear Them Out' was in the French Caribbean, where they did so in alignment with the far left instead.

It would be more accurate to say that Sweden has very pro-system politicians. The politicians didn't go off the reservation and invent a ton of new rules and practices based on fuck all. To the extent they had private opinions on the issue they didn't really voice them, this was an issue for the relevant bureaucratic agencies, not the politicians.

If the governmental agencies had said for us to lock down then that would have happened.

I doubt anything would have been meaningfully different if the right had been in charge at the time. This wasn't a politicised issue.

In times when exactly the opposite already happened - the far left came to power, your question becomes so far and abstract that can be answered purely ontologically. Far right can only come to power when the current regime completely collapses on its own "success". And depending on the type of the right winger he could think that's either inevitable, you just need to wait and try to avoid getting into any large piles of corpses left tends to produce(the truth prevails at the end!), or will never happen and all hope is lost(in the case when left is competent enough to avoid large piles of corpses long enough or just technological progress can enslave everyone forever).

I'm of the opinion that before a far left total victory, what it will be is the population bomb we have been sitting in for years is finally going to go off and the chaos and ruin initialized by the collapse of the SS scheme will be enough to begin forcing more far right policies.

How does the far right come to power in the West?

A lot of the headwinds are already being faced by the banner of liberalism.

Imagine a European Union that is re-aligned to actually care for the interests and heritage of European-descended people to a similar nature and degree that Israel declares its ethnic loyalty to Jewry. Imagine a NATO that is deployed to actually defend the borders of Europe from foreign invaders. Those things are far out of reach for now, maybe in our lifetimes, but it's not hard to image those things, and those things would essentially entail "the far right" coming to power in the West.

Far right governments are usually brought into power as blowback from an attempted communist takeover.

The left alway tries to downplay that, and blames all other factors. The far right is always too prickly to get along with each other and needs a credible threat to unify and get normies on board.

I suspect they will fail. But some of them have gotten smarter over the years. It was common to come across "America on the brink of collapse" doomsday talk in previous years. Some of that may have been due to crossovers from the GOP hard-right, the kind of folks who watched Alex Jones and became even more radicalised.

These days, my impression is that they understand that the beast they are fighting isn't going down easily. But I don't even think they bother with taking power in conventional ways. Gathering a significant block of whites to cause significant friction will be sufficient in their minds.

I think the system understood this and has in response pulled back from the most extreme anti-white rhetoric. You see it everywhere now in the media. It may work for some time, but I think the racial dynamics of America is such that it will be hard to sustain the fantasy that "we're all in this together" as whites become a clear and distinct minority.

The US army being unable to recruit people doesn't portend well for the future in terms of patriotic attachment of the nation's youth. Why would white men die for a system that hates them?

Yet, my expectation is that while America will slowly slide into further dysfunction, it is unlikely to ever become critical. A slow descent is more likely and white elites can still do very well for themselves in America. That is important since intra-political conflict often needs a significant elite fractional support. That's a major missing ingredient for them. And I don't see it suddenly changing.

The far right as limited to racial nationalists? By inflaming racial tensions so segregation becomes a fact of life and peace walls are built between racially homogeneous neighborhoods.

The far right outside of racial nationalists?

Probably far more pathways, because far less is needed to be done. Take over of the military, ect.

What's a sustainable set of relations among humans for preserving their wellbeing and their children's wellbeing in the longest term? Here are some things it isn't: broken families, broader social group not being a kin group, rampant paraphiliacs with no interest in their own wellbeing, inadequate management of natural resources. None of this is about politics, it's just to suggest whatever the descendent civilisation of the one that rules today, wherein a large minority of physically and mentally unstable people are pandered to by an intellectual elite who'll believe whatever makes them most popular, it will be in better standing if it values justice before pity.