domain:astralcodexten.substack.com
Let me then ask you straightforwardly: do you object to being characterised as anti-semitic? Do you disagree with the statement "SecureSignals hates Jews"?
I don't accept your definition of "anti-semitism". "Anti-semitic" is an emotionally-loaded slur intended to denounce and pathologize any criticism of Jewish identity, religion, or culture whether it's rational or irrational, true or false.
So when Gentiles, like me, engage in radical criticism of Jewish behavior and identity that's "anti-Semitic," which makes the criticism intrinsically irrational according to the popular understanding. But there's no similar term for when Jews in Academia or Hollywood engage in radical criticism of Gentile racial identity, culture, and religion.
For example, my criticism of the very broad pattern of behavior of Jews in academia and popular culture engaging in criticism of White identity while also strongly denouncing any criticism of Jewish identity is a rational and true argument. This pattern of behavior is seen across the political spectrum, from secular Communists like Ignatiev, to Conservative religious Jews like Ben Shaprio, to politically heterodox/rationalist-adjacent like @2rafa. They all oppose White identitarianism and support Jewish identitarianism, meaning this pattern of behavior cannot be reduced to communist vs capitalist, liberal vs postmodern, secular vs religious, because this pattern of behavior dominates the entire spectrum of those other categories.
Conservative talk show host Mark Levin, who has been cartoonishly pro-war on the Iran question and extremely vitriolic towards everyone opposed to war with Iran, accused a White man on twitter of having antisemitism in his family's DNA. What's the word for that? If I accused Levin of having subversion in his family's DNA (someone in the Twitter replies did that), that would be "anti-semitic."
Anti-Semitism can be rational or irrational, true or false. All it requires is engaging in criticism of Jewish behavior, culture, and identity, and there's no word for when Jews do the same to Gentile race, religion, or culture. And I do those things, so I accept the label, although I don't accept that label denotes irrationality- that's just a vain attempt to pathologize rational criticism as being crazy-talk. What people call "anti-Semitism" is a rational response to this behavior of Jews in American politics and culture spending decades undermining white racial identity and political interests while strongly promoting Jewish identity and political interests, and especially the geopolitical interests of the state of Israel. Look at this clip of Greenblatt from the ADL:
What I'm focused on is how the fringes like the woke right, the TuckerCarlson, Steve Bannon... have been fermenting antisemitism. Blaming this war on the Jews, on the Zionist, on the Neo-cons.
You really don't think there's a "there" there?
I also don't accept "you hate the Jews" that's just a proto-woke slur also intended to intrinsically attach irrationality to a critical perspective of Jewish behavior and identity. I don't hate Jews, I don't remember who said something along the lines of "when Jews are great they're amazing and when they're bad they're really terrible." That's been my own experience with Jews personally, and I do have an adversarial-level respect for what I see myself as opposing. I see them as political and cultural opposition in how they behave politically and culturally, it's not an irrational hatred although this statement is not going to stop you or anyone else from accusing me of that. Which is why I don't respond to it, those accusations very conveniently derail from the arguments I'm making (by design), so if you just get bogged down in trying to convince everyone you aren't a neo-Nazi or you don't want to kill all the Jews you are just operating within the same consensus that I reject.
Race and IQ is far more suppressed than anti-porn, and yet the studies keep getting published.
Maybe the anti-porn side can't find it because it isn't there.
In my experience a lot of young men would actually like to get married
Yes, and they too would be alienated by the tradcon message that puts 100% of the blame for the decline in marriage on men.
They rely on cheap dopamine fixes and are stuck in perpetual adolescence because of structural problems in the economy and the education system
The unemployment rate is close to zero.
I wrote here:
It just so happens to be that we don't see a world where the lack of slavery is causing all sorts of real world problems for individuals and societies. Plus all the good moral arguments and everything. Funny that, both those factors cut the other way for the instant question.
Perhaps see also this chain of comments by @FCfromSSC. He focused on porn in the last comment, but also:
...Conservative Christians no longer need to argue what might happen if the other side gets their way, but rather what has happened, and what results the other side is accountable for. Christians can now operate as a genuine counter-culture, offering a cogent critique of the conditions we are all living in every minute of every day. We can offer meaningful answers to the myriad discontents created by our present society, and through those answers coordinate the systematic withdrawal from and dismantling of that society.
But instead, you seem to want some specific predictions of specific mechanisms that are headline-style events. Things like:
If I wanted to argue that America could become communist, maybe I predict that AOC will finally wrest control of the rudderless Democratic Party.
These are kind of silly. "I predict that [POLITICIAN] will ascend and promote [THING]." Like, okay? Swap someone/something in there. I'm again not particularly interested in playing that silly game.
In 2025 no one is getting a struggle session for DND.
Sure they are; the struggle sessions are just run by the left now.
Unfortunately Republicans have no solution to the problem of marriage. Neither party does, because the Overton Window only contains solutions that don't work.
I only did this once. Been trying not to tempt fate.
But I expect that going in and losing quickly would piss me off and make me want to plunk down more money to "win it back" so I don't have to accept the unpleasant sensation of admitting "defeat."
Since that is about how I felt when I took losses during my brief day-trading phase.
This meant that if one side was a belligerent in a conflict, the other side abstained from officially sending troops as well.
I think the mutually-agreed, informal rule in the Cold War was (after Korea, where both sides violated it for no net gain) that you don't attack the other superpower's client directly, only with your own client. So the US could send troops to defend South Vietnam, but not to attack North Vietnam. (And the USSR couldn't directly participate in North Vietnamese attacks on South Vietnam, but they didn't need to because they had a much better proxy). And the US couldn't invade Cuba with regular forces, which they otherwise clearly wanted to do, given that they did the Bay of Pigs.
There's simply no beating capitalism at making interchangeable consumer goods cheap, it's the one thing it's incredibly good at. Food supply chains are at once critical, complex and old, which means that they are very highly regulated, involve a ton of actors and have been optimized to absurdity.
Good rule of thumb is that whenever you look in any complex system in the USA of lately usually you have shitload of rent seeking and not capitalism. I am not sure that the food chain is an exception from this - I already know that farmers have great problem with rent seeking behavior from John Dreeres and Monsantnos of the world.
2010s "don't be a dick" secular humanism is now right wing. Left wing atheism is witchcraft and social justice identitarisnism, right wing atheism is hedonic self indulgence. Split the irreligious into those 2 broad factions, make a 1 second guess on who is more repelled by who, and 'religious identity' is no longer the savior of the left. Maybe they can make a hard pivot to Islam like the European left did, the USA has a lot more runway before critical mass for sharia becomes unmanageable.
But any guy who looks and sees how they force any popular young Democrat male through a struggle session
Heres the straight dope compadre, the new democratic party isnt the old boring rubes ya know? Dems spent 20m to learn how to talk like men do and in mens spaces. So get ready for the Committee Approved Male Representatives to drop a few f-bombs in mens spaces like a CSGO Lobby or a weight rack about how manly it is to support a woman and why toxic masculinity is just like the worst. Because clearly what men really want is for someone that simply drops a few swears and hangs out around them to gain traction.
Once the men are listening they'll automatically absorb all the lessons pushed by democrats because men automatically listen to their betters like the pack beasts they all are. Ideally the democrats can have their version of joe rogan. The emblems of democratic manliness, David Hogg and Dean Withers, should be good. Maybe that Hasan Piker guy could work too, but he has visible muscles so he might be a secret right winger.
Hey another Motte Orthodox convert! There are a bunch of us here. We should start a club or something.
Agreed, that is what Christians should have been doing. Shaming people indiscriminately and without explanation in the name of sin is not showing the love of Christ, imo.
Small changes in daily lived experiences can have an outsized impact. The crime rate can hardly budge on paper, but things that might poll as "crime" can increase exponentially in your daily life.
A sort of opposite example has been the homicide and violent crime rate in Finland up to the late 2000s or so. It used to be quite high officially. The country was also very safe in practise, at least as long as you weren’t a middle aged jobless alcoholic and didn’t start arguments at the hot dog stand queue after bars closed. There used to be a common joke that a typical Finnish murder was an alcoholic drinking at the cottage with his best buddy, getting into an argument, stabbing them with a knife and then calling the cops himself the next morning with no recollection of what happened.
Alas, then immigration and gangs happened and things aren’t as rosy anymore.
And are you certain that young men will be turned off by that message?
In my experience a lot of young men would actually like to get married, and recognition that excessive porn use or video games are actively emasculating them is pretty common.
They rely on cheap dopamine fixes and are stuck in perpetual adolescence because of structural problems in the economy and the education system, which republicans are the only party actually trying to address.
It’s a key psychological difference between young men & women; addressing these issues are more likely to actually feel supportive & empowering rather than making them feel “under attack”.
Talking to you young men like defective young women is how the Democratic Party got in this mess to begin with.
If Republican candidate quality matters in a red state, the Dems aren't close to being down and out.
Small changes in daily lived experiences can have an outsized impact. The crime rate can hardly budge on paper, but things that might poll as "crime" can increase exponentially in your daily life. Where I used to live was fine on paper. I lived there for about 15 years. Then things started getting really weird. Some things would show up on paper as "crime". Gas station on the corner kept getting robbed repeatedly. There was a shooting and a shooter on the loose in my townhouse parking lot after we had our first child. Women were getting dragged off the trails and raped in attacks so lurid and on the nose you'd think they were made up had there not been so much physical evidence and they caught the guy. Turns out sometimes, just sometimes, rapist do wait in the bushes to ambush women jogging on a trail in broad daylight. Same trail we'd walk our infant daughter on in her stroller.
There were plenty of non-"crime" stuff that just added to the overall ambiance of chaos. People suddenly started stopping me in my car on the street and screaming at me for money. There were more loitering gangs of kids smoking and shouting obscenities at my wife as we walked by. Often on the playgrounds we'd go to take our daughter to... and then think better of it. More stores started locking things up. But if you complained about it, some shithead was always there to remind you "Town USA's crime rate is actually below average per capita! And year and year crime has barely budged!" I don't know how to reconcile those insistences with the stark change in my daily life.
So I left. And in the last 5 years I haven't caught a wif of a crime or "crime" anywhere in my proximity. No stores I shop at have gotten robbed, I haven't driven by a house with a squad of police cars trying to disarm a hostage situation (I forgot to mention that one in my old locale). There are no strong "civilization is at the edge of chaos" vibes like I used to get on a daily basis, per capita be damned.
Then who makes money from the food industry.
Processing and manufacturing adds a great deal of value, the actual industrial part of the food industry is huge.
You also got commodity traders and other middlemen, the people who profit from price volatility, storage, transportation, etc; whom you need to stabilize prices.
Then there's input suppliers, the people that sell farmers seeds and equipment.
And I'm not going to name all the other middlemen like the various distributors, who in turn have their own suppliers and logistical needs.
Food supply chains are at once critical, complex and old, which means that they are very highly regulated, involve a ton of actors and have been optimized to absurdity.
There are ways a public option could actually cut prices, but they all involve unacceptable tradeoffs like compromizing food safety standards, not having reliable output or operating at a loss. Not having to pay taxes (which is advanced here as the main method of savings) is far from enough.
You can actually operate at a loss if you want, the commissaries operated by DeCA seem like an obvious example. But you have to accept one of the tradeoffs. There's simply no beating capitalism at making interchangeable consumer goods cheap, it's the one thing it's incredibly good at.
He has the head of the longshoreman’s union and the head of NATO writing effusive love letters that wouldn’t be out of place addressed to a Chinese emperor.
That is not evidence of Mandate of Heaven, many a failing despot and warlord has required submission and effusive praise while in process losing the grip of power. You know, end of Qing emperors comes to mind. It is evidence of lack of virtue on Trump's part, both on counts requiring subjects to verbally prostrate themselves and being so easily flattered.
Minnesota’s continued blue-ness is due, partly, to a highly unionized rural white population. But unions are shifting red, undermining a key advantage for the DFL. Additionally, Minnesota has been getting redder, just not as much as its neighbors, and it’s reasonable to expect current trends to continue. Finally, Minnesota’s blue is nowhere near as sticky as Texas’ red if you look at state level elections, the MNGOP is able to put up a fair fight in a way Texas democrats are not.
While the 20th century mass democracy was a later development, they were explicitly not setting up an aristocratic government ("No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States"; if Paine was the extreme democrat, the nearly-half-monarchist motion by John Adams to call President "His Majesty" was laughed out of the committee.)
History of idea of "dignity" is complicated, I believe it should be traced back up to mashup of Voltaire and Christianity
Speaking of Adams, heres his Thoughts on Government (1776) on how virtuously organized republican government will inspire virtue among the common people:
A constitution founded on these principles introduces knowledge among the people, and inspires them with a conscious dignity becoming freemen; a general emulation takes place, which causes good humor, sociability, good manners, and good morals to be general. That elevation of sentiment inspired by such a government, makes the common people brave and enterprising. That ambition which is inspired by it makes them sober, industrious, and frugal. You will find among them some elegance, perhaps, but more solidity; a little pleasure, but a great deal of business; some politeness, but more civility. If you compare such a country with the regions of domination, whether monarchical or aristocratical, you will fancy yourself in Arcadia or Elysium.
even with the crazy North Carolina guy somehow holding on in a reddish state.
In comparison to Mark Robinson?
And how many of those vote harvesting operations are functional without USAID? How many of them require a DNC not at its own throat?
wants to create public supermarkets (horrible idea all around, supermarket margins are very small)
Then who makes money from the food industry. And this is a very serious question. Farmers are on thin margins, Supermarkets are on thin margins and yet you have manyfold increase in the price from farm to table.
I actually approve this as an experiment. Create couple of stores. Cut direct deals with some farmers in the Midwest, olive oil produces in California, the big corn and wheat mills. Organize distribution and see if you can deliver fresh produce and other staples, pay wages and sell at near cost. And if the whole operation is financially sane - scale it.
Also when will the Dem party figure out that their tactics for stopping Trump like figures don't work as good as they think? People are tired of economic stagnation and hate the establishment.
Why should these be opposed to each other?
More options
Context Copy link