domain:astralcodexten.substack.com
BreakerofHorsesandMen
19hr ago
It seems to me that feminists and red-pillers agree on most ground facts, e.g., men work longer hours and make more money. They simply disagree as to whether the facts are a bad or a good thing.
So no surprise that they should be in agreement about the facts on this topic.
sun_the_second
19hr ago
"I don't have time for your stupid questions, go look up the answer in the textbook" is two lies for the price of one: first, the person does in fact generally have time to answer questions, they just don't want to, and second, the textbook doesn't have the answers either. The equivalence you are drawing is non-existent.
Well - if I understand "we're not always capable of evaluating deep connections" correctly, the Christian answer is not even "I don't have time for your stupid questions", it's "I don't know how all of this works myself, but I trust the textbook and you should too".
HighResolutionSleep
19hr ago
"Family formation" is not an answer to the question of "what do men get out of this". Under present conditions, men are not offered an ownership stake in the families that they form. They are at most leased a family on a month-to-month basis conditional on the wife being kept happy. Republicans have indicated little capital of any kind earmarked for changing this.
I will give credit to Republicans for offering the first non-token resistance against discrimination toward my kind of human being that I've witnessed in my lifetime—and for that they've earned my vote. But if they want further buy-in to the lifestyle, they will need to offer more.
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
19hr ago
I'm not sure even sure if that's miles away from Ignatiev's actual position, if you strip away Protestant Christianity or going to Israel and th elike. I was prompted by this whole discussion to go search for his actual comments on the issue and found easily a series of blog texts called "Memoir of an ex-Jew", where he suggests that one of the big problems with Zionism is precisely that it prevented Jewish assimilation:
What is the relation between Zionism and Jewishness? Within Palestine, Jewishness is the problem—not the Judaic religion or the Hebrew language or the commemoration of Jewish holidays, but Jewishness as an institution, an officially recognized identity carrying privileges enforced by the state. The aim of Zionism was to establish a regime of Jewish privilege. It succeeded, so that within the Zionist entity there is no legal distinction between Zionist and Jew. People seeking to establish residency there based on the Law of Return are subject not to a political but to a “blood” test: are they descended from Jews through the maternal line? No matter that the test merely pushes the issue back a generation or more, thereby failing Simone Weil’s logical objection: it works to maintain internal cohesion, and that is enough.
In Palestine the task is to abolish the “Jew” as a public identity. What about outside of Palestine?
As the apartheid regime in South Africa became isolated worldwide, public opinion in Holland was as unanimous as elsewhere, and it never occurred to most Dutch that they owed anything to their Afrikaaner cousins. (Like European Jews, Afrikaaners have their own tales of past persecution: the first concentration camps were set up during the Boer Wars.) No similar rupture between the “Jewish” settlers in Palestine and world Jewry has occurred; in fact, most Jews worldwide continue to identify with “Israel” in spite of all the United Nations resolutions condemning it.
...
So secular Jews fall back on “Hitler” and “Israel” to renew their Jewishness.[4] (“Hitler” and “Israel” are in quotation marks because in this context they do not represent actual determinations but are sacralized.) The Talmud gives way to a secular religion, making Jews the main base for a lobby that provides unconditional support to a regime which but for them would be universally quarantined, a lobby beating the drums for the most reactionary, chauvinistic and imperialistic policies of the world’s only superpower.[5]
Their reward is membership in a global fraternity, an exclusive club that allows them to hug their alienation to their breasts and paralyze all critics by waving the “Holocaust” in their faces. The founders of the Zionist movement advocated a Jewish homeland as a response to what they viewed as the rejection of Jews by the majority everywhere, which, according to them, made their assimilation impossible. As it turns out, assimilation has proven to be not only possible but a cause of alarm to Zionists, who see it as a grave threat, far greater than the threat posed by Judeophobes, to the survival of “the Jewish people.” Zionism is the remedy, the final solution to the “problem” of Jewish assimilation.[6]
The entire series is likewise an extended attack on Jewish identitarianism in multiple forms.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
19hr ago
I do not think men of the WWII generation (the parents of the Boomers) were most successful in their early 20s. That is, they did not decline in success as they became older.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
19hr ago
Yes, progressives say "it's not my job to educate you" as well.
"neither of us are capable of rigorously evaluating deep consequences" is a true and relevant statement, though it may not be dispositive. "I don't have time for your stupid questions, go look up the answer in the textbook" is two lies for the price of one: first, the person does in fact generally have time to answer questions, they just don't want to, and second, the textbook doesn't have the answers either. The equivalence you are drawing is non-existent.
Traditionalists are just the progressives of 50 years ago, after all.
No, they aren't. Fifty years ago Progressives and Traditionalists were in direct conflict with each other, on roughly similar terms as we see now. The main difference was that fifty years ago they were arguing what the results would be, and now we're arguing over what the results have been.
If the only difference between you and them is that they have the social power to enforce it and you don't
It isn't. We build, they destroy. We have a track record of producing positive-sum, complex societies that function long-term. They have a track record of producing negative-sum parasitic structures that extract value and burn it for no positive outcome, often based on establishing a social consensus based on lies.
Well just an example:
A set of Tacoma tires will set you back $500-700, compared to a set of Camry Tires being $320 on the high end.
That's pretty marginal though, unless you're getting lots of tire punctures.
This Source puts the maintenance costs for a Tacoma at $6,731 for the first ten years (most of that almost certainly after the first five, and a Camry at $4,455. So you're spending a least a few hundred extra bucks a year on average, on top of the up front costs.
On the full list, large pickups are listed as the most expensive for maintain, almost all of them requiring over $10k over the first 10 years.
Whether that is all worth it for the cargo capacity, towing, or extra performance, well, I dunno.
I think if I had my choice, I'd own both a smaller electric car for local commutes and have a mid-size pickup for long haul drives or moving cargo around.
The somehow both feminist and red pill take is an important element of this was that independent female status-seeking was much more constrained so the benefits of half of Europe being exploded flowed disproportionately to men.
MathWizard
Good things are good
20hr ago
That never held water. All people, regardless of their sex or sexual orientation, can marry someone of the opposite sex of any sexual orientation. Gay men are just as free and equally allowed to marry a woman as any straight man. If the gay man doesn't want to marry a woman, that's his choice, but he's legally allowed to.
And pretty much all of the equality under the law anti-discrimination stuff has carveouts for compelling state interests. Like, say, bearing and raising children and ensuring the survival of the species.
Telling gay people that it's illegal to have sex with each other would be one thing: the state intervening in a place where it has little compelling interest or jurisdiction (an argument could be made about preventing the spread of STDs, but it's weak, and promiscuous straight people do that too). But marriage, at least from a legal perspective, is a privilege the state recognizes for people to incentivize the formation of healthy and stable families, which gay people do not do. Arguing it's "equal protection under the law" is like arguing that childless people should get the same tax deductions and/or welfare aid as people with seven children because otherwise you're discriminating against the childless.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
20hr ago
Studebaker.
Never had a strike, thought they had a great relationship with the workers, highest paid union workers in the industry.
Then times got tough in the early 60s as the Big Three started to squeeze out competitors, there was a Studebaker labor strike in ‘62 which blindsided the management who, again, had rolled over at every opportunity previously and seemed to be under the impression this merited some sort of loyalty. They continued to have labor conflicts throughout the 60s and the company was dead in ‘68.
There were other issues as well, few things are single-factor problems, but high labor costs were either the #1 problem or a major contributing factor.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
20hr ago
Iranian victory is surviving, and climbing in the Jihadist Power Rankings.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
20hr ago
That doesn't follow whatsoever. It presupposes that we're always capable of evaluating deep consequences, which is plainly not the case. It also presupposes a ton of wisdom on the part of the person being persuaded.
Yes, progressives say "it's not my job to educate you" as well. (Traditionalists are just the progressives of 50 years ago, after all.)
If the only difference between you and them is that they have the social power to enforce it and you don't [because your thing is Totally 100% True Trust Me Gaise] then you're worthless and offensive as a movement, and people are right to reject you.
People generally don't like being tricked or called stupid; when you do that I'd argue it costs you a bit of your saltiness.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
20hr ago
It seems odd to write a massive post about Democratic infighting and barely mention Gaza.
Support for Israel among Dems is underwater. It's also declining among Republicans. 71% of Democrats under 50 have an unfavorable view of Israel.
Democrats have nonetheless failed to offer any coherent policy against Israel, even now when they can do so irresponsibly. Democrats failed to offer any organized opposition to Trump when he launched an illegal war (which he has since hopefully concluded). Democrats have failed to speak to their base's concerns, and abandoned their principles.
It cost Dems in 2024, and if they can't get out of it, it will cost them in 2026.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
20hr ago
I think you have been well trained by enemies of Christianity.
Solid statistical evidence is a pretty recent invention, and its accessibility to the public even more recent. In the meantime humans live human lives and require human guidance.
Succeed in providing that guidance, and you may remove the proof needed to demonstrate why the guidance should be tolerated.
I was raised evangelical and converted to Orthodoxy and have never heard it suggested that swearing is somehow implicitly sinful.
Raised Church of Christ and returned to it, here. We were taught to avoid both blasphemy and obscenity as sinful. "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouth..."
Apart from failing to cultivate a relationship with Christ I'm unable to think of any behavior typically described as sinful that doesn't have observable material costs.
I think you might well be correct, but it's very easy to lie to oneself about this.
ChickenOverlord
20hr ago
That's the one
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
20hr ago
setting up a system where men are most successful in their early 20s seems unlikely (and even if it could happen, would put a crimp in family formation)
US TFR (and teenage pregnancy, as a related metric) hit its highest post-industrial point under that exact system; it's just that to institute such a system you just need to explode half of Europe.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
20hr ago
You've fallen into a pattern of thinking that prevents solutions. "We need to make young men rich and successful" before they can have families is not really a viable plan. It will always take time to become rich and successful, at least in relative terms; setting up a system where men are most successful in their early 20s seems unlikely (and even if it could happen, would put a crimp in family formation)
2rafa
20hr ago
Ok, well let's just take a look at the undefeated Uno Reverso.
Indeed. Suppose Ignatiev were to reply to your comment (and general worldview) with:
“My dear SS, I agree completely. I think all practicing Jews should renounce their religious practice (including, as I have already argued, kosher dining and food preparation), and all ethnic Jews should abandon their cultural particularity. Jews should convert to mainstream Protestant Christianity, the predominant gentile religion in the United States, or practice no faith. They should marry gentiles (of course most already do, but let’s say all of them). All Jewish religious institutions (synagogues, museums of tolerance, etc) should be closed, all religious clothing banned. Those who refuse these terms ought to go to Israel, but those who accept them can remain in America with no further restrictions placed on their participation in society, culture, politics or the economy. Furthermore, any racial agitation by white nationalists towards those former Jews who fully, sincerely renounce and abandon their Jewishness will be strictly prohibited.”
Would you accept his offer?
Because that is the difference between Ignatiev’s position and those of the dissident rightists who borrow his words in this case. He (like all communists) allowed for conversion; even the last emperor of china was converted, after all. You do not.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
20hr ago
You don't count that conflict as war between Iran and Israel? That's just bad faith. Even Trump is lobbying to call it the "12 day war." America undeniably was drawn into the war, both defensively and offensively. Syria falling was directly related to the conflict between Israel and Iran's proxies, Hezbollah in particular.
"Solve the Gaza Question" is undeniably underway, he didn't say it would be resolved immediately he said the attack gave the Israelis cover to solve it, which is ongoing. Basically Iran regime change is the only thing that hasn't happened yet, even though that was clearly an objective of Israeli aggression.
hydroacetylene
21hr ago
Are there actual examples of companies going under because of excessively high salaries? AFAIK unions where they damage companies mostly do it by protecting poor performers.
Grant_us_eyes
21hr ago
No one has a credible plan for that. Because the solution to the problem of 'We need to make young men rich and successful so they can have families and children' is a multi-facet plan that needed to be implemented 20 years ago, not today.
2rafa
21hr ago
Can you explain to me how that's relevant at all to what I said?
(Since you tagged me) It literally serves as an example of him opposing Jewish particularism, which is ultimately what you accuse him of.
felis-parenthesis
21hr ago
Example of non-socialists pushing co-operatives for those who are curious about this claim.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
21hr ago
But you have to be fair and also include repair costs in the delta between owning an efficient sedan vs. a big ol' truck.
Are these significantly different over the lifetime of a like-for-like comparison? Does a Tacoma or Tundra have that much higher costs than a Rav4 or Camry?
I don't think that has been my experience where usage is similar.
When I feel my radicalism softening, someone always comes in to remind me that winning World War III is more achievable than giving men a birthright buy-in to their own societies.
More options
Context Copy link