domain:science.org
Recklessness with regard to truth is sufficient to establish actual malice.
"I heard it on the internet and it was too good to check" is a textbook example of recklessness with regard to truth.
I did a cursory search online to find evidence that Jean-Michel Trogneux does exist, is in good health and denied the allegations. I didn't find any, that's for sure.
Let's see the original claim:
They dress skimpily, date industriously, engage in serial monogamy, and are not at all averse to material benefits resulting from these activities.
For the sake of argument, would you realistically know about it if any of your female cousins did engage in such things?
France has sufficiently strong privacy laws that it probably would not have been reported until Macron came to the attention of the English-speaking press, which is around the time he started running for President.
Weren't fascist movements a reaction to erstwhile aristocracy ?
Mussolini had a large number of aristocrats in his cabinet, and ennobled a bunch of retired WW1-era generals who he didn't have to, as well as his own successful generals and a small number of Fascist politicians. I would say Mussolini had a revealed preference the continued existence of the Italian nobility as a functioning warrior-elite - indeed given the history of the Italian nobility, had WW2 never happened Mussolini would have left Italy with a more functional aristocracy than he found it with. I can't find a list of top people in the Fascist party organisation, so I don't know how many were aristocrats.
The only aristocrat in Hitler's cabinet (after the aristocratic conservatives associated with von Papen were sidelined) was von Ribbentrop, and the aristocracy was notably underrepresented among the Gauleiters. The Weimar Republic had abolished the formal status of nobility, so Hitler didn't have the option of ennobling his generals, but he never came across as someone inclined to do it. Even under Weimar, the German nobility was a functioning warrior-elite, and Hitler was never entirely comfortable with it - arguably the foundation of the Waffen SS is an attempt to establish an alternative warrior-elite on Nazi rather than aristocratic lines.
So I don't think there is a consistent view on fascist-aristocrat relations.
Indeed. Local naming customs are different.
I'll actually give a limited defense of "What's your job on the leftist commune?"
I don't think the people engaging in that thread understand themselves to be sincerely laying out a plan for a total society. On the contrary, the idea that it's a commune probably suggests that it's a small, utopian community within a larger implicitly capitalist society, if anybody is even thinking that far ahead. But I don't think they are, because "what's your job on the leftist commune?" is not a question about politics at all.
What the question is actually asking is, "What would you do if you didn't have to work?", or perhaps "How would you want to spend your life if you didn't have to participate in a capitalist economy?" The details of how the commune works are beside the point. If you didn't have to do anything you don't want to - how then would you want to contribute to society?
It's a utopian fantasy, and I think there's actually a place for utopian fantasy thought experiments. Throw realism out the window for a minute and - what would you like to do? Then once you've reflected on that a bit, take the insights you find from the process and bring them back to the grubby real world of toil and compromise.
The answers people give are cringeworthy, but all fantasies tend to sound cringeworthy when you voice them out loud, and I'd defend this kind of fantasy as a reasonable thing for people of any political orientation to do. Maybe it's a hippie commune. Maybe it's a trad farming community. Maybe it's on a Culture orbital. Maybe it's a royal palace, or maybe it's being an ascended digital being with god-like power. It doesn't matter. But I think that the job on the leftist commune is basically the same thing as, say, Bostrom's Deep Utopia. It's immature but perhaps useful - and if this makes me think more of random Twitter leftists and less of Nick Bostrom, then that's all properly balanced.
Could anyone tell who he was working for from the video, and did he said anything at all relating to their business?
If you want to say "a company should be able to fire and hire whoever they want, for any reason" there's entire books of labour law that would need to be abolished to stop the government from being "authoritarian".
Or they have a claim that they have actually lived there for centuries and have strong family ties to the place. Unlike 1.5 million Israelis who showed up from Eastern Europe in the 90s claiming to live there because of penis skin. Not to mention that many Palestinians are Christian, especially before Israel wrecked the Christian population.
Maybe a bit "deceptive" but, Do you cook at home? It's quite easy to sneak in calories by using extra fat. And you will have to just a little bit more, it won't be noticeable. You can sneak in half a stick of butter into a pasta sauce without it being "greasy" if you do it right.
This is it. After the (imaginary) authoritarian socialcon revolution, I'll let my kids roam free in our safe, crime free neighborhood, I'll let them attend public schools without fear of them absorbing enemy propaganda. I'll work a normal middle class drone job (like I do now). I just want to be free to live my small traditional peasant life and raise my family among the same. I don't want to be a warlord or a artist. I just want to grill.
Their claim to Israel is that they bought the land in exchange for half the skin on their babies pensises which is a rediculus premise for a country.
Reductive racism back on the menu!
How about this: the entire Arab claim to the region is from a pedophiliac warlord preaching tolerance when he was weak and sheltered by the Banu Qurayza, then he betrayed them and enslaved their women and children through promising religiously ordained rape and slavery of unbelievers to mobilize desert nomads into a bandit horde. The chronological Quran is the inverse of the Bible: peace tolerance and manumission before victory, absolutist Arab supremacism justifying subjugation and humiliation of unbelievers once a power base was established.
THAT is the root of Arab claim to the region, forced conversions and displacements of Copts and Maronites and total annihilation of Chaldeans and Assyrians and Zoroastrians. Baby foreskins are currency to purchase land? What a wonderful concept. Arabs certainly found it easy to pay for their lucre with thriving Zanzibar slave eunuchs too, though simply slaughtering locals and forcibly converting remnants was also a great currency.
All this framing is obviously intensely hostile and deliberately so, because reductive polemicism opens up similar avenues of attack to other actors, avenues by which the directionality of hostility make clear why such polemicism is avoided by modern anti-israelis. Objecting to the jewish state on such grounds means objecting to the Ottoman Mamluk and Sassanid/Roman predecessors as well. Return to glorious Eber-Nari as the last relatively clean incarnation of that damnable region.
There's an important distinction between a person speaking to masses on behalf of or as a representative of their employer, and someone who merely happens to be an employee speaking their own opinions as a private individual in a context unrelated to their job, and having activists dig up their messages and threaten the company over them.
It is an imposition of government power to prevent an employer from firing an employee for their private speech, but not an authoritarian one. It is also an imposition of government power to prevent an employer from firing an employee for being the wrong race, and yet most of us would agree that is appropriate. It is worth it for the government to intervene and restrict freedoms if those restrictions create more freedoms as a result. In this case protecting the ability of people to speak and not be mindslaves to the megacorps (and the activists who cherry pick people to bring to their attention).
And in a game theoretic way the corporations will actually be better off this way! If corporations were legally prohibited from firing employees for first amendment protected speech when that speech was made outside of the workplace, then no activists would have any incentive to boycott or threaten the company for refusing to fire such individuals. They wouldn't be able to get anything out of it, and if they try to accuse the company of tolerating bad speech, because the company could simply point to the law and use that as an excuse and so their reputation wouldn't suffer and they wouldn't be forced to fire their otherwise competent and well behaved employee. Win-win for everyone except the mob.
They are still considered Jewish according to Halacha in that they can revert to Judaism without having to undergo the conversion that a gentile would undergo.
The practicing another religion thing is more specifically about Aliyah / migration to Israel. That is governed by different rules and so some groups that are not halachicly Jewish (patrilineal descendants of the first and second generation) are allowed and groups that are (converts to other religions born of Jewish mothers) are disallowed.
In practice the rules are very rarely enforced. A substantial minority of Soviet / Russian immigrants were (and are) low key practicing Christians, true even if the recent post-2022 Ukrainian wave. Unless someone is an open missionary on social media they are rarely rejected.
That horse has bolted. Hard to go 'ok bros we didnt lose but lets try peace anyways' and survive if peace succeeded. The immediate response would be "we could have been ok but we followed you for NOTHING".
To rebuild, the existing foundation must be destroyed root and branch. Total Hamas defeat is in fact a clean starting point for a new Palestinian political conceptualization to emerge. Jordan would be best, but given what happened to the West Bank where the Palestinians chose irredentist claims such an outcome is distressingly remote.
Being anti-democracy and being socially conservative are two largely separate things. You could have a global authlib dictatorship ruled by an absolute monarch, obviously there were various socialist autocracies. It is true that the most trad conservatives (French ultra-Catholics) in the west tend to oppose democracy, but that’s often more about local political factors (like their hatred for the French Revolution) than anything else.
A left-wing commune dweller saying that after the revolution they'll lead discussion groups and make clothes out of scraps. A right-wing authoritarian saying they'd be a warlord an authoritarian society. I think you're making a conversion error when you say these are equivalent.
The would-be commune dweller is funny because leading discussion groups and making clothes out of scraps is no more plausible as a career after the revolution than it is before. If it's not profitable to do under a capitalist system them it's not practical to do under a communist system. If we had the money and desire for that kind of frivolous luxury then someone would already be paying you to do it.
Being a warlord is a real job, it's just that you chose for some reason to compare a regular person making clothes out of scraps with a highly-exclusive job reserved for social elites. A more reasonable comparison would be to a warlord's street-level enforcers, who actually tend to do quite well for themselves under an authoritarian system. "Under an authoritarian system I would be one of the dictator's goons enforcing his will on the people and exploiting his power to enrich myself," may not be a very moral stance, but no one can say that it's not a tried-and-true strategy for getting ahead.
If you work hard and kiss all the right asses you can climb the ladder of authoritarian goons until you become the warlord, like how Putin climbed through the KGB. That doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't make it all the way to the top is just wasting their time. Being a regular goon can still be a good job.
It's a common criticism levied at reactionaries that they imagine themselves as aristocrats instead of the masses, but I don't think it connects because it's just not accurate. And in fact I think it's mostly projection, or the sort of attempt at symmetry that you're doing here, a common feature (and demand) of liberal ideology.
What more commonly animates reactionary thought is a desire for normalcy and a return to an understandable order of things. In fact it is more commonly a desire to escape politics and not have to deal with one's social order being constantly upended. The story is all too common: "I just wanted to play video games".
If you actually look at the ideas, the reactionary thesis is that most people do not desire to participate in politics and that the job of a respectable aristocracy is to fulfill this demand. Mass politics is a leftist import that only really features in syncretic forms of reaction like fascism.
On this question, consider Wyndham Lewis' The Art of Being Ruled.
As for the more general consideration that the people who wish for more constraining social norms may chafe at too constricting ones, it seems as fallacious to me as pointing out that the people who demand slightly more liberal social norms may fall prey to anomie if all norms are destroyed.
A decent and stable equilibrium is what the object of desire here. The question of the dynamics and as to which direction for nomos is the slippery one has to be seriously examined for this to have any teeth. But I believe one will easily find that it is easy to destroy things and hard to create them, even social norms.
Now to compare this back to the yearning of communists for communism, it seems categorically different. Communists have a very specific and deliberate eschatology that most non revolutionaries do not have an equivalent to. And it is that yearning and that eschaton that are laughable, not the general desire for social improvement. Nobody ever laughed at lefties for desiring decent healthcare at an affordable price.
As far as I'm aware, most of these are (1) self-imposed by HR departments and not actual regulation and (2) falling out of favor.
DEI measures have indeed made their way into government policy, they're not just being self-imposed by HR departments.
For example, in my country (Australia):
"Noting that the gender pay gap remained significant, the government announced a $1.9 billion package to improve women’s economic security. The sum takes in $1.7 billion over five years for increased childcare subsidies, as well as $25.7 million to help more women pursue careers in science, engineering and maths."
"The package also includes $38.3 million to fund projects that assist women into leadership roles."
Some quotes from the relevant budget statement:
"The Government’s Boosting Female Founders Initiative provides co-funded grants to majority women-owned and led start-ups, and facilitates access to expert mentoring and advice. The Initiative, announced in the 2018 and further expanded in the 2020 Women’s Economic Security Statements, provides $52.2 million in competitive grant funding plus $1.8 million in mentoring support. The program commenced in 2020, with round one of the Initiative providing approximately $11.9 million in grant funding to 51 successful applicants. Round two closed on 22 April 2021."
And:
"To further grow the pool of women in STEM, the Government is investing $42.4 million over seven years to support more than 230 women to pursue Higher Level STEM Qualifications. These scholarships will be provided in partnership with industry, to build job-ready experience, networks and the cross-cutting capabilities to succeed in modern STEM careers. This program will complement the Women in STEM Cadetship and Advanced Apprenticeships Program announced in the 2020-21 Budget, which targets women to enter industry-relevant, pre-bachelor study."
And:
"The Australian Government is committed to supporting more women into leadership positions and to further closing the gender pay gap. The Government is providing $38.3 million over five years to expand the successful Women’s Leadership and Development Program. This builds on the $47.9 million expansion to the Program announced as part of the 2020 Women’s Economic Security Statement. This program funds projects such as Women Building Australia run by Master Builders Australia to support more women into building and construction. These initiatives form part of the Government’s response to increasing gender equality, extending leadership and economic participation opportunities for Australian women, and building a safer, more respectful culture."
https://archive.budget.gov.au/2021-22/womens-statement/download/womens_budget_statement_2021-22.pdf
That's from the 2021-22 budget statement, and the 2022-23 budget was no different:
"Further measures in the Budget are focused on helping women into higher-paying and traditionally male-dominated industries. To boost the number of women in trades, the Government is investing $38.6 million over 4 years from 2022‑23. Women who commence in higher paying trade occupations on the Australian Apprenticeship Priority List will be provided additional supports, such as mentoring and wraparound services."
And:
"The Morrison Government is making a further investment, building on the success of existing initiatives to improve leadership outcomes for women, by providing an additional $18.2 million for the Women’s Leadership and Development Program."
"This includes $9 million from 2023-24 to 2025-26 to expand the successful Future Female Entrepreneurs program to develop and grow women’s core entrepreneurial skills. Funding will continue the successful Academy for Enterprising Girls (10-18 year olds) and the Accelerator for Enterprising Women, expanding it to include all women aged 18+, as well as adding a new Senior Enterprising Women program."
"To support women facing unique barriers to leadership and employment, the Government is also investing $9.4 million to expand the Future Women’s Jobs Academy and to support gender balanced boards."
You can undoubtedly find more of this in the recent budget statements. Governments love boasting about how much public money they have funnelled into gender and racial equity initiatives, and many of them cannot so easily be circumvented by those disfavoured by the policy since things like "the desire to become a tradesperson" is not transferable to your wife. In addition, I don't think this is a good argument:
The regulation that I'm most aware of actually pisses everyone off, which is "Woman-owned businesses", where everyone just registers their wife as the proprietor of their business and simply acts as a hurdle for building more housing.
The notion that blocking single men from accessing that benefit would have no distorting effect is a bit peculiar, especially in a society with a significantly delayed age of marriage and where many people spend significant portions of their lives outside of a romantic dyad. In this context, if men have to meet the criteria of having procured a wife to secure a benefit for themselves, it's certainly not irrelevant.
Not to be pedantic, but here
https://theconversation.com/what-cattle-conflicts-say-about-identity-in-south-sudan-181637
Its not even permanent land its basically nomadic pastoralists raiding as has been their tradition for centuries.
Perhaps that still counts as economic necessity, but it is a choice to engage in primitive cattle herding instead of pivoting societally to productive economies. Raiding and conflict is a manifestation of intractable differences between cultures, not the cause. Bedouins are seizing on the opportunity to assault Druze with a cassus belli, not that they were content to live in peace absent external influence. Uncorking Libya resulted in Tobruk and Tripoli creating competing clan based governments immediately. Right NOW the Cambodians are assaulting the Thais over a dead temple region and the Thais are eager for a scrap due to insane local politics (tldr Thaksin clan and the royal/military both benefit from conflict specifically against the Cambodians).
There are plenty of people who WANT to exterminate their culturally distant geographic proximates. The issue is whether a unifying culture can supersede underlying cultural distances. The unifying project of "never again" has provided a stable shell for Franco-German-Anglo relations to stabilize, but this is an aberration facilitated only by tangible outcomes. If the overculture fails to deliver, guillotines follow. And we live in an era where the major cultural touchstones are torn down with no functional replacement ethos. Neoliberalism and neoconservatism were destroyed by MAGA and progressivism, but annihilating the Protestant-Calvinist northeastern spine along with the neolib/con framings leaves the USA with a much more fractured cultural landscape.
This is a ahistorical view. Fascism grew out of syndicalism, the specifically biological animus is a German adjunct which plainly grew out of the culturally German importance of blood. Mussolini was famously anti-racist before his alliance with Germany, and many examples of actual fascism (as opposed to run of the mill authoritarian nationalism) had little to do with race.
What you're trying to point at is a central concern for the spirited part of the soul that guides fascist (and more generaly ultranationalist) politics in reaction to its neglect by liberal democracy. What the Greeks and Fukuyama call Thymos. The desire for recognition, dignity, and self-worth. The drive to be acknowledged as having value and status.
This is at the center of revanchism, the obscession with aesthetics and much of Fascist politics. But the form it takes is a function of the society it appears in. Romanian fascism focused on religion, German fascism focused on race, etc.
Like Kath Two from Seveneves.
Interesting take. I don't presume anyone wants a full breakdown of my personal lack of interest in most anime, and my comment was meant to be humorous. If it struck you as dumb instead, erase one off the board for my wit.
As far as I can tell, the main factor in all of this is that women remember the disappointing experiences they had with men they are attracted to and the assume that such behavior is universal among men. I very mouch doubt the women who install and use this app ever even notice or interact with anyone from the bottom fifth of the male socio-sexual hierarchy.
More options
Context Copy link