Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
Hoffmeister is correct that I did not suggest that you are Hlynka but that TequilaMockingbird is and therefore there is no great gap. For the record when Hlynka was banned I wasn't there to gloat even though I don't like him nor do I suggest that mods ban or not ban this guy if he is Hlynka.
Are you a Whining Coil?
That is pretty a stupid and insulting question but I will answer earnestly against my better judgement.
I picked the figure Belisarius because he was the greatest general in the fight for the restoration of the roman empire, but I certainly don't see myself as a general, or great general. And it was a bit random I chose that name over different ones. Just one of the figures of history I liked. It is good for us to be inspired by history and part of a degenerate and declining age is this hostility to a positive historical heritage. Why should I have to be attacked by you for picking the name of a great general?
Procopius was generally considered unreliable writer who promoted plenty of sleaze which is what is these claims are based on. Even if one was to accept that his wife really was a whore, he is still a positive figure in general.
It is your choice to take this kind of framing on a figure that is certainly much more known for being a great general than his wife's alleged exploits. We have enough problems dealing with much more common collective cuckholdery of our times to worry about the purity of Belisarius wife.
While numbers of museum are important, if too many people visit the one holocaust museum and is made a ritual that would still be a problem. That and how such museums present history also matters.
The issue is that indeed people do experience religious like powerful and memorable feelings in the summer of floyd, in regards to both visiting museums, but also tv shows, lessons, about slavery and holocaust, in a manner that leads to a grievance culture and in treating groups like Jews and Blacks as utility monsters. It leads to preferential treatment but it also leads to identifying groups like Europeans as permanent oppressors.
Both the way such issues are presented and their central importance is a problem. It would be better for Americans to have museums of history that desacrilize the holocaust and treats Jewish suffering in WW2 as one suffering among others and puts greater importance to American history. Maybe with a slight mention of them being targeted more by the nazis. If that is the central way it is presented, and in rare cases it is focused more, but still contextualized in a manner different that it tends to be presented now, then that would be fine.
Even from a universalist perspective too much has been made of holocaust, colonialism, slavery, in a manner that is used both by ethnic chauvinists who have grievances but also by general far left activists who support any of these specific movements. And also their right wing equivalent that compromise with this.
Also, it would even be better if blacks and Jews had less powerful experience in relation to slavery and holocaust, for the aforementioned reasons. Same applies of course to people who don't belong such groups who share such experiences.
Not saying we should go to the opposite extreme of say censoring anyone who ever mentioning it, but I do think it would be good if people who use them to justify "You don't get to have a nation anymore because holocaust, slavery, colonialism" were to be treated as extremists to be suppressed, instead of treating the whole movement as something sacred. In fact, such movements are not sacred but damaging. And of course there is also the issue of the amount of money taken by the goverment to fund activist groups including Jewish activist groups, holocaust centers, and so on. But certainly, there is some room for groups, even minority groups to care about their particular suffering, but that room must be limited and not limitless, and can't be an imposed dominant culture. Even for such groups, it can lead to too much disregard of the interests of other groups and in a different country part of the social contract ought to be not to prioritize such things too much. So it matters how such things are presented by museums, where there must an actual effort to not only stop the way such narratives are presented, but also to make such sensitivity part of the message.
I.E. Don't present history as a narrative of oppressed Jews and Blacks who never didn't do nothing wrong taking revenge on oppressors but a) talk about how such framing has been common and a genuine a problem, and mention things like opposition to european self preservation as an example of extremism and even make analogy to how nazi disregard of other ethnic groups preserving themselves was bad, and this agenda is also bad b) present sufficient elements or at least a taste of history to counter this that does enter into territory of such groups wronging others. For example the truth of black American violence and the history of discrimination in the postcivil rights USA would be a narrative that ironically provides more balance and counters the actual racist narrative that is dominant today.
Jews could be told that polls that shows that 70% something American Jews oppose European self preservation, more than even American blacks, with Hispancis even supporting it, illustrates an anti european racist attitude that Jews should not have. That some of the hostility towards Jews has been due to Jewish disrespect of other ethnic groups rights which at times Jews pursued through the means of left wing activism (including making right wing movements adopt such left wing agendas), and they have a duty to avoid engaging in that and to respect them. There is plenty in Jewish history in modernity to influence people to not have a perspective of Jews as just an innocent oppressed group that must be privileged and must take revenge. Even more so when it comes to holocaust jewish lobbies since the bad behavior of ADL is undeniable and includes even less well known facets like engaging in Armenian genocide denial.
Also there has been a general movement of maximalist suffering that includes the idea of black american slavery as worse suffering ever, Jewish suffering in holocaust as unique ans worst suffering ever, and this movement has fueled various copies such as the one about Indian graves in Canada. Such approach to history of sacred narratives of maximal suffering even if one were to hypothetically grant that in some cases might not necessarily be promoting falsehoods always, gives licenses for groups to take it further and further.
So knowledge of past atrocities should be used to oppose being screwed over in line with a healthy range of ethnocentrism, and a moral understanding of the universal fate of different ethnic groups, but not to allow particular groups and their champions to create utility monsters.This has happened in this case and needs to be countered.. This is in general, but even more so in particular nations, the grievance perspectives towards the historical majority should be more limited. I think slavery of blacks in the USA makes sense to have some greater presence than the genocide of the Jews in the 1940s, but even that should not be that much present, and framed quite differently as I described.
Belisarius
.
2d ago
Maybe he already is back. OP is carrying the mantle of Hlynka with the kind of things he has been arguing. I actually believe that he is Hlynka but I am not 100% certain about it.
This is inaccurate. We are living in a world of radical change that does require a radical change of elites to stop this radical change that is already happening. Which it self was a radical revolution on past arrangement.
I won't deny that there are some right wingers that are sufficiently edgy boys to have greater similarities, but I would just say that woke with speed limit is on the radical side and is where to put fake conservatism and fake centrism. Conservatism has always been a revolutionary and forceful movement where it made sense from conservatives point of view. Conservatives even in ancient times when those in power did things they disagreed with wanted to reverse course and sought radical change from not conservative ends. Force has always been part and parcel of conservatism. That and actually caring to change things from non conservative ends. You simply aren't a conservative if you want a leftist status quo to remain and oppose changing it, even if you redefine conservatism.
There is no coherent conservatism without principles. If people claiming to be conservatism understands conservatism to be about losing and surrendering to the status quo, then they simply aren't promoting something that could be accurately understood as conservatism. Just a convenient group for the left as a false opposition.
Even to have centrist ends, you still need a radical change from the policies that are followed. For example mass migration as has happened in last decades and has accelerated and is accelerating is in fact a very radical agenda. But the general package of new left liberalism that supposed non leftists have compromised with, is in fact a radical agenda. And in so far, replacing and people and making them a second class citizens, changing names, etc fits foreign occupation, it is actually inherently quite illegitimate agenda.
It has been very presumptuous how figures who have radical agendas like Starmer and people who sufficiently compromise and agree with them in key areas ave been branded as moderates and centrists. https://old.reddit.com/r/Asmongold/comments/1jm1atp/white_men_are_going_to_be_treated_a_lot_tougher/
A good analogy might be a communist country that was run by dogmatic radicals who were fanatical and thought changing things was a radical change from what they have done. This process also included fellow travelers throughout the world who opposed anticommunists. Yes it is a radical change but for something more sensible. Just like if you are falling on the cliff it is a big change to try to find something to hold up and far more so extremely radical to defy gravity and fly over the top of the hill again. Although political change isn't as fantastical. In the analogy, it is an attempt for change towards something more sustainable which is life. A more realistic radical change is chemotherapy towards cancer.
I would identify neocon type supposed conservatives who compromise with the multicultural liberal agendas or champion foreign nationalism, especially aligning with zionists and oppose any nationalism for their own people as another shade of the same liberal uni-party that supports radical destructive agendas and opposes any genuine opposition to them.
When in fact there are alternatives that are obviously more moderate on the nationalism question than what they support and certainly there are people even in the dissident right who are closer to them on that. It simply is a false honor to presume that an anti any European nationalist agenda is a moderate agenda. The moderate position on nationalism in general fits much more within the model that has nations support their legitimate rights but also compromise with each others reciprocal rights and there is basically a range of healthy ethnocentrism rather than too little or too much. While the agenda that concern trolls nationalism for whites is simply an extreme agenda that is falsely propagandized as a moderate one.
I also, wouldn't agree that the dominant party line on feminism and all sorts of issues that establishment supposed conservatives have agreed with is necessarily moderate in terms of outcomes. We are living a giant radical experiment in social change that has already resulted in fertility collapse.
Their very stance of being highly intolerant and hostile to people on their right seeking any sufficient change and much more so than those to their equal distance towards the left left, is it self an example of the left wing radicalism of this con inc space, because by it self is a radical way to behave but also because it would necessitate less revolutionary change if the con inc types compromised less with new left liberalism, neocons, and similar groups. Honestly, in countries like Denmark that have a coalition that includes nationalists and follow the kind of policies that are made taboo, I see no reason to consider what they are doing as bad as the woke. The truth is that the con inc space is sufficiently in bed with liberals and they are trying to suppress any right wing alternative to that, including ones that would work better.
He knows reds don't have the temperament or interest to "show up" for museums or libraries
No, part of having a culture is to fund it. You can in fact FORCE the people who do show up, to be much less liberal in how they act in institutions. Look at the effort the Trump admin is doing to try to force college people to be more pro Jewish. You could exert pressure in a pro conservative direction in all sorts of ways. Not just by directly funding, but obviously defunding woke ideology.
I do admit that culture funding shouldn't be unlimited and defunding things that are a waste of time is good idea, but there should be some culture related activities funded.
In regards to what Trace is after, he is pretty anti right wing and he isn't going to be for that.
Do I object to defunding left wing patronage networks? Nope. But a culture needs museums. It doesn't need the holocaust and slavery museums though or for the Smithsonean to have an exhibition for white supremacy.
Rather than general anti spending on culture, be more for directing the spending for culture. This is different than what Tracing claims, since I don't think that he and likeminded anti right wing leftists should be allowed to do as they want and run such institutions based n their ideology. It is about dictating culture and taking it away from people like Trace. The purpose should be for the culture and arts to achieve positive goals which includes many areas that goes against the agendas of mainstream liberalism.
Part of this does include defunding the various slavery museums, simply because the issue is framed and presented and overpromoted by them, in a manner that is for a negative goal of grievance and the agenda it serves is blacks as a superior caste and whites as permanent oppressors. History is also presented in a distorted very one sided manner in line of such oppression narratives. I think (at least most) Holocaust museums should also be defunded and private donors should NOT be allowed to fund them as well.
It is completely feasible through policy to successfully dictate that this kind of manipulative guilt culture under antiracist pretension would not exist anymore, by also removing from positions of influence and punishing those who engage in it. It is possible for these kind of grievance movements to come to an end.
Maybe a type of museum that covers subject matter of attrocities can exist if it is in a limited manner, and not used in such propaganda and also focuses more of the suffering of the respective people that is situated at. Or even with minorities if it isn't abused in the manner I have been criticizing and there exists elsewhere sufficiently funded perspectives that aren't narcissistically obsessing with only that group's interests. What is absurd is to allow enormous amount of propaganda including with museums about the grievances of foreign, or minority groups.
While I would agree that the Soviets, Nazi Germany, even Imperial Japan, were bad guys, I question the goodness of the USA.
The USA was an enabler of the USSR that literally helped build it up under FDR. And an ally. How can the USA be the good guys if the Soviets are bad guys? Surely, if the Soviets are bad, then USA which has been an enablers and under FDR goverment very infested with communists had a genuine agenda of twin world hegemony for USA and USSR, certainly affects their pure good guy credentials. A good book that goes in much better detail with the receipt on these issues that I would never be able to summarize all outrageous things about how pro soviet the USA was, is going to be Stalin's war.
Not to mention, American own warcrimes which weren't negligible and even if one could argue comparatively less, that still stain the good guy picture. But some of them relate to being too complicit and supportive of Soviet ones, like returning a huge amount of people who left USSR during the war back to the USSR to be murdered.
Importantly, before ww2, the Soviet Union was much more mass murderous including towards ethnic groups than the nazis (and while the Nazis were definitely bad guys quite willing to be brutal conquerors, the fog of war propaganda still remains controversial today). In other episodes like the Spanish civil war, you had nazi germany in the side of Franco and USA sympathetic with the communist side to an extend but not intervening directly.
Doubly importantly, the idea that USA are the good guys because of WW2 has been used to justify a lot of immoral and destructive regime change and warmongering. The latest relevance is the fall of Assad regime and now the replacement of Jihadists who have started massacring minorities. While I do think things are more gray, and many millions have died in the supposed good war, where the priority of the USA was definetly not how to avoid the blodoshed (nor does it make sense to pin it mostly on the USA of course, and in fact I consider in Europe Nazi Germany and USSR to be much more blameworthy for death of millions), it is still the case that America comes off better in WW2 than Japan, Nazis, or Soviets.
But you can't forget how WW2 is milked to justify behavior where USA comes off worse and ends up leaving things worse than they started. Like in Syria. Does this affect USA's supposed good guy behavior in WW2? It should affect at least how one sees the narrative of ww2 and to justify bringing up how it has been used in this manner. Although even regarding WW2, very simplistic moral narratives don't understand how American foreign policy is made which is made by more ruthless people and of a more ruthless amoral nature and ends.
Even if one accepts possible scenarios where USA oppose regimes even more ruthless than it, that is just historical happenstance and one should not expect USA to behave as good guys in any given conflict.
Examining American foreign policy on ww2 in defiance of hagiography myths that make USA to be like a good guy in a simplistic fairy tale is a good thing, but I would object in those trying to create opposite hagiographies of say the Nazi regime. Revising the simplistic fanatical propaganda is good, but shouldn't fall to the opposite type of simplistic propaganda. This isn't to say that there isn't an issue that allows for examination to what extend aspects of Nazi Germany's behavior have been war propaganda since war propaganda is a fact of history and this war propaganda is continually promoted, but again, I think we should strive to be accurate and despite the fog of war there is still enough evidence to point Nazi Germany as nasty conquerors.
Obviously reducing the hysteria towards people who dissent from simplistic narratives, especially by people who indulge themselves in propaganda, is necessary to end up with better understanding of historical events. Which people oppose because they want to use simple narratives of the past to make opposition to their present (and more recent past) and future policy misadventures, quite controversial. But there are negative consequences today to such narratives that are used to justify disastrous for the people in the region warmongering and regime change.
It is completely wrong that the USSR was a benign evil. Actually absence the German army, the Soviets who had already invaded and captured various countries, would end their mobilization and end up conquering Europe. On paper the USSR was actually stronger than Germans when Germany invaded. They were just in the middle of mobilization and not ready yet and the Germans had some advantages in term of military effectiveness which weren't necessarily something that could be quantified by everyone before the war. In terms of hardware and personnel, the USSR had the advantage.
Note, that doesn't mean that USSR was going to imminently attack, it might have taken a few years.
The fact that both the nazi and soviet regime were motivated in part by rational fear of each other which effected their foreign policy agenda, doesn't of course change the fact that both had an imperialist agenda and were quite willing to be brutal conquerors.
Too much credit and sympathy is given to the Soviet Union as an entity, (I will contrast this to sympathy towards civilians targeted by Nazi Germany who do deserve sympathy, but then even German civilians deserve some sympathy for their targeting, and almost everyone forgets that there were also massacres of Germans by the USSR before ww2 started), because it was invaded by Nazi Germany first before they got to invade them after German vs western power war would have weakened both Germany and countries like France. Also, the USSR was conducting massacres of civilians before the nazis started, before the nazi regime existed and after the nazis fell, including targeting various ethnic groups. They even tried to pin the Katyn massacre to the nazis which it self increases the fog of war effect, considering their participation in the post ww2 making of historical narrative about what happened, and it isn't as if the USSR are only regime willing to promote war propaganda.
The way FDR adminstration and media reacted to the coverup of Katyn massacre is especially notable. Such sympathies colored not only the propaganda of the time but understanding that endured today.
https://newcriterion.com/article/katyn-the-long-cover-up/
But like I said we still have enough evidence to make a negative judgement of the Nazi regime that condemns its behavior, even though there are actually room for examination of such narratives and whether aspects have been exaggerated. I still think that it is a given that the position and treatment of various non German ethnic groups would be bad in a nazi Germany victory, and the question being how bad.
The massacres of the USSR matter including of ethnic groups, even though it hasn't been focused by those who popularize history after ww2, because of course they have their agenda of which group suffering to focus upon and elevate.
Belisarius
.
26d ago
The fundamental problem of fiscal conservatives is that they aren't that dominant including on the right. Trump is not a fiscal conservative. I don't see the energy in the republicans not to cut taxes, and I don't think they are only doing it for electoral purposes, while otherwise they would want to do it.
That this is the case, doesn't mean that on its own merits cutting woke programs isn't worth it, just cause it isn't part of a consistent fiscal conservative plan.
Can Trump and the republicans be criticized from a fiscal conservative point of view? Yes, they can since they are adding significantly to the deficit. Of course the fact that Democrats have their own plans for green new agenda and so on, doesn't mean that both Democrats and Republicans can't be both bad, if deficits do in fact matter.
A peace deal where there is some type of integration of Ukraine within some sort of broader alliance system and there is some peacekeeper force to dissuade aggression, is actually the morally best path and an end to a nightmare of never ending bloodpath. Interestingly Russian nationalists like Rurik Skywalker see peace as a case of Putin being a traitor to the west.
However a ceasefire as a prelude of WW3 and new war against Russia is a bad idea. As would a ceasefire that leaves Ukraine completely vurnerable. Having some boots on the ground but with the leadership behind not be warmongers, as a way to dissuade Russia, and to stop new conflict, seems to actually be the morally superior path that ends the bloodpath and sustains peace. This kind of peace deal then would have most of Ukraine integrate itself with NATO forces alliance even if nominally it doesn't enter NATO and would also include a failure of Russian war aims.
There seems to be a show where American and friends policy makers intervene with plenty of corruption of contractors and client groups making money and help escalate things in a region both through their own warmongering or supporting other groups and then other Americans frame things from the perspective of how Americans don't need to help these foreigners. I do think that sometimes going there, creating chaos and then washing your hands away from the whole issue is also irresponsible. And now Trump has been trying to get a very onerous agreement on Ukraine that gives profits even from income of Ukrainian harbors.
There isn't a conflict where we have a moral do gooder side and an immoral side here among American interventionists. Europeans should actually not like the mainstream neocon agenda sans Trump, because it has been at their expense in regards to destroying nordstream, steering conflict, and isolating them with Russia and cheap energy.
I do think that Russia it self is a potential threat to other European countries if it was more successful.
Anyway, the neocon warmongers are probably responsible for the most death and destruction in the 21st century both directly and through the chaos they caused. And every time a simple moral fairy tale that tries to copy WW2 narratives was used to justify the destruction of various countries. It is actually the moral and better path for this kind of agenda to stop.
A peace deal here would be an improvement that genuinely helps Ukraine. I actually agree with the Ukrainians that Trump's demand is too onerous. However, it is also true that Ukrainians although much less, and much less successfully than Jews, in the USA are trying to influence the country in their direction. And there are also other than Ukrainians, deep state creatures. Secondarily, there is a problem with throwing many billions around in wars. There must be an effort to audit where the money went and to go after and punish corrupt and to stop biological weapon research, and defund deep state intelligence types getting funded. Like the attempted minsinformation czar in the Biden administration, that had Ukrainian ties. I sympathize with this idea of not blindly throwing around billions of money.
In general, it would be preferable for both the Russians, Chinese and Americans and European countries to try to deescalate from great power and spheres of influence conflict, and see more benefit through trade and peaceful relations. This does involve though not allowing the Chinese for example to send fishing fleets worldwide and deplete fish supplies, and actually organizing to stop this fleet. While rhetoric about the evil Putler isn't the way to go, what I am recommending of diplomacy, requires of course countries like Russia and China to go along as well and it isn't just one way street. Even though we should see a freeze of the fanatics from the western foreign policy leadership. Whether they are fanatics due to having grudges related to the area, or fanatics about American world domination. But not being fanatical, doesn't entail letting Russia or China walk all over the interests of european countries. So peace requires strength. It doesn't require blindly throwing money around and not curtailing corruption though.
Also, it is good for European countries to be more skeptical of USA and to stop seeing Trump and republicans as the only bad guys. It is really self destructive for European countries to like the American Democratic party and its agenda because it has been a very anti european agenda. Skepticism is warranted towards MAGA agenda too. Again though, cooperation is better than conflict, and diplomacy is important. But from some of the rhetoric I see, there is this delusioanl interpretation of vassalage as being in the own good of European countries. To an extend European elites buy into this and there is a lot of delusion and irrationality. The USAID type of American influence can be detrimental in many key ways. So part of this might be the fact that European elites might had been funded by such programs or world economic forum new leaders programs or such.
And the right is correct that there is a bigger threat. And USAID was part of the problem of this threat but only one facet of the influence of a worldwide faction. The agenda of self destruction through self hatred of one's own national identity, community and its right to exist, and siding with all sorts of foreign nationalists who combine their forces with local likeminded political factions, to take over and make the natives into second class citizens colonized in their own land, is in fact a huge problem that requires focus. The fake moralistic neocon agenda, in addition to all the destruction and conflict it has brought, can both can distract from that and justify some of the key people pushing this who are part of this agenda. Although there are others, including people who might be funded by Russia or China which historically (in Russia's case more when it was USSR, but it isn't necessarily against it today neither) sided with this kind of agenda as well.
Popper is the mentor of George Soros. The quote Secure Signals brings up does qualify as supporting prosecuting people who preach intolerant views. The interpretation of Popper's quote that allows less wiggle room for abuse is not the only interpretation that can be inferred from hiswords. And would lead to force being used if such ideologies aren't sufficiently unpopular.
It had been a long time but I read part of his book until I lost interest and my impression is that a) he is more selective in how he applies it than modern antifa types would be b) the open society is about a specific ideological vision that is in fact hostile to nationalism.
Advocates of hate speech laws include those who like Popper are using rhetoric that would apply in more selective cases but want it to be used in a more wide manner. Basically, who are hiding their power level and playing motte and bailey games. But as it is, what he actually says can be understood to be used to suppress people even if he wrote qualifiers.
That this guy was the mentor of George Soros in it self counts against him though and should play at least a little role in how we evaluate what he was after. But even what he actually has written is rhetoric that very easily can lead to hate speech laws and basically people who share his ideological vision trying to suppress opposition to open society that is declared as intolerant, because it is too conservative, nationalist, etc.
This must be the famous "horseshoe theory" I've been hearing so much about.
Maybe people whose radicalism is underestimated in Popper and MLK being so well accepted is part of why the mainstream has fallen so much to the far left.
I'd like to point that there's a distinction between a random person selling someone else heroin, and me doing the same thing. I would, of course, hold myself to a higher standard and not disburse it if it wasn't a necessity. That's what I would do if ever had to prescribe diamorphine, the term used not to scare the hoes.
Surely the same duty that applies to you, applies to others. Doctors are probably going to be a source of the drugs.
Even in a setting where the usual legal and ethical constraints I'm obliged to follow (if I wish to keep my license) were waived, if someone came up to asking heroin, and it wasn't in the context of overwhelming pain in a hospital, I'd politely tell them I'm not comfortable doing that, and that they should look elsewhere.
It isn't just something that you simply aren't comfortable of doing but a moral obligation that extends to other doctors and people in general. It is a duty not to do it and such an important duty that they ought to be restricted from selling what is essentially addictive poison.
I don't really care about moral culpability, at best I consider it an occasionally useful fiction. You get a pass if you've got a brain tumor or something, that's the way people look at things.
It is not a fiction however but central to morality. Someone who is selling heroin to others is a terrible person who engages in what is correctly treated as a criminal activity.
I see liberty that extends only to doing things that society deems are Good For You a pale imitation of the real deal, and I accept the consequences.
In this case, it isn't about what society deems to be good for you but what is genuinely good for you.
Which heroin definitely is not. The freedom to take and sell heroin is not a worthy one. It also hardly the case that liberty is enshrined here when the end result is someone who becomes an addict. There is a higher liberty that is satisfied by not selling and not buying heroin, morally condemning the practice, and restricting it as well.
It is also about what kind of society you want and will get. Your hiding a refusal to do the pro social duty behind liberty.
Another analogous case would be making it illegal to put poison in food even if there is a willing buyer who is unaware.
Allowing selling your self or one's dependents to slavery, or selling your eyes, would also be the kind of thing that reduces liberty, and doesn't enshrine it. I don't see liberty but slavery when looking at drug addicts.
I would agree however that any moral obligation and any paternalism towards addicts and others who make poor decisions should be limited or else it becomes pathological altruism and parasitical at expense of more productive citizens.
Noblese oblige and paternalism only so far but it does include having a society that tries not to take advantage of these kind of people.
If I'm allowed to daydream, everyone old enough to vote takes a Rational Adult exam, potentially one that's subdivided into multiple ascending tiers of difficulty. The more you pass, the more you are allowed to do, because the presumption is that you've proven yourself intelligent enough to be responsible for yourself. For an existence proof, look at driving tests.
What you are proposing would be a betrayal to the principle of no regulation = liberty.
Plus smart people even though less than others, do stupid self destructive things too. Having a country that restricts heroin and has policies that lead to less drug abuse would result in a country that some of the people who were to become addicts would have lead successful lives. Avoiding having places that are notoriously filled with "zombies".
Maybe this makes sense for something like crypto but makes less sense for heroin. Your proposal would surely lead to more restrictions than just banning the worst things.
It does make sense for some industries to limit them in some capacity when it comes to gambling, porn ,etc. Still, the fact that you are willing to support something much more restrictive does undermine the claim that liberty to sell and buy heroin is an important principle. It is not. The duty of caring about the end result of heroin being sold and bought is a much more important consideration.
Both doctors and society in general has a duty of care that extends in not providing people heroin. Now there is a balance to this that means that fredom tm and other considerations might matter with certain less harmful substances enough, but there is a line.
I think we had a discussion about this before, but that you don't care about the line doesn't mean that you aren't breaking clear good ethical norms here that a doctor especially shouldn't break. Doctors are especially the kind of people who ought to think about what is their patient's best interest and not what their patient might be requesting at the moment.
It is in fact immoral and parasitic to profit from selling what is harmful to others. There can be a debate about some more grey areas, but there is a line above which it becomes pretty clear that you have activity that is just harming people.
But aren't addicts morally culpable on a significant level? Of course. Although there might be some more sympathetic stories. But so are people selling heroin and to a lesser extend those allowing them to do so. You discourage and condemn all three to get a society without the malaise of significant drug addiction and death due to it. While you allow, encourage, and side with all three to get the society with these problems. It is a choice that will end with the different outcomes with a clear right and wrong side.
I agree that within the american political system, MAGA is more centrist than liberals and neocons. But not sure that it is a centrist liberal movement. And in practice it doesn't seem to be a break from neocons sufficiently. For one, it is willing to champion foreign policy moves and rhetoric that does not fit into that. Like Trump's rhetoric about annexing Canada.
I don't think liberalism is a good thing and a centrist movement would not be liberal but not totally exclusionary of liberal notions. It would be a synthesis of some liberal notions, with conservative and nationalist, with even some dose of internationalist. Like I am a family first type of person but try to treat people outside my family with honor, provided they do the same.
Liberalism in practice is the purity spiral dogmatism. Historically there have been some people more in line with what I favor that might have called themselves liberals as within the national liberalism ideology but they lost and have been overwhelmed by the new left type which is the dominant and representative of the historical trajectory of liberalism. This includes the people who call themselves classical liberals. What they want is new left liberalism with its dogmas and consensuses.
And so I am against it. Only in lower amounts and on specific issues is it valuable. To go with zero liberalism and adopt a purity spiral as liberals do towards conservatism and nationalism (for their white ethnic outgroup, they are more supportive of nationalism for ingroup), would lead to abandoning good things. I like liberal opposition to war crimes for example but then there is a liberal tribe that is also for war crimes. While liberals fail to do this as a tribe, liberalism is to an extend related with concept of political impartiality which is valuable again to an extend. Liberalism in practice fails to even follow its supposed virtues but while I would abandon liberalism, I wouldn't abandon anything related to it. Trying to avoid the same folly that liberals war on "fascism" that leads them to support the extinction and second class status of white people and to aggressively hate those who think otherwise.
The purity spiral to be part of the dna of liberalism and how it developed, but within the views, principles that are associated with liberalism there is some value to be extracted. But to be a liberal is to adopt a framework that will lead you adopt dogmatically too much the new left agenda.
To give it as an exercise: Homosexuality is not illegal but society promotes heteronormativity and champions nuclear families and tries to promote more pro natal monogamous ideology and social mores which is reflected in the media. Promotes its historical reBecause the current situation is actually too unbalanced against heteronormativism and healthy social mores and fertility.
Such society, does not present homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality since the later is both more normal and useful for society, and less related % with other even nastier sexual behavior that to an extend appears as more prevalent with LGBT groups. And there is a patronage network to promote this. It bans surgeries that mutiliate people and doesn't accept trans ideology. But it also doesn't try to aggressively humiliate homosexuals for example.
It is nationalist and pursues its own interests, obviously tries to maintain its ethnic community and promotes some level of pride and self confidence but is honorable in its dealings with other nations. It would never side, support or allow its people to act like some other groups that engage in rape gangs and then close the wagons, or try to convince ethnic groups that they should have no national identity, self hate, and go extinct and be replaced by them and would never tolerate people doing this to them. So this is a synthesis but of course fits well outside what liberals would accept.
Seems to me that decentralizing liberalism from the way we identify is important to having a vision that manages to synthesize important things that both liberals and liberalism are found in opposition to. Since liberalism fails to be a synthesizing reasonable vision, why treat it as a category that we, or the MAGA movement must fit into?
I see you as a far leftist who defines as far right people who disagree with you and defines yourself incorectly as centrist. Since this is a very common tactic of the left to win, I think it is an important issue.
You can fit into what is tried to be presented as mainstream center left and disagree with people further left than you and still be sufficiently far to the left to qualify as far left though. Because the mainstream left is far left in its agenda. Same applies with the establishment agenda in institutions that you declare has already changed too much, even though it has not. It is a woke agenda that hasn't been dismantled and so it is obviously reasonable to question whether your self identification is inaccurate over what you actually support.
You might even honestly define yourself incorrectly as more moderate than you really are and others as much more extreme than they really are. I understand why far leftists who constantly do this tactic don't want to explore this issue, but they are actually the aggressive party, defining everyone who doesn't share their radical ideology as far right. The common principles of the mainstream liberal ideology are a far left radical ideology and you personally have fitted sufficiently with this ideology with your sentiments of insulting on people on the right who oppose for example the great replacement and aren't liberals. Again what you promote fits with wanting wokeness to remain entrenched which is an obvious point that you could have addressed directly.
It is only fair after you guys constantly try to aggressively label and marginalize others, to accept people who disagree with this and see you as the radical extreme faction. Sorry but you can't just win unopposed by just incorrectly labeling others inaccurately and labeling yourselves inaccurately, and after labeling others that you can't complain for others who disagree with your labels. Feigning neutrality while doing far left things is the tactic of far left 101 that it has constantly done.
I even worked to break down how some of the principles of liberals are extreme. That I don't just lazily label you is not the advantage that you think you are. Nobody forces people who don't want this to read only shorter posts. Let me do this again.
The truth is that if we are to put ideologies into circles, if your circle does not have shared ground with what you call far right, on nationalism, you are far left. And the reason you are far left is that your ideology is too extreme and hostile against a group and proposes a radical destructive vision, and shares within it hateful intolerant authoritarian perspective. If your ideology is a radical ideology that says that your ethnic outgroup should go extinct and be happy to do so, including the demographics that historically made a big part of a nation, that is very radical. It actually fits within treasonous hetoric in many countries, even within the text of their constitutions. It is even more radical if it is within your own nation. It isn't far right to be hostile to this ideology, but far right is a self serving arbitary label to justify this extreme agenda. In fact it is an element of the extremism that people want to label others as far right for opposing it.
If we are to put a line from anti white to pro white for example of one issue, you and mainstream liberalism will be on the far left. Or consider heteronormativity, or fertility rates and whether it makes sense to be dogmatic for liberal dogma. Or intersexual relationships and feminism vs more conservative norms. What is called far right for being too pro white for example often encompasses more moderate space than liberals. By the principle that to be too extreme in one category makes one far right, then liberals should be considered far left. Or take conservatism. When it comes to social behavior, the liberal typically is not a moderate who combines conservative with non conservative notions at least the non left wing sense, and what is called far right tends to encompass those who are more synergistic in combining conservative and some elements of social liberalism in less amount than the liberals. Or take censorship, you try to present non woke liberals (which should include neocons who are not conservatives but a form of the tribe of iberals) as betters for censorship but the discussion had various people who others wouldn't label woke, who supported this guy being fired after being doxed for his more right leaning non liberal views. A position more extreme than Vance's which was that he disagreed with him but he shouldn't be fired, because he might be good in his job and that this was the result of left wing doxxing.
If we are to analyze ideology through circles that encompass ideology, purity spiraling means to really avoid to have any shared ground with others on the areas they aren't wrong. This is a central aspect in what the space complaining about far right does on issues of nationalism, social liberalism vs conservatism, interethnic relationships. The position of the mainstream establishment fails to be at all a reasonable synthesis, or compromises in line with Aristotle's approach in Nicomedean ethics that seeks a moderate virtue that contrasts two extreme vices.
Beyond the liberals declarations of others to be far right, and for the liberals to represent some sort of reasonable center lies begging the question and purity spiral dogmatism. It is one of the biggest myths and assumptions that must be challenged and reexamined.
If people don't want to bother with doing that because it isn't in their advantage to do so, it is expected. If you want to be lazy about it, then posting that, just sounds like an excuse to avoid confronting the argument and to dismiss the other party. I think to an extend liberals have grown entitled due to expectations of censorship, allowing them to get away with just labeling themselves and others and win, without examining in the substance, if what they support is actually good and reasonable and to dissent is to be an extremist as they present it. That, and because of previous march on institutions and authoritarian measures and stubborn zealotry in repeating such associations, to an extend it has stuck and even people who oppose liberals to an extend sometimes adopt their terminology. It hasn't stuck with everyone thankfully and it is arbitrary self serving propaganda that is meant to help a political faction at the expense of any opposition, and what is true and good. That is because you are willing to label too positively untrue and destructive agendas and label too negatively true and moral perspectives.
The woke are not on the rope. They have not even begun being dislodged. What has happened is the start of some setbacks for them. It is fine to admit you don't want them to be dislodged, which is what will happen if victory is declared already.
The anti-woke did just that, but what's more, they didn't even get driven off most of the existing Internet.
Non anti woke liberals support censorship and woke agendas. They support doing it on progressive grounds and zionists on zionist grounds.
There isn't this movement of moderate, centrist liberals out there, because mainstream liberalism shares the pathologies of anti white racism, virtue signalling authoritarinsm, hatred of dissent, distorting things in favor ,progressive political corectness over what is true, obviously it is part of patronage networks and corruption where money is directed to them and their client groups. Are definetly nationalists for their favorite demographics and are definetly motivated by hostility towards the continued existence of homogeneous ethnicities of their etnhic outgroups and want to replace and end them both for ideological and ethnic hatred and to gain an electoral advantage. They see fascism in the existence of european ethnicities which is very extreme, and also treat with fanatical hostility those dissenting with them on such issues.
And so, I don't think from the depths of such hostility that you can have people who respect freedom of others. Nor are all freedoms equal, the freedom of totalitarian tyrants to impose their struggle sessions on their ethnic and ideological outgroup is not equal to the freedom of not having this imposed against you and suppressing political commissars who demand that you hate your group. The liberal war on all sorts of isms leads them to support cancel culture constantly and with intensity.
National freedom necessitates keeping out extreme foreign nationalists or Communists for example, that favor your nation destruction and subjucation out of ethnic hostility or ideological hostility to your nation, or both. That liberals blacklist those who don't share their extreme ideology, in addition to discriminating against white males, is something that can't be forgotten, since we can't have institutions be controlled by people who abuse their position.
This isn't to say that those who claim to be anti woke can't be for censorship either on progressive, which is most common, zionist, or even right wing grounds.
There is also the question of what measures are necessary for a good public morality. I doubt the Trumpian right which is authoritarian on criticism of Jews and Israel, is going to ban porn. Authoritarianism in line with the same old establishment ends seems more of a threat than genuinelly right wing cultural authoritarianism.
Personally, I would rather people who tell the truth and care about what works well, are promoted, while those who lie, censor, are suppressed. And the first get rewards and praise while the later get scathing criticism and lose opportunities. And there are some general ethical priorities too. People who care about their own nation's well being, and therefore can't be for maximizing individualistic hedonism, but are honorable in their dealings with rest of the world. I don't believe you can have every institution this idea of "everything goes". Discernment inevitably will exist, and it should weight against the Walter Duranty characters but in favor of the Gareth Jones type of characters. Instead of letting the Walter Duranty types of the world as it happens today, to cancel the Gareth Jones types of the world. https://holodomormuseum.org.ua/en/news/a-tale-of-two-journalists-walter-duranty-and-gareth-jones/
Now, as far as liberalism goes, it falls in the Walter Duranty side rather than the Gareth Jones side. Cancelling their patronage network hasn't even started happening and would be welcome news.
To the extend one can identifie a pervasive liberalism that differs from a pervasive "woke", it will still share most its pathologies, with the woke are just even further extreme on the same direction.
My view of the matter is that it does not make sense to pretend of a center left that doesn't exist, because far left policies is the behavior of the mainstream left, and of mainstream liberals. Extremism is what the supposed center left is about. This pretension just ends with the far left doing far left things while those who aren't them, we let them and are asleep. It is just a big myth to justify their anti right wing extremism and their far left politics.
That liberals who think the right which hasn't even started doing things, should stop, is part and parcel of the extreme ideology against the right wing doing things which has lead to things being so far left to begin with. It is obligatory for right wingers who have started changing things to not listen to liberals who oppose them from doing so, and see them as part of the entrenched far left. The far left has become such a big problem while there has been countless rhetoric of liberals downplaying the problem of far left extremism and exaggerating the problem of right wing extremism during that time. In response the right wing has started to evolve, and these tactics no longer work anymore.
Belisarius
.
1mo ago
You are basically a leftist, dude. The left wins by pretending neutrality and always demanding the right to be impotent.
The right will need to do a lot more victories before anything like a stalemate happens.
Sports is full of actual corruption and conspiracies like many endeavors. I have no familiarity with NBA and any theories but conspiracies happen constantly.
Including fixing matches. Football (aka soccer) that I have some more familiarity is notoriously corrupt.
The same guy that’s telling me the Marines just raided a FEMA data center in Iceland to get the files about the 2020 election will tell me that the mechanic slit the rubber on his CV boot so that the mechanic could charge him to fix it.
Generally this happens too! Mechanics do deliberately do shoddy work and charge people more. Certainly not all mechanics, all of the time, but it happens. Which is why it is so important to find an honorable mechanic, or at least to know enough to not be taken easily advantage of.
Someone who always assumes best would be wrong plenty of time, and same as someone who always assumes people are acting nefariously.
With sports there is also a certain type of people who always assume that their team loses because everyone is conspiring against them which is of course an incorrect way to see reality.
Conspiracies and bad behavior and plots to screw others over, is a constant of history. It is a bad idea to always assume best, or worse, I would say. Unrestrained anti-conspiratorial thinking is extremely irrational. Except it is often pushed by people who actually do support people shutting up about corruption and side with people who a) are screwing over others and support the faction that is accused of wrongdoing b) might be screwing over others and still support the faction. The priority being to shut down any dissent.
You actually do need to be vigilant against being screwed over and to organize to keep down people doing so. Easier said than done when it comes to various institutions that the corrupt have captured control. Even then, how far and openly they push things can be controlled to an extend through backlash.
Honorable behavior can't be taken for granted but requires both having a community of moral, honorable people, but also everlasting vigilance against those willing to behave in the more dishonorable manner. Suspicions can have a protective effect when they combine with some control mechanism to test for wrongdoers, catch them and punish them. The absence of people willing to put 2 and 2 together and call corruption out, and try to stop things then will of course lead into things getting even worse. The healthy instinct is to worry about people who want to cover up for Epstein network, rather than worry about people who care. Even less high on the food chain, we see rapists like the former school coach Jerry Sandusky who benefited from other members of the stuff of his school, helping cover things up.
Of course, that is one thing, and there are some people who believe they saw big foot, pyramids build by aliens, and have a more fantastical way of seeing the world that is less about being antagonistic towards criminals, or bad people coordinating. These people aren't really useful at opposing corruption and conspiracies, but also their way of viewing the world is not going to lead to purges of innocents falsely accused. I find the fearmongering about conspiracies it self suspicious and the whole conspiracy theory as bad word tm, has probably been pushed by intelligence agencies and influential non governmental organizations that would rather not be opposed. Ironically, there is too much unjustifiable paranoia about the harm of people not trusting authorities, and not enough fear about the dangers of people being too conformist towards authorities. The issue being that paranoia towards the problems of nonconformism can lead authorities to double down on stupid, wrong and even disastrous decisions and also allow the corrupt, criminals and bad actors with more sinister agendas, to take advantage. Not to mention that it can lead to persecuting people for not buying into what a) could be false b) actually is false.
One other example of this is accusations of Russians bombing Nordstream not getting the label of engaging in "conspiracy theory" and being "conspiracy theorists" but those who accused the USA of doing so, getting the label. Establishments, and even some rival establishments of different countries have always lied to their people, whether through false flag attacks, false pretexts, or one sided narrative of how geopolitical issues are presented. And really all sort of issues. In Roman history they deified emperors which is of course was a lie. So part of the conspiracy issue is about establishment narratives and following them as one is told, or dissenting from them. To an extend the conspiracy theory label is thrown for people who oppose George Soros activities for another example and the whole issue relates with dissenting from a politically correct discourse that deliberately avoids criticizing the favored narrative.
Belisarius
.
1mo ago
I am sure that in addition to USAID the CIA has other tentacles. But cutting off USAID would definitely cut a tentacle or two, or even three.
Philanthropy and aid is genuinely the space for spooks and criminals like Sam Bankman-Fried come out and play. That and activists who actually try to march into institutions like the CIA.
Kanye could had been a sort of martyr who stood up for his beliefs enough to get completely cancelled in a previous episode. Just don't cancel people who say that Jews cancel people if you don't want them to be martyrs. That and the threats from his personal "doctor"/handler can't be just dismissed because the dude is acting foolishly. He certainly is not some kind of consistent conservative icon though.
His antics definitely have reduced some of the bite of his past complaining about Jewish producers pushing degeneracy in the black community through what art they support, and what they encourage people to be doing. But he could have been partly right then and part of the problem now. Partly, because art isn't only the result of producers desires without artists themselves having influence. Even though producers and agents can be influential not only through dictating to artists but also by what kind of people they choose to promote.
Regarding his wife's extremely slutty outfits. Kanye West seems to approve and so does she. It doesn't make sense to make her a victim in this. It isn't the first time she is almost naked in outfits that circulate online. I highly doubt she is constantly forced into it.
Nah, you hate them because your politics. I am also not on their side but a) most people who are critical on Scott are not Nietzschean neoreactionaries and much more on the right and I am on their side more so because the dispute is more so about whether it is good at all to have an ethnic group you identify and put first rather than full seflishness b) Those few who actually are that, their take goes too far but it is a reaction towards those who want to impose pathological altruism on them. Going full vitalist in general is incorrect but having that reaction towards people demanding that they put their people last is correct. In addition with respecting prioritising one's family including extended, there needs to be a reciprocity in altruism that exists even among people of different abilities. Which is to say I help you but you would help me.
So, if we talk about specific characters and not as a way to dismiss the right in general, I do have some disagreement and antipathy, but you don't have any sympathy for the imposition of pathological altruism against their people, as a motivating factor.
The neocon and left wing ideologues contrarily oppose treating their ethnic outgroup as victims who needs justify any prioritization. This is dominant perspective on the left that claims to be antiwoke which I would put neocons who try to be influential in the right to also fit into.
- Ironically, many of these people are obviously losers who are psychologically driven by the same kind of resentment that Nietzsche described, just like many extreme leftists are.
Hilariously uncharitable and far leftist redditor 101 rhetoric. Also doesn't this statement by implication try to present your faction as the ubermench over the extreme leftists and the Nietzscheans? Why not start saying they have a small dick and are all incels. One can dismiss every faction by making this claim since it is easy to assume for your outgroup, and many social media addicts will have their losers. Although it does seem that the left has greater % of mentally ill.
I do think it is a bit much for people online to pretend that any movement is made by ubermench while everyone else are the losers.
The tactic of leftist liberals trying to win the debate by pretending they represent a centrist middle is also at play here.
There is no anti-identitarian right, nor center, nor left in any substantial sense. It only exists as a convenient propagandistic claim. The problem of any genuine opposition to the current order which the woke left does not represent, comes to the fact that people who support progressive identity politics and oppose the rights and interests of groups that the progressive stack alliance is against, especially the Jews, are against it. Rich donors like Paul Singer fund gatekeepers of this ideology. So there has been a march on institutions of people who have the agenda of suppressing the rights of their white outgroup and even other right wing associated identities. The more obvious woke types are just one part of the general agenda. They are more the bad cop of it. The supposedly anti woke liberals share the key ideology and are part of it.
In general it is fiction that there is any anti-identitarian space. There are people who concern troll right wing identity groups because they are in the bed with say zionists, or support as you have doneHlynka the black civil rights revolution which the modern woke is a continuation. Even on the supposed right you have someone like George Soros who is an identitarian funding the compact magazine that concern trolls about people on the right being Kinists. As in putting their family first. Which is even more radical, inflammatory rhetoric as usual.
So some of the anti woke space are fakes who support the inherent logic and the motte and bailey of the far left that moves from radical egalitarianism in general to concern trolling its outgroup, to supporting identity politics for its ingroup.
Additionally, trying to transform societies into some sort of actively hostile to identity even if consistent, which it is not, would fall under a very radical egalitarian agenda. It would fit under the far left, not the center, nor the right.
However, the true nature of the ideology of those who marched on institutions and try to maintain it, is not of a sincere consistent radical egalitarianism, which it self is morally and intelectually bankrupt and doesn't work, but of tribalism that is interested in suppressing and even destroying its outgroup tribes for the sake of its in group tribes of the progressive stack.
Now, while I am against communism, I don't mind the 8 hour work week. While radical egalitarianism is a morally bankrupt dogma that always brought disaster and it is of course an onerous demand towards the groups it applies to, because of these reasons those who promote it make exceptions for groups they genuinely like and argue for example that Jews or blacks deserve identity politics, nationalism, because they like them. This doesn't mean that maximalist right wing so called identity politics is good. The right amount is a pertinent discussion but of course this discussion can't be done by those with a mentality of not giving an inch and even then the tendency of most people on the issue would be to not support sufficient than too much. But I do think there is a point in opposing excesses of any group's tribalism both in theory and in practice.
But yes actually ironically some level of white identity politics is even less racist and works better both from an outside universalist view but even more so actual white people are behaving quite against their own interests if they disagree with this.
People who want to destroy european nations who are in bed with foreign extreme nationalists, and adopt their logic are actually engaging in treasonous behavior. This applies even if they do so under the pretense or they genuinely bought into some radical egalitarian dogma. You do not have the right because you have adopted a certain ideology, to destroy nations, especially your nation. So the correct response has to be to disallow such activities and to gatekeep against them, when the opposite is happening the criminal agenda carriers are gatekeeping. To make criminal organizations which pursue this criminal agenda to destroy european nations illegal and restore the rule of law and stop and punish treason.
Secondarily, many institutions have adopted the idea that they are against racism. Unlike some on the right I do consider racism to be a real thing but opposition of borders is racist. It is about genuinely mistreating other groups, and it is comical absurdity that anyone should accept a moral harm in not being pathological altruist and that your right to exist as a people and retain your proud seperate communisty, is this. And of course there is a lot of gray area. In any war, not treating badly the hostile group ends up allowing them to harm your collective. Nevertheless it is in fact a good practice to discourage or disallow certain practices. The point of our language and classification is to seperate the bad with the good and not muddy the waters. I try to remove some of the deliberate dirt that have been thrown into them to confuse things by the faction I have been criticizing here.
Communistic/radical egalitarian definitions of classism, racism, etc do not matter and are illegitimate and in fact the people citigng them engage in more so in mistreatment in relation to the broader concept, and it is moreover adopted as a concern troll against the outgroup. In addition to engaging in all sorts of horrible behavior towards the broad ideological categories, i.e. most of humanity that would fall under their categories.
A bit like, if I try to get a rich family to lose all their money and struggle session accuse them of classism, or try to kill a poor guy, because he is poor that is actually more of a class associated unfair behavior. If I try to define everyone who has a national community or religious group or property and supports property rights, as evil, then I would be demonizing, oppressing an enormous amount of people and even harming those who are pressured to support this vision and become guilty participants in struggle sessions. Radical egalitarians not only oppressess through hysterics, defamation, blacklisting, but also have a track record of mass murder and more hardcore. But again, this is more of an alliance of tribalists who use radical egalitarian against their outgroup which also has very negative history and implications.
Obviously, targeting certain ethnic groups constantly with an agenda of seeking their destruction and slandering the opposition that they are evil racists, is enormously racist. It is actually genuinely incredibly bad behavior. I do think it violates genuine human rights and rather than giving in to the people who use that rhetoric the weapon of racist accusation, it genuinely is behavior that must be taboo and in practice, not just in theory, its adherents abuse their power. Whether in who they hire, in what content they produce, in what resources they direct, or in taking away peoples freedom both overtly and through their hysterics and slanders and threat of overt action.
People who are fanatical and hysterical about this and namecall are behaving in a manner that is bellow any professional ethical standards as journalists, podcasters, people who run social media, forums. It is an insanely inflammatory ideology in general. And 100 times this for politicians, or as members of bureaucracy, and even more so for any military or intelligence services. The system should be excluding people whose agenda is to destroy the people they rule. And if they have a messianic radical egalitarian combo with extreme nationalism motte and bailey going on, this applies even more so. Since this combo leads to people being fanatics that don't have any limit in how far they would go because they falsely believe to be virtuous. Or rather they have some doubts but because the alternative of what they are doing is so negative, they are inclined to choose to dehumanize those they harm.
Good relationships result in certain issues not being debated ad nauseum because both parties recognize that they infringe on sacred red lines and so they don't bring it up. For example if you have a terrible relationship with your wife, she might try to pressure you into an open relationship. In a good relationship this never enters the picture. If you had a terrible mechanic, he might try to scam you and mislead you about what is the problem with your car so they can overcharge you and insist in pressuring you to accept his take. This is to say, that there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that much of the problems of the culture war have to do with this side which wants to destroy western civilization and if defiend narrowlly, not just that, making constantly onerous demands and pretending they are helping save us from impeding darkness and evils. When in fact they are the problem and an arrangement that respects the sacred red lines that aren't ideological lines of specific weirdo ideologues but obvious common sense red lines, while the absurdity is the radical egalitarian concern troll. Whose adherents which includes plenty zionists and even some pro palestinians, pro anticolonialism nationalism, remember universal nationalism as a principle when it is convenient to them.
Because this faction pretends to support freedom to promote its agenda and oppose freedom when it comes to opposing it, I will also say that: It would be a benefit when onerous demands are shut down and the when we see the end of rhetoric on the lines of "you can't have an inch because you will inevitably take a mile you nazi" type of hysterics, the end result would be a superior intellectually equilibrium.
The freedom to oppose genuine evils and absurdities is good, but it is good for people to know that if they support what infringes on sacred red lines there would be push back. And even better if they are sufficiently honorable to feel shame and guilt when doing so. Which is another part of what I am advocating. So this is a bit different than some on the right and my preffered is a somewhat more dissident center right. Not to be confused by what the things that claim to be center right do. There is too much shame and guilt over things people shouldn't be ashamed and guilty for, but the people concern trolling their right wing outgroup and demanding they accept something very onerous, should not be doing it in the first place because they ought to had felt shame in pursuing such an immoral agenda. There is a very significant similarity with the agenda I criticize here and with the behavior of scammers in general which I find very important for people to bad mouth in general. Because we want honest and honorable people to do business with but also to be in relationships with.
Are nations desire to be nations and the connection its people they feel with each other to be treated as evil because a daft dogma says so? Is a desire for monogamy and not to share your wife with the world evil and irrational because one's simplistic ideology doesn't understand it? And so on, and so on. Radical egalitarianism, also known as the new left and mainstream liberalism of which the woke are not opponents but a component (and it is also hard to seperate them with some people who claim to be anti woke) is both an ideology that includers scammers of the out group and allows to scam the outgroup while making exheptions on the ingroup, but their claims are also based on misunderstandings of human nature, society, what is good, etc and it hubris of modern age for it to be treated as default. Like communism which is terrible but 8 hour work week is good, race communism is terrible but there can be some merit in the idea of universalism in regards to say not invading and killing foreign tribes. But not in seeing your own tribe as evil in its pursuit of its own existence as a healthy, prosperous sustainable ethnic community.
So, I am an advocate for making radical egalitarianism in general and especially the one that concern trolls the right wing ethnic outgroup, to be treated as a shameful ideology. Because even any of its true believers are promoting societal suicidal dogma and it is additionally a convenient way to scam and harm the outgroup. The one sided targeting and exceptions are baked in it, motte and bailey is constantly done, but it is bad even if it was to be consistent which it won't be. It shares ground with the behavior of those who try to get away with scamming others into accepting a very onerous deal.
We would be better off without this ideology around.
I would like for it to spend less time on what it perceives as unfortunate truths that I was reading about a decade ago. So much has changed! Despite the changes many interests, nature of power, and fundamental aspects of our systems have not. There's no new mechanism to work around the Unfortunate Realities. Unless I have the wrong impression, much of what I do read from this sphere explains why you probably can't work around them. "90%" of the nominal followers, along with the leaders they look to, are committed to slop production instead of the advancement of interests.
Important issues have remained important for more than a decade. Highlighting things that remain relevant is good. Sure there are unproductive elements in how the dissident right approaches power but your critique is too total and leads nowhere and instead leads us to avoid the substance of specific issues and gets us sidetracked.
90%" of the nominal followers, along with the leaders they look to, are committed to slop production instead of the advancement of interests.
After being hostile to him, are you using AA for your attack on the dissident right?
Tangential, but if the dissenters must remain independent of the system they criticize to remain credible then must they not participate? Philosophy dudes can correct me, but this seems elementary. Of course not. This would be self-defeating for any serious attempt to advance interests if those interests include practical changes and engagement. One can retain sufficient autonomy inside or beside a system to be credible, so long as those judging him can agree. For conflict theorists, realists, ruffians, outlaws and purists in this milieu this looks like a continual sticking point.
Yes, I think people who want to change a system should participate in it. There is a tension between being integrated into the system and losing your purpose, or not participating.
AA does seem to be someone who doesn't want to be an activist and to to act as more of a scholar.
The whole shebang begins to look more like an art collective than anything else. For Pavini, I have no idea if this is fair. I will try to read more of his links recommended in this thread below. Since you mentioned him, then Kulak for sure is a candidate for the title of artist more than advocate or organizer. He can find success in performing in other venues, because of the ecosystem that Pavini identifies as problematic. Tens of thousands of hobbitses clamoring for more doom posts, more black pills, and more performance. Everyone wants to feed from their own slop trough. That appears to be a major motivation of this lamentation.
Not sure about what thread you were referring. I wasn't recommending anyone. I was just saying that leaving the motte and dealing with right wingers lead to them being more successful, getting more appreciation and far less hate and their ideas were explored more commonly in good faith and in an intellectual manner. Even when people disagreed with their ideas. And it was good personally for these right wingers to filter liberals whose rhetoric tends to be anti intellectual dismissals in general, or just trying to damage their reputation.
Yes Kulak has an element of over the top exaggeration that can be criticized. But he also brings valid points.
What you say about all it being black pills, slop, is just uncharitable inaccurate exaggerated overly dismissive assertion. You use Pavini here against the disident.
To quote Pavini much of rhetoric is bulshit, bulshit, bulshit, therefore we rule. Some of your rhetoric here isn't even wrong you are just making assertions after assertions that are overly dismissive without saying much that is concrete.
Yes, much of the rhetoric promoted by people isn't the same as concrete action but might be influencing politics. Just like the existence of plenty of liberals promoting their agenda is influencing the world.
This statement:
I agree I am more likely to disregard dissent I don't like.
I think this is happening.
If you contrast your criticisms with Pavini's, he criticizes specific sub groups in a manner that makes much more sense. That politicians listen to donors and powerful groups like zionists over voters and people engaged on twitter. He also posted something more optimistic after Trump doing some more promising things than expected and how there is some room for cautious optimism. Even his criticisms of slop is not just a line that is thrown there but makes sense in the context of what AA has been pushing. I don't necessarily agree with how far he pushes it though.
Nobody died and made Pavini infallible anyway. But he makes a point that makes sense and some claims that might be more questionable and your rhetoric about blackpillers, about refusal to participate in politics, slop, gas spinning its tiers in the mud, doesn't make sense. Rather you seem to be trying to overly dismiss the right here.
Regarding friendliness: I don't agree this is a fair characterization. It's not the lack of friendliness that triggers me. I am not easily shocked from most writing and definitely not by the dissident's manifesto. My critique was that it is redundant, tired, or even unproductive. My interests don't restrict myself to read only nice, friendly writers. I'm friendly, and I'm boring. Being non-friendly and critical can be authentic. It's not a prerequisite to honesty though. It's a style, choice, or result of feelings, not a measure of authenticity. Of Kulak's writing that I have appreciated (I have read and appreciated plenty of it, though less in past couple years) not much of it can be called friendly. Cocytarchy was fun, although a novel sort of topic. Some of his critical, unfriendly writing appears inauthentic to me. That's the rub.
I am just saying that a minimum of friendly intentions is a prerequisite for intellectual honesty. There can exist some fair minded people who can be relatively on firm ground even when dealing with people they are hostile too. And this can exist even among people who aren't aligned of course but much less likely with some ideological groups. Liberals tend to be lacking this minimum when dealing with right wingers..
Honestly, you can like or dislike what you like. I am not going to try to convince you that this dude or the other dude, has X article that you will enjoy reading since what you like is going to be based on your preferences.
Pavini still made a valid point about the fact that there hasn't been a good track record for those who have been trusting the plan with the pro zionist establishment right.
I may be wrong to pump out 6 paragraphs to cry about an essay from an author I'm not near familiar enough to pattern match. But I recognize what appear to be thousands of hobbitses learning to pattern-match aesthetics to truth or authenticity. Which creates problems that Pavini, after I've criticized for being Not Entertaining Enough, also recognizes?
What do you mean when you refer to hobbitses?
Trump might be better than other likely alternatives on the right, which could have tangible power and the online right might had some influence and so Pavini's claims might had been too strong. So the associations with aesthetics in this case might have some more validity than the usual politician that right wingers align with. Trump still would be more loyal to a base that have expectations on him, rather than merely blindly following.
Or under Trump they give some small victories but the warnings about Trump and tech oligarchs are true and they continue the path of the surveillance state through private public partnership of the state, intelligence services and private collaborating organizations like Palantir, and the big silicon valley corporations.
I am not surprised at all that you would go there but I was talking far more about AFD and the anti national ideology. I even was explicit about the failure of German establishment to oppose only extreme nationalism. And in response you act if Germany only keeps down neonazis and you define Germany as a post national state. So you are doing what the German establishment in doing. Which is to create a cloud about 80 years old obsessions of nazism against modern nations.
One can't be an enemy of patriotism for opposing a regime that is hostile to his nation.
Nationalism to a sizable pooint is good and in its absence foreigners and people whose behavior fits under the definition of treason end up mistreating an ethnic group, take over its resources and positions, and end up imposing upon it until they become a hated minority or go extinct.
Too extreme nationalism and you become the group oppressing all your neighbors. Not enough nationalism and you end up with a failed anti national state that oppresses your group and always aligns with foreign extreme nationalists while it brings forth your nation's subjugation and destruction. However in reality this idea of extreme nationalist threat from european countries is wildly overblown in use by those who have an agenda against these nations.
There is a relatively correct amount of nationalism and we can in fact have politics dominated by moderate nationalists who lead things to a better end than the alternative.
You can't just ask if someone imagines himself a great general or is a cuck with a whore wife and then say just joking. You might find it funny if you dislike the target, but you are only showing a lack of impartiality.
WhiningCoil was being antagonistic and I assumed I offended him when I suspecting Hlynka was the OP and I replied with relative restraint all things considered. Or offended him by arguing against the people I argue, and by my type of argument. Hence "Great General". Saying that it is stupid and insulting to ask if someone imagines himself a great general or a massive cuck is not a particularly antagonistic response to an actually antagonistic post.
Knowing you, and your own sense of humor, I know that you would have responded harsher manner and likely at least threatened a mod action if you have been the target of this kind of "joke", adapted to your circumstances.
If someone wants to be funny about historical figures in a manner that is insulting he can easily do so without making it personal about the user but instead make it about the figure.
More options
Context Copy link