This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think we’re in complete agreement. Fascism as it is usually understood is in the “social conservatism, big government” quadrant, but it isn’t the only thing in that quadrant. However, it seems to me that @Capital_Room is pulling a dirty trick. He’s claiming that fascism is just a neutral descriptor (“any socially-conservative right-wing that isn't this way (particularly when its supporters are mostly white and/or Christian) is definitionally fascist”), but then he also says things like,
And
And
Which rather gives the game away. “Fascism is just the neutral umbrella term we use for political ideologies in that quadrant.” Okay, fine. “Which means that obviously you can’t support it.” Wait, why not? “Because it’s fascism!”
As I said earlier, the same definitional trick has been played many times before with communism, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. What puzzles me is who Capital_Room thinks he’s going to convince with that trick here. Is there anyone on this site who doesn’t immediately realize what he’s trying to do? His goals are especially obvious when he says things like,
In short, it’s just a rhetorical trick to prevent his ideological opponents from supporting social conservatism. The only acceptable conservatism in a modern Western country is one that doesn’t actually conserve anything, just drifts leftward more slowly. Of course, voters are finally wising up to this and voting MAGA, AfD, FPÖ, etc.,
This is where you misunderstand me, because you seem to have mistaken me for a leftist, rather than a far-right extremist who thinks the American Revolution was a mistake.
It's not me, but our elites who say you can't support it. And you won't be allowed to until they're removed.
Again, you have me placed wrong.
Again, this is the position promulgated and, more importantly, enforced by our elites, and which has been absorbed by too many on the right in our country. We on the right need to stop conforming to what's "acceptable" in favor of unacceptable right-wing positions.
Which shows an improvement in attitude… but not strategy. As the saying goes, if voting could change anything, it would be illegal. That's why Trump Derangement Syndrome — as far as the people who rule us are concerned, MAGA must be crushed, no matter what it takes. AfD is going to end up being banned in the name of "defensive democracy" and "never again."
The problem is that the people who rule us are not going to allow us on the right to do anything that might actually work, not so long as they're alive. Our first priority should be figuring out how we're going to deal with them.
Have you considered that a genuine counterrevolution is not an opposing revolution, but the opposite of a revolution? Social conservatism is a bottom-up phenomenon which grows by community functioning and institution building. I understand you're an atheist and thus not welcome in most social conservative communities, but prejudice is lindy.
A social conservative politics which wants to actually work can't just enforce socially conservative norms, although of course arresting gay pride marchers for public indecency is a good thing, or the generational rot will prevent any changes from sticking around. It didn't work in Spain, it's not working in Iran, and it won't work in the USA. Instead a reactionary government needs to prune society so that organic socially conservative community building fills the vacuum in society.
Yes, but this requires certain favorable conditions. Like a sane, functional official religion (every society has an official religion, even if it's unofficially official, like the insane one we have now).
In fact, I think Jim Donald sums up the basic conditions pretty well: "throne, altar, and freehold."
Given the decayed state things are in, that's gotta be a lot of pruning. And certainly a lot of pushing back against globalism and immigration despite their benefits for "line go up" economic metrics. Plus, most of the churches aren't exactly maintaining their congregations all that well. AIUI, the Mormons are barely holding steady because, despite being one of the few with significantly above-replacement birth rates, said excess is only just countering their losses from people leaving. And these don't just come down to things the government is doing, such that merely clearing government away will fix the problem.
And how do you propose to pull off all the pruning? It seems to me to be the sort of thing you need an Augustus for.
(And now I'm reminded of some fellows of my acquaintance who, despite denouncing democracy as "fake and gay," and wanting a government headed by a single man with supreme executive authority who serves for life, insist that this cannot be compared to "monarchism" in any way, because their support for such a leader derives purely from the Führerprinzip, and "Moldbug is a Jew." When pushed on just what exactly the difference is, when you set aside "CEO-king appointed by shadowy cabal of cryptographically-anonymous "shareholders" who direct him to maximize the gold he extracts from the masses to line their pockets" scenarios, between their desired "Führer" and historical monarchies, particularly the non-hereditary ones… and the answer is basically "it'll be more explicitly racist." Bringing up the contrast between Rex Anglorum and Rex Anglie just resulted in more antisemitic ranting about Curtis Yarvin.)
This is defeatist talk. If you want socially conservative institutions and communities, go and join them. They exist in the present day and the government doesn’t harass them enough to get rid of them. Go back to church, join a community org(lions club is always recruiting), and expect to tough it out for a few generations. Even a high immigration scenario has the US population peaking later this century; make social conservatives the ones to whom the future belongs because we show up.
Yet. But they will.
Back?
See here.
Cite? Because I expect wherever you got this from, they've based it entirely on the expected decline in Hispanic immigration, without taking into account Sailer's most important graph in the world, and the likely massive growth of immigration from sub-Saharan Africa to more than replace the decline from Latin America.
How? Particularly without either seizing power, or ending up getting crushed?
Far more conformist-to-the-point-of-totalitarian governments in northern Europe have failed to prevent demographic growth among the native fundamentalists. The level of state disfavor directed against the Dutch Calvinists or French Tradcaths is likely the maximum that western governments are capable of and it does not work in much more conformist, poorer societies.
As to churches and community orgs- I understand that your personal situation is very sucky. Without knowing the details particularly well, I can grasp that you are unable to do a few things which the median American wishing to further the cause of the counterrevolution finds very doable. But, it seems that you can find a based church(you can surely do with the community), can seek out and participate in socially conservative activism and offline behavior. Yes, I know you are an atheist, and if you can't change that there isn't a place for you in any social conservative movement that is likely to exist. C'est la vie.
https://usafacts.org/articles/what-will-americas-population-look-like-by-2100/
African TFRs have declined faster than expected and you cannot walk from sub-saharan Africa to the southern US border. I suspect that African immigration will not be a major contributor to future US population growth.
By growing until we have the numbers to control the place. I know that you do not consider yourself capable of it, but the median socially conservative motteizean should join based and trad communities, marry, have children, lots of them, and raise them to stay based and trad and be successful, resilient adults. People join communities with a secret sauce for strong horse weak horse reasons. Build communities- it's work, but it's doable, rewarding work.
Definitely not within walking distance (I don't drive, and the buses are very limited Sunday mornings). Thanks to the racist Samoan church and the Mexican cult church closing down, the nearest are the black Baptist church whose webpage advertises talks from local Democrat politicians, or the Lutheran church with the woman pastor whose LinkedIn page had plenty of "rainbow flag" lefty signaling. I don't know that there's much "community" around the tiny temple of Thai Buddhist monks.
And from talking to a couple of friends, probably not within the city — my Catholic friend, for one, has many a complaint about his local parish. From what I heard, the Anchorage Baptist Temple — whatever it's been since renamed to — went pretty woke after Jerry Prevo retired.
Maybe one of the Orthodox churches just outside of town (i.e. 6 miles away for one, over 9 miles away for the other), if I can somehow find a way to get there.
More options
Context Copy link
Doesn't matter; lefty "humanitarian concerns" and need for more votes will have them shipping them over en masse.
Because they didn't have the tools and technology modern states do.
Naïvely over-optimistic. For example, it's been a staple of 20th century sci-fi that eventually the government is going to regulate and license parenthood to prevent "overpopulation." Most of my classmates in college back in the early 2000s thought it was necessary — both to "save the environment" and to prevent "the wrong sort" from having kids (some defined "wrong sort" in terms of genetics, others in term of likely bad "nurture", but both agreed the target would be flyover Republicans). Just a couple days ago on Reddit, in a discussion on SpaceX, space exploration, and why the latter is becoming "right wing" coded, several people proposed that "space" is right-wing because going into space is totally unnecessary, and Earth will be more than enough, if only we can get reproduction and population growth under control — and therefore "parental licensing" is both necessary and inevitable. The only problem they could see with it was the need to figure out how to keep "the wrong people… (right wing conservatives)," from taking it over and using it to promote "racism, inequality, sexism, ableism and the like" (as opposed to using it against their enemies).
How would your conservative communities handle being systematically denied parenthood licenses?
Or how about trying to "hide your power-level" when FMRI scans get good enough at reading brain activity — and the software good enough at interpreting it — that the government can actually detect "thoughtcrimes" when they question you "under scan"?
Again, you're naïve if you think that will be allowed. Even with the fertility advantage, it's mostly being offset by lousy youth retention rates among most groups. Why will that change for the better, rather than the worse. The current trend is still toward becoming a smaller and smaller minority. Sure, the projections have that turning around in the longer run… but before it does, we'll be at our smallest and weakest? Why wouldn't that — when things start to turn around and the fraction starts growing again — be the time for them to really crack down and crush us?
I get that you can't picture a future moment where the last social conservative alive is on his or her knees next to a ditch with a gun to their head, but I can. (I imagine your objection ultimately comes down to your belief that God won't allow such an outcome.)
On a scale of things to be prepared for from 'not going to the beach in case a dog swimming with a gun in its mouth accidentally shoots you' to 'keeping jumper cables in your car' this is very firmly on the not having kids so they don't die in school shooting end of the spectrum.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link