Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
He graduated college.
I feel a bit of Catholic guilt engaging in this kind of ad-hominem and psychoanalysis, but then again I'm a cuck/faggot/race traitor/jew-lover so whatever.
I might have some timing/details wrong, I'm not as long-tenured as some around here and I haven't read every word Kulak ever wrote. But when he started writing he wrote as though he were either still in college or a very recent grad. He talked regularly about classes he'd taken and his degree and education. Most of the changes in his writing are pretty easily explained when you figure he's gone from a university kid taking English classes and being a touch edgy around campus, to a recent grad on an ill-fated motorcycle trip, to a hot-take artist trying to hustle a living on the internet.
When he was in college, radical libertarianism made sense. Libertarianism is often a rhetorical shelter for rightists in universities and other leftist spaces, though it's increasingly been discredited for that purpose by Mises-Caucus types. It has the advantage of being philosophically consistent, and thus easy to defend, and of offering easy "outs" from getting into the tough identity convos that are difficult to navigate politely with other right wing intellectual sets.
There's also the Libertine aspects of Libertarianism, which is very convenient for a college student. Being a Christian Nationalist requires certain sacrifices in the "sluts, drugs, and beer" departments during uni, which Libertarianism doesn't ask of you. Kulak's older stuff was leavened by this kind of fun, which has been largely absent from his more extreme recent works, though it's hard to see how it would fit in anyway.
Then he graduates, goes on a big motorcycle walkabout like his idol Clayton Atreus, and just like his idol Clayton gets into an accident which he stated crippled him pretty significantly though presumably not to the point where suicide was required by honor. Since then, he's stated that he lives off of his substack subscribers, and possibly other online monetization, and to my recollection has not mentioned any other remunerative labor as part of his life.
You've gone from reading naughty thoughts from an erudite college kid, to reading the thoughts of a somewhat crippled professional hot-take artist dependent upon the goodwill of the kind of people who pay to read the latest in esoteric hitlerism and think it's fun to put "dark" or "warlord" in front of assorted things.
What are "Mises-Caucus types"?
I'm using the term broadly (types) rather than specifically (the actual org) to refer to Right-Libertarians who are more right wing than they are libertarian.
The historical dynamic circa Obama era college campuses (when Dennis was a punchline) was for right wingers to claim to be fiscally conservative (sane) but socially liberal (live and let live) in order to avoid being treated poorly by left wingers of the time. Libertarianism offers an intellectual framework to argue against the Civil Rights Act without having to argue against black people, and argue against legal protections for homosexuals without arguing against homosexuality.
Over time that cover has worn thin, as it has been overused by people who WANT to argue against black people and homosexuality, and are willing to sacrifice a lot of legacy libertarian intellectual priorities (anti police, anti death penalty, anti government regulations of private sexual or pharmaceutical life) to do so.
The mises caucus itself has largely been a small and weird group concerned with trying to hijack the libertarian party and tie it as a junior branch of MAGA, in hopes of getting some libertarian priorities passed by Team Trump. This may be a shrewd move as sausage making weather vane politics, and reflects a broader feeling that the greater threat to personal liberty is no longer PATRIOT Act Republicans but woke Democrats.
But the point of the reference is basically that as the people using Libertarian as code for"not left" have increasingly used it as code for "right wing," the rhetorical gambit for young men has lost its value as cover.
For a comparison: American Catholics who gesture vaguely at Liberation Theology as a defense when leftists attack the Church.
More options
Context Copy link
They are the "pragmatists" who caused the Libertarian Party to effectively endorse Trump rather than supporting its own candidate, Oliver.
Article
To be honest, I consider myself a libertarian, but never had any desire to support any of the LP candidates. Oliver personally checks too many woke boxes for me (no, it's not about him being gay, that part doesn't bother me at all). And in practical terms, between woke takeover and compromising on some libertarian principles to stop the woke takeover, I think it is prudent to choose the latter. When the choice is between Hamas-supporting racist trantifa totalitarian marxists and somewhat-bigger-government conservatives, I think a practical thing for a libertarian would be to vote for the lesser evil. If the woke threat ever goes away, we can go back to the discussion about making somewhat-bigger-government into smaller-government, but I personally think positioning it as "both are equally impure and there's no difference" to me is childish and silly.
Imagine if you will the early Christians, hiding in the catacombs. Leaders are debating amongst themselves about missionary plans for the future. One stands up and says "You know, the sun-worshippers have a lot in common with us, and on a few issues they really aren't that bad, maybe we should join up with them instead of calling them demons. At least we'd get a few wins in the books!"
Perhaps they would have been right about the sun worshippers being preferable to the other pagans. Perhaps such a combination might even have achieved some noteworthy goals in the second century. But it is overwhelmingly likely that such a move by Rome's Christians would have precluded the future Constantine, and the empire would never have been converted to Christianity.
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