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 -
Academic agent calls out the "Online Right" as almost all astroturfed and worthless.
The piece critiques the degradation of the online right, drawing parallels with the decline of chivalric feudalism. He says the online right has been overtaken by moneyed interests and political agendas and has been transformed into a fragmented and noise-filled spectacle. Interestingly he says this shift mirrors the way capitalism absorbed and neutered the left. According to him, the "regime" itself and the influence of financial backers who dilute truth in favor of sectional interests are to blame. He references Jonathan Haidt’s observation about the academy: institutions cannot serve both Truth and political activism. The Online Right is now compromised by financial backing and institutional control. The few independent voices left are isolated and marginalized, offering little hope of meaningful change.
He talks about John Artcot's "Factions of the Rightosphere" and says most of the voices there are working to neutralize genuine dissent, which is ironic given that Academic Agent has been accused of the same thing.
He concludes that it's all hopeless because the "stupid hobbitses" [phrase coined by Curtis Yarvin] are largely unaware that their political heroes may be paid shills. For most, political discourse has become a form of entertainment, akin to watching a soap opera. The actual ideological substance is irrelevant as long as they are entertained and fed a constant stream of content, no matter how shallow or false.
The post doesn't, like, say anything? I went in expecting to see some argument that some nameable factions, groups, or at least twitter usernames hold some incorrect views, in ways related to nameable outside influences. Instead he just say that the current right are mouthpieces, and have been neutered, by interests. It's all fake. All a psyop to suppress the real right wing. Whatever that is. He links a few substacks, none of which appear to address this.
It's the kind of thing anyone can agree with. All the other guys are captured, and that's why they disagree with me. And in exactly the same sense it's uninformative and useless. Even if this was true, you couldn't do anything with it, without naming what tendencies are bad and who's funding who. 375 likes is a lot for substack though!
Also, if you're gonna ban evade, can you at least make more interesting posts?
More options
Context Copy link
Put it on top of the Dissident Upset: Not Enough People Radicalized pile, Bob.
More seriously, the tone of this sounds like things have gone down hill. The one chance to tear down the machine is slipping through our fingers. My question for people familiar with his work: can someone can share a piece of his that is optimistic? Not generally optimistic. I mean a forward-looking optimism within the constraints of his beliefs that explains his reasons for being so.
If the listed impediments are previously predicted realities, that sucks. This appears to be a massive period for transition for what defines the American right. To tap out of it is to surrender. I wouldn't say that the average X DR user will have fair representation of their beliefs in society or its political systems anytime soon. Probably not, but, I don't know, seems like a time where Curtis Yarvin gets an NYT interview indicates a period where influence matters. A time where influence matters the most. If that demands pessimism, then raise a white flag and surrender. You may receive better terms than resisting.
That's what politics is for most people interested in politics. A soap opera. The modal antifa protestor is more interested in playing the role of revolutionary than becoming a revolutionary. Which is why they'll show up to riot, yet don't bomb too many government buildings or carry out reprisals against civilians.
Yes. You should plan your politics accordingly, aim to change minds via other avenues, or compete in the mainstream.
Power structures don't want 30 million sheeples awoken from a slumber to become politically engaged radicals. Not yours, not anyone. The SA gets defanged and sidelined for perfectly suitable reasons. Power creates a unique position to disappoint those most loyal to it.
There's an argument that the left's resurgence via progressive identity politics was Stalin's last necktie. By 2010 the left's corpse was begging to be cut open and adorned by progressives. Its credibility used in a seamless transformation. That it was made to wear skirts was silly.
It's easy to be cynical about it now, but in a past life the Tea Party was also once considered a threat to the existing power structures of American conservatives. Not as acute a threat. The disparity between it and the contemporary status quo was not nearly as wide, but co-opted and eaten all the same. The system will eat and accommodate all it can manage. That which can't be accommodated will be iced out. The DR has plenty of ideas that can't be accommodated with pluralistic realities.
An aside, anecdotally it seems like "conservative" is falling off. "The right" seems to be more popular these days.
A prominent user here once took a lot of heat for some such event. I don't remember what spurred this response, but I do remember the invective deployed against him. Paraphrased it went something like: "Your writing is nothing but gay navel gazing."
I could accept I'm in some kind of mood, too dumb, or too different to appreciate it, but that's a bit how I feel about this. Gay navel gazing dissent. If all dissident does is complain about how fake and gay the country, its people, and its systems are-- fine. But, then why should I read its essays? Can't I just have read Moldbug, some of his derivatives infrequently, absorb the gist, and call it a day? Why not?
I would say that you are too hostile to appreciate it and too entitled to people like AA appealing to you. Of course there is room for more dissident right wing writers with valuable things to say than just Moldbug. That statement tells me you simply don't like the dissident right and want it to go away. It is just not for you and it changing sufficiently will end up changing its character in a self destructive manner..
What is my solution to you not appreciating writers like Pavini? There isn't one, not everything has to appeal to everyone. You are welcome not to read him, but I don't think you have been engaging charitably with the merits.
You could make more of an effort to engage with him on his merits by putting yourself in the shoes of actual right wingers who want right wing objectives. Pavini is making actually a valid point. The mainstream right and its cheerleaders have consistently overpromised and not only under delivered but at times delivered in line with left wing objectives. Same with zionists who the republicans have always pandered towards.
AA has also made a video about reasons to be cautiously optimistic about Trump that speaks more positively about some of Trump admin's moves. Both the skepticism and appreciation of some initial steps forward are warranted.
He tries without 100% success to push for analysis from a realist perspective and also to do so while being right wing.
At the end of the day, your reaction illustrates that a certain shared moral priors and friendliness is necessary to explore issue on their merits. Else you get nowhere since you are side tracked by those who are against you even trying to oppose the establishment. I actually have seen more discussion on the merits of such issues by right wingers who are more willing to disagree with each other to an extend rather than having a completely intolerant approach.
I find the right to be a more intellectual space where issues are explored more while liberals are more about promoting conformism and trying to dismiss issues from a politically correct standpoint. So personally, on some level I engage with some dissident right wingers because I find them more intellectually stimulating and entertaining than liberals which I find much less intellectual and more interested in winning by sidelining important issues. Therefore more boring.
I must admit that unfortunately these tactics have had some success. But if one is interested in the question of how power is organized you can study liberals who are more successfully machiavellian, but you can not listen to them because a greater share of their rhetoric is about obscuring what is useful to them politically to obscure for the purposes of getting their way. Which is why it is boring since someone who wants to obscure an issue and get others to shut up about it, will not say what is interesting and true.
If it is who I think he is, Julius Bronson, now Joseph Bronski, he has got some small online success through creating a right wing substack and appealing to right wing voices. He has also not been engaging with as much defensive rhetoric which is easier to do when you don't have to deal with liberals attacking you which is done in part because they are liberals who dislike authentic right wingers. Like Kulak, leaving the motte lead to greater success and a more pleasant response. Sure, there can be elements of behavior of right wingers that are bad, more so for some people, but also liberals love to create constantly discussions about the horrible psychology of the enemy they hate that somehow such issues become much less prominent without the liberals around. There we see discussions that are more about the issues.
Of course there can be blind spots between communities that share certain ideological priors and are more friendly with each other but I do think there is something to a liberal hostility to the realist school of thought that the right is friendlier with and can more easily combine with being right wing. Not always, there is the cheerleading not realistic version to the right too. While the liberal tribe ironically exercises more so the kind of behavior of machiavelianism analyzred by realists than the right, but also to an extend have bought their own propaganda. Therefore, despite any possible ideological blindspots on the right, I don't see liberals succeed in focusing on any just mistakes, but rather are more uncharitable and motivated by a more total intolerance. And there is the great interest to find an excuse to dismiss issues by negatively describing their right wing oppositions. Which makes it hard to explore such issues at all.
This leads also to platforms dominated by the left and liberals to have a mentality that leads to more struggle sessions with each other.
Add to the more pleasant experience for right wingers when trying to engage with right wingers, and I think the end point of the extreme critique of different variants of rhetoric like "nothing but gay navel gazing", is for liberals to be deliberately excluded by right wingers who seek communities with other people on the right.
At the right (excluding those figures who aren't right wing at all), there is some ideological diversity and some hostitilities among factions as well but I find the typical liberal perspective on the right to be of a more fanatically intolerant. Akin to a religion zealot against apostates or enemy religious tribes. I guess a rare atypical liberal like Michael Tracy who doesn't really fit with mainstream liberals, can provide value on blindspots and is one of the people I like to read at times.
This sentiment of wanting to explore unpopular truths but genuinely do so, not just pretend to, is fundamental to any writer of value. And so even outside the right there are people who do so but even they step on some pieties and dogmas of mainstream liberalism. Keeping with the theme that there are shills even among the right, so beyond just right versus non right, I do think there is a value in some authentic truth tellers who share an appreciation for the act of trying to ascertain the unpopular truth. Including when criticising Trump or right wing totems. Especially when trying to explore genuine corrupt behavior by the powerful. So this can to an extend cross some ideological boundaries. Whitney Webb isn't really a strict right winger but I prefer to read her over many more openly claiming right wingers. The intercept's Lee Fang is someone else who I enjoy reading at times. Worthy writers are interested in revealing how things really are, rather than trying to cover things up and obscure reality. So even beyond the right, there is some discussion among people that cross ideological boundaries, but I guess there is still a common element. Which is people willing to criticize the regime on its various problems and corruptions.
Thanks. He linked to some other videos in the above piece as well. I prefer my dose in wordcel form, but maybe will view some one day.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
I disagree that liberals are constitutionally incapable of grokking the vibes or are exceptional in how they engage with other beliefs. I agree honest dissent is necessary and good. I agree I am more likely to disregard dissent I don't like. I judge this minority viewpoint to expend too much gas spinning its tires in the mud. The pomo intersectional people might call this a privileged assessment given its place in the pyramid.
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.
After being hostile to him, are you using AA for your attack on the dissident right?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
My critique is not meant to be total. We would need to accept that the value of the DR is limited to irascibility. I don't think this is true. My question was, in the context of this post being shared, is why should I read this type of post?
You mention Zionists twice, but they're not mentioned in the linked piece at all. When I read it, I assumed interests of Jews to be a part of, but not the totality, his model for the "system [that] has successfully neutered and tamed what was once something that alarmed them." Maybe that's obvious missing context due to not being a reader. If he considers Zionist synonymous for the elite, the Cathedral, and all else that oppresses him that's good to know.
I don't feel very hostile, but if I were then what's the problem using his impression of the ecosystem he is apart of? It is common to use or express hostility under the cover of truth telling-- truthful or not. This very piece could be described as hostile. I repeated throughout I am not that familiar and used him as a proxy. I don't think I'm asking dissidents to stop dissenting or to give up their beliefs. Although I don't agree with many of them. I am attacking a category of writing that prioritizes style over substance in an Angry Screed. Dissidents have a penchant for it though not a monopoly. Dissidents write plenty of interesting stuff.
Hostility is a good word to attach to my intolerance. Hostility has been overused and lost its affect. Hostility is normal. We should expect hostility to come naturally to the disaffected dissident. It can used in be a true reflection, a contrived narrative, or a rote, slop-producing process. Who is to say which is which? De gustibus.
Overly nice, pleasant dissident. There's an unfilled niche.
We may differ on what 'friendly intentions' means and to what degree people engage honestly. In support of your case, I think something like the recent NYT interview with Yarvin is an example. Lomez over Nathan Robinson, and so on. I don't think the DR, in its popular form represented by frogmen and anime gurus, is without sin when it comes to intellectual honesty.
I have severe suspicion of the suggestion that one can more honestly engage with ideas by bowing out of spaces with resistance. More easily and more lucrative, yes. Better to find comfort of like-minded individuals and build on your beliefs without those silly distractions? This sounds preposterous to me with a reference to The Motte. Sharing a space with like-minded people can be easier for development of consensus, making friends, and leisure. It can easily be worse for honestly engaging with ideas, especially those you don't share. I highly recommend everyone adopts some form of this suspicion lest they be misled.
Practically speaking if one wants to get paid to write they need to limit how much and where they write for free. I hope everyone on the right does not need to leave The Motte to engage honestly with their ideas or build upon them.
My understanding of this analogy: elves are elites of the regime, and hobbits are used as a general stand-in for people, proles, non-sentient useful idiots, populist agents of change, or useless hedonists. Whatever else you need people to be in a sentence. I remembered Dark elves as some counter-elite. The analogy can describe a populist surge, or it can describe middling, politically engaged plebs that need to get out of the way so the Real Men can do work.
I like it. De gustibus.
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
I feel like it's the opposite. The "online right" has become so big that it's not just one movement anymore. There's lots of people with lots of different views, who don't agree on much except that the left is bad.
Given this is AA we're talking about, that's the same thing to him. Disorganized masses lose to organized minority, and that means the elite can just move around the online right by offering them not-the-left with them still on top.
I think and the op need to define what you mean by the "online right" then because if we are not talking about the set of right-wingers who are online, who are we talking about?
Much of the disagreement in this thread is indeed down to who that actually means. AA clearly restricts the set to radicals and would probably place the leftward limit to some natlibs/paleolibertarians (say anybody to the right of his buddy Carl Benjamin). Others would go as far as to include people like Joe Rogan.
If you are correct and his model of "the right" really is restricted solely to hard-core radicals and left-leaning libertarians, how much of the Right is there left to model?
If you contort your definitions hard enough you can make any statement true, but doing so is not the path to insight.
Is that contorted? It's only in countries that artificially create big tent parties like the United States that this isn't an identifiable ideological tradition. And remember, AA is a Brit.
I think "anything right of natlibs" is a more ideologically coherent definition of the right wing than "people who vote for the GOP".
I would argue that any definition of "right wing" that excludes the vast majority of current and historically acknowledged right wing thinkers and movements but somehow manages to include neo-Leninists is thoroughly "contorted".
I guess the original definition is contorted then.
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
It's impossible to understand where Parvini is coming from if you don't know his meta political position.
The swaths of successes of the right right now and the enthusiasm we see isn't a victory in his eyes because it's just a trick by the elite to pivot the system back to more liberal leanings with Trump.
Parvini is a true radical who wants the system and the established elite gone, so he's long bet that Trump's return would herald "the woke being put away" and "back to fresh prince".
This article is him complaining that this process he was railing against is proceeding as he had foreseen and the whole of the right is stupidly falling for it.
People are still basking in the glow of symbolic wins so him taking the position that nothing ever happens and demanding people stop falling for every piece of meat thrown at them by Musk is controversial.
I think it's too early to tell if any of this is right. Trump will run into the wall of the deep state at some point and we'll see if he can maneuver better than he did last time. But he may be more successful than sad elitist doomer AA give him credit for.
In any case the criticism of stupidly falling for whatever is popular instead of building strategic discipline is I think legitimate. And always unpopular with radical youths who care more about excitement than victory.
Cthulhu has been swimming left, to borrow the Nrx term, for centuries, probably since the renaissance. Why a prosperous modern America where most people live better lives than almost all other humans to have ever lived would suddenly be THE civilization to reverse that is unclear.
If Trump and his advisers (Miller, Rufo etc) succeed beyond their wildest dreams we’re going back to like 1990s colorblindness with some 2010s woke characteristics (e.g. hard to see gay rights reversal when Bessent is married to a man etc). Probably not even that.
A fertility crisis would be a black swan event that could cause a reversal. The bubonic plague had a pretty big impact on labor value and social order, and that was only a 30% population reduction.
Uh, only among orientals(and not all of them) does 30% population reduction on a noticeable timeframe look likely at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
On the other hand, the fall of the Soviet Union.
IMHO Cthulhu swimming left is an oversimplification, especially given the general vagueness of the term "left". But accepting the premise, I'd say that the end of the Soviet Union doesn't necessarily contradict the overall trend so much as it highlights how utterly dysfunctional that particular implementation of leftism was. Functioning Socialism has never been tried!
In my view, Cthulhu swims towards concentrating and increasing power. Where leftism helps that goal, leftism it is. Where leftism sabotages itself so badly that it no longer helps the growth of concentrated power, Cthulhu sidesteps.
It's going to be circular reasoning from here on out, but what other kind is there. The transition from feudalism and monarchism to liberal, democratic capitalism was not because Cthulhu actually hates concentrating power, but because feudal societies were less efficient at generating power overall. This temporary liberalisation and individualization unleashed a great deal of economic and technological power, and Cthulhu is slowly working towards getting all that under control. Relent for a few centuries so that you can reap a greater bounty once the technology including social technology is far enough along to put all that power under the control of a more centralized will, again.
And the soviet union, like the dictatorships of the mid-20th century, was just plain bad tech. It was bad social technology. It didn't work well enough at generating power, even if it was better than its competitors and centralizing and controlling it, at face value. Cthulhu found out that reining in the individual via deracination, atomization and technological uniformization while maintaining just enough individualist liberty to keep up appearances allows him to extract far more power from them than from an overt collectivization.
I think this is close, but what Cthulhu wants is power without accountability. The biggest problem with feudalism was that the ruled classes knew who had power and if that power didn’t produce a good life for them, it was simply a matter of removing those bad rulers and putting someone better in charge. With modern administrations, the real power sits in agencies where the official government requires an agency to exist and follow procedures but the agency has the power to rule, the official government is there mostly as a whipping boy. You can rage against your elected representatives all you want, Cthulhu is happy enough to let you do so, because those guys are not Cthulhu. And that lack of accountability means longevity for Cthulhu, so long as the people don’t completely upend society or some outside force doesn’t overthrow it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
…represented an economic and political transition more than a root-and-branch cultural one of the type many DR X posters want.
On the other hand the Stan’s and Azerbaijan seem to have seen an actual cultural transition. Granted the DR does not want to live in Uzbekistan but, you know- Uzbekistan Azerbaijan and Galicia are examples of their ideological transformation.
Galicia?
Western Ukraine- the part that voted for svoboda, provides the lions share of Ukrainian nationalism, has a TFR of 2, and is currently banning its ethnic rivals in Ukraine(including both their language and religion).
Same brilliant gang of thinkers who thought they could succeed where Hitler and Napoleon failed and beat Russia on their home turf?
It's going very,very well for them.
More options
Context Copy link
Ohhh, I was very confused as to what was supposed to be happening to the northern Spanish province that limits with Portugal.
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
This is the crux of it. “The regime” acting sane and governing well (or at least incrementally better) is actually an L because governing well is better for the regime in the long run and helps maintain its stability. He would probably insist the regime wanted Caesar and Pompey was a jobber.
governing well seems to be a W for everyone who has to actually live under the regime and maybe the best we can hope for. i guess revolutionaries and accelerationists want to turn everything to shit so they can create their utopias but i feel like decent governance can inspire more decent governance.
Well it depends how much you trust the existing elite to do right by you. Parvini is in the "we must remove them by any means necessary" camp at this point, and I don't think it's as unreasonable as it sounds if you consider their ultimate ends to be evil.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I skimmed John Artcot's "Factions of the Rightosphere" and found it riddled with basic factual errors and ommissions large enough to drive an national election through. That this "Academic Agent" character believes it to be "exhaustive and well researched" immediately casts everything else that they (and by extension you) have said into doubt.
Is there a factions of the rightosphere article you find accurate? Because sometimes I get lost and end up wandering into a fight between Mexican Catholic integralists and their most hated enemy: Mexican-american born-again dominionists.
Hard to say, the bits about NRX, and HBD seem reasonably accurate as far as i can tell but several other cases of which i have direct knowledge include basic errors such as describing "y" as preceding "x" when the inverse is the case. The real killers however are the ommissions.
For example, the bit on "the manosphere" makes no mention of ROK, Bachelor Pad Economics, or MGTOW, (ie the most influential voices/platforms within that space) and instead just quotes Curtis Yarvin and some random feminists describing how the manosphere is not worth engaging with.
By the same token, any taxonomy of "the online right" that ommits arfcom/guntube, the Petersonian new-stoics, the Jocko-types, the Bundy-bros, the HEMA crowd, the trad cons, the crunchy libs/homesteaders, and the various Limbaugh and Brietbart succesors that comprise the pajama/moronosphere is ommitting something like 95% of online right-wing activity by volume.
In other words, if you eliminate all the sincere right wingers who are online from your definition of the "online right" its only natural that only grifters will remain.
You must've skipped the intro in order to have written this. He goes over why he doesn't include stuff like that in it. Heres the relevant section to most of what you say. TL;DR He thinks they're crypto liberals.
Even after reading the intro, the list remains niether "exhaustive" nor "well researched".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your list is really more red tribe and less RW.
That the OP's supposedly "exhaustive and well researched" list completely ignores most of the red and libertarian aligned internet is one of those "ommissions large enough to drive a national election through" i was talking about.
Voters are not ideological; barely sentient really.
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
I’m not sure if the premise is reasonable enough to even consider. The richest man in the world just spammed Twitter with stats about the Rotherham gangs, and weeks later threw a “Roman salute” at the inauguration. DEI is being dismantled. Major social media posts that mention Israel are inundated with Israel-critical commentary. January 6th protesters were unilaterally pardoned. Deportations are occurring. Fertility concerns are mainstream. How can I take —
seriously as a premise? They’ve never been less degraded. “Moneyed interests” have been phenomenal for the “online right”. And it’s never been easier to get your thoughts disseminated, you can just post on substack and gain a following. Factions are also just how reality works, nothing wierd about that.
My own fear regarding the right is that the Zoomers are not sufficiently radicalized. They are the brainzlop generation raised on even more addicting media and games, having rap shoved down their throat like never before. They are true nihilists, not going down rabbit holes online. They haven’t received the
sacred textsthe infographics and documentaries. But I really have no idea if this intuition is correct, because I’m not in their social ecosystems, which afaik are fractured discord spaces rather than an image board or something. Maybe they’re doing fine actually.The zoomers in the US are less than half white. Israel posts on social media have been responded to with hardcore anti-Israel replies for 20+ years, the only thing that slightly varies is who is criticizing who. Musk’s salute was a weird autistic thing and Bibi came out swinging by saying he’s a huge friend of Israel, as did the ADL. There’s no plan to deport more than a few hundred thousand illegal criminals and do more border pushback, NOBODY has a serious plan to build the infrastructure to deport 13+ million illegal migrants including those in the US for 10/20/30/40 years. The Rotherham posting did nothing because Labour has a large, unassailable majority in the British parliament until 2029. Fertility concerns are mainstream in every developed countries from Norway to Korea to Canada, but given that even highly aggressive plans like Hungary’s have been only very very modestly successful and they’re still well below replacement it seems unlikely anything’s going to happen in the US soon (especially because any viable plan will likely be very costly). So again, dr x types don’t seem to be winning much yet.
It would also benefit icky people.
More options
Context Copy link
Your points mostly boil down to, “things aren’t good because things aren’t absolutely perfect”, but for a variety of important reasons this is not the correct mindset to have. Things are 10x, 100x better for the “online right”. They are in the ear of Musk and the President, they aren’t cancelled online, their points are regurgitated to the masses on Twitter and Tucker and podcasts. The trajectory is all anyone should care about, and not just in politics but as a general principle. If we are playing a skill-based longterm resource acquisition game, and I just took the controller from my retarded younger brother, I don’t particularly care if my opponent has obtained 70% of the resources, because in just a few turns I’ve acquired 25% more than before, and this is iterative and compounds. The “online right” is gaining permanent resource acquisitions, from which they can generate and regenerate more units, after being frozen and isolated in their Valley Forge moment. New Overton Windows are broken daily.
Now, if you are rightwing and want the acquisition to continue, you need “morale”, a concept studied to death in business and sports and war and child prodigies. What maximizes right wing morale? Obviously not what you posted or the weird OP post. Morale is maximized when reasonably high expectations of individual output are maximally reinforced, when the variety of evolutionary output modifiers are aligned to a collective interest. Essentially, is every milestone to the correct desired result fully celebrated and appreciated? This requires recognizing improvements. Just like if you’re trying to raise a child prodigy, you celebrate his performance of twinkle twinkle just as hard as you celebrate his double thirds etude at 16. So, yes, deporting more illegals is just as important to celebrate as deporting all of them. This is how morale works. (And actually this is still an issue with the Right, I don’t think they’ve grasped that they can utilize morale at a population level to further accomplish cultural goals).
Now to nitpick,
What I’ve seen is that they have never been criticized as much as today, outside of astroturf factories like front page Reddit. Tucker having Sachs on to talk about Israel controlling our foreign policy is also highly significant as a development.
This posting was for us, not them. You’re not going to persuade me that hundreds of millions of Americans reading about the mass rape of British by Pakistani Muslims isn’t significant lol
Genuinely I feel that this is a solved problem. We know it has to do with how we raise girls and how we mete out status. This can be overcorrected in a generation, and if the Right is smart, they will correct it only amongst themselves.
Uh, do you think the U.S. as a whole is going to start raising its daughters to marry young to someone minimally acceptable and start churning out babies with career and education as an afterthought? Nevermind that we lack the social technology to actually do this.
Yes, just like the Hasids. It’s comically feasible, and you’ve hit the nail on the head that
and this is exactly what must be developed, and this isn’t even difficult in theory, just will take a while to implement at a population-wide level.
Americans can start raising their daughters to believe that formal education is a timesink and getting married and having babies is their true vocation, with career as an afterthought. As in they literally have that option right now. There are people doing it. Just not very many of them.
So outline how the mass of people is going to change their minds?
Simple practical outline:
• Develop a collection of media which portrays motherhood as valuable, fun, morally good, compassionate, and interesting. Organized by ages, starting at media to replace CocoMelon, through books for teens, including artwork and songs.
• Write basic explanations on how our low fertility is related to childhood media and our low esteem for mothers. Disseminate.
• Collaborate with religious and independent schools to require this media as part of a reading plan for girls.
• Determine a way to incorporate social media into the families and groups which are on board with the plan, because this amplifies value internalization.
• Fund more of the aforementioned media (of all types).
No! Because it's not well-known that fertility is downstream from how girls are raised and how women are valued. And also, were this known to some inquisitive families, there's no simple process to implement that wisdom to ensure the relevant acculturation. Right now, you and I as adults cannot decide by will to have the cultural interests of a Spartan, right? We will never love warfare and raiding as much as a Spartan. And we can't suddenly decide to be National Masters in chess; what will take a child 8 years may take us 30. We can hardly will ourselves to develop an interest in chess as adults. The same applies when we are talking about rearing mothers. It needs to begin young and continue into adulthood.
I would be interested to see a social experiment where group A does as you suggest, and group B commits to pay men more in relation to women, gets the men to dress well, work out more at, gives them more slack in their jobs so that even the ambitious ones have time to socialize, organizes dances and parties with light drinking for mid twenties men with actual jobs, not just college students, give extremely low social status to men who abandon their children, and other things along those lines. Ban the apps!
I would bet a small amount on the latter being more effective.
It's coming from both sides. Women who spend their childhoods longing for children have about average success at it. Most women want to have children with their husband when they have one who's supportive of that, it's just taking an unreasonably long time.
An interesting three I saw: https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1hvotgr/should_i_have_children/
More options
Context Copy link
There are people right now raising their daughters to prefer marriage and motherhood over education and career. Do you deny this? I know some of them and the older daughters don’t seem in a hurry to leave for the world of student loans. As always, you can just do things.
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
Yeah I don’t think it’s significant because hostility toward Muslim immigration and dislike of Pakistan is likely extremely common amongst Americans who saw those tweets and has been since at least 2001. Speaking of related events we can look at the way that the ‘Muslim ban’ went in 2017, or indeed the fact that even that excluded Pakistan.
Or, as many have suggested, it’s some limited meat for the base (much of it, see the birthright citizenship thing, will be held up in the courts or stopped outright) before two years of business as usual, the likely losing of the house and then an excuse for two more years of nothing before someone else is elected.
A few years ago all they had to look forward to was being cancelled from the internet, debanked, and left to post on 4chan while eating beans out of a can bought with pennies from a sock.
Things are looking up.
This conversation
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t think you grasp the importance of martyr stories and in-group trauma. There’s a reason that Israel laser-focused on children killed, even going so far as to make up or exaggerate aspects of the event. Martyr stories propel morale. This is an important ingredient for advocacy groups. Disliking Pakistan != mass violent rape of thousands hidden by liberal authorities. Not even close to the same thing. I’m sure Israelis also had a negative view of Gazans before this. Jews have actually perfected the martyr motif, although I think Christians mastered it and then were blinded to its power.
This is a meaningless buzzword, I’ve never understood it. The base is the majority of voters whose will the President obeys? That’s just democracy. “Throws meat to the base” is the msnbc way to describe the entire nature of democracy. It’s a propaganda term of art, not a serious way to describe things. The CEO throws meat to the base of shareholder, yes, this is capitalism. The boyfriend throws meat to the girlfriend by getting her flowers on Valentine’s Day as expected in a reciprocal relationship. The boy throws meat to his familial base by complimenting his mother’s cooking. It’s all very silly. It’s just “doing the social role”, but described in a way to make your opponent’s actions dehumanizing, and it’s artfully manufactured — me, a stalwart proponent of fulfilling the will of the people, my opponent, an ugly butcher throwing a carcass of meat to the debased dogs.
Sure it’s possible things don’t improve, but the cultural conditions are already an improvement.
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
I've never heard of this guy. Does he at least bring receipts? Who is a paid shill?
Manhattan Institute, for example. He's very much against Israelis. Really admires Tony Blair. Calls him 'the Dark Lord' and says his political acumen and ability to exercise power is pretty much unparallelled in the modern west.
Anyway, he predicted that this faction of the US 'right', the 'techno-zionists' is likely to win over globalist technocrats(WEF etc) and third-world lunatics (Soros etc). He believes US under this new leadership will challenge China and build a new regime, the one he dubs 'the Rufo Reich'..
I don't think he's wrong much, this is the likeliest outcome although of course it's doubtful US can stand against Chinese and it all comes down to how implementations of AI change politics. I don't believe he pays much attention to AI even though it can change everything.
Sad.
Does he cite many examples of this allegedly unparalleled ability and political acumen?
Look at his career. Look at budget or influence of TBI.
Yes, and?
TBI looks to be fairly ordinary globohomo think tank. If he's unparalleled how do Clinton, Soros and Obama have similar or larger foundations?
On the surface. They're massively profitable apparently..
AA has a video on it.
Blair is an arch grifter, but so are the Clintons, both made hundreds of millions after leaving office. Blair’s prime ambition in life was to become the first President of the EU (this is arrested by many who were around him) and he failed in it, or even establishing that role.
..but grift is the essence of democratic politics.
I was saying he was great at them.
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
Yeah there's a large strain of thought on the far-right that AI is basically a meme concocted by soyboy WEF types, that it's massively overhyped and if anything might just end up hurting the email-class. Of course it's not unique to them, lots of smart people in the current era saw GPT 3.5 and went 'this is what AI is, ok, moving on' and think it's a bubble.
It is quite literally true that AI is going to be mostly bad for low skill white collar workers and barely affect wrench turners.
Right now AI writes better than you. Check for yourself. Go talk to deepseek-r1 and cue him with Dasein's posts or something complex..
Same model has 93 or 96th percentile on code forces. The context window is 100 kb..
It's all aligning to a lot of people getting replaced.
Chinese are training robots to replace wrench turners using same algos that trained the LLMs..
It's not quite so simple. The 'real' context windows length (i.e. the part of the context that meaningfully affects output) for all models I've tested is approximately 10k tokens. They no longer spaz out and start producing 'gggggggggggg' if you give them a longer context, but for the vast majority of tasks* the rest of those tokens are wasted. As a consequence, they aren't good for any tasks where there is a meaningful amount of information that is relevant to producing the final output.
Fixing this is tricky from a data standpoint, because there isn't a lot of data that is long-form and where all the context for what is written is present in the data. Take the code I wrote yesterday: part of the way I used reason strategy is because of discussions with colleagues in Slack re: specific business objectives, and that information doesn't exist in the codebase. So training on my codebase doesn't necessarily make you able to determine the relationship between that code and the associated business context. You might be able to do clever things with self-play like have the model generate potential business contexts and feed those back into the training data, but that's still mostly hypothetical.
As for replacing wrench turners, that's a lot harder right now. Physics is hard. Hardware is hard. Mapping a constantly changing relationship between sensor inputs, robot dynamics, environment and output is very hard and very far from solved.
*Excluding artificial tasks like needle in the haystack problems.
It's not being solved, it's being learned.
That’s what I mean. I have literally done this. It is very very hard even for a toy problem in a structured environment, which is why nobody uses it in the field. That could change: I’ve seen embedding generators for robot actions, for example. But no clear breakthroughs yet.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Wrench turners are not safe, see lights-out factories.
"Oh but I install HVAC outside in an unplanned physical world"
Humanoid robots are training in simulation. They're coming. High skill white collar workers? They're coming.
There has been automation taking away human jobs, but it rarely looks anything like humanoid robots- it looks like agricultural combines, power looms, other notably not man-shaped things. I’m not saying it won’t happen, I’m saying that, by precedent, it’s not time to start worrying about my job until someone comes up with a better idea than ‘humanoid robots’.
Unless you plan to retire in 5 yrs or live in the EU, worry.
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
It’s almost like the people benefitting from the great American empire can adapt themselves to whatever the state ideology of the great American empire happens to be, as long as it’s compatible with the GAE.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The core argument they seem to be making is that, having narrowed the definition of "online right" sufficiently to exclude anyone who might have voted for a republican in the last election, they can now prove that the right is poweless to resist the left.
Please ignore the fact that prominent movers and shakers within the online right from 10 - 15 years ago are now occupying positions of real concrete power.
Like who?
Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, and JD Vance to name a few. Plus the fact that Eugene Volokh and the rest of his buddies at the Federalist Society have already gotten to pick three Supreme Court Justices and will likely get to pick another two (if not more) before the end of the decade.
The right also seems more inclined to use that power, having slowly learned the lesson, I think, that institutions are not inherently neutral and that if they're not on your side they are probably on someone else's.
Which I think might make those SCOTUS picks and executive branch positions weightier than they did a few years ago. Sure, Reagan was a very dynamic leader, but he didn't revolutionize society the way that LBJ did. And now Trump's first (well technically probably like 2717th given how many pardons and other EOs he signed) move in office is to yank an EO that survived Reagan, two Bushes, and even Nixon.
I agree.
We explicitly discourage one-line "I agree" posts. I get that you wanted to "close out" the conversation with an acknowledgement, but if you've got nothing really more to say, an upvote is sufficient.
I think that's a pretty terrible idea.
If you're having a back-and-forth with another member, responding with just "I agree" shows that you agree with their last point, but have nothing to add.
Not responding at all and just upvoting conveys nothing to the person you are communicating with, and it just looks like you're ignoring the response (or similar). Just upvoting would only be sufficient if votes were not anonymous (which I have seen on some forums) which is not the case here on the Motte.
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
Academic Agent always comes across to me as a meta-grifter whose grift is to claim that everyone else on the right is dumb and/or grifting (see also that skinwalker Hanania). A grifter for hobbits with a slightly higher IQ. Okay, cool story bro. Don't worry, I'll remember to like and subscribe to your Substack so that I can read your exclusive paywalled articles about how everyone else is a money grubbing shill. On what grounds does this guy expect me to take him more seriously than the rest of the online political commentators?
Also @TheOneWhoFarts, do you have an opinion about this article? Your post is just a summary.
AA likes to feud with people for spectacle, but I don't think that's a fair characterization.
He has people he respects even in disagreement like Quinones or MacIntyre. He's just never had a second of patience for the likes of Fuentes and the wigger right, or the antiwoke liberals to his immediate left who focus on trans issues and the like but don't buy into any actual political radicalism and just want things back to the 1999 normal .
Of course anything that has to do with ecelebs has a quantum of cultishness and drama that seems inescapable. But as far as having a reliable political position I think AA is relatively predictable: he's a snob elitist intellectual radical. A common archetype in politics really.
As someone who disagrees with him on some stuff and listens to his videos regularly, this is IMO a fair characterisation.
Calling him a grifter is wrong. He sells some online courses*, but he mostly analyzes politics from a particular perspective. He isn't obviously or even covertly shilling for anyone. I believe he provides a valuable service there. Ofc he's not infallible, and he doesn't understand tech much, but that's yet not a huge downside.
He has many informative videos that are bang on. E.g. "Boomer Truth Regime" Elite Theory, analysis of Western Elites Power lies with organised minorities.
He's also not opposed to having some fun. He plays/reviews video games and long organised a twitter 'tournament' judging the sexiest women .. Amusingly, despite hundreds of challengers, it was almost always won by Jennifer Connelly(if she was in the running).. Kept providing amusing sports-like comments for it..
*these might even be good. I was fairly impressed with his book, the 'Populist Delusion'. Well argued, well researched, doesn't waffle around. Good for informing normies, it starts out softly. There's no attempt at edgelording or anything like that either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Richard Spencer is the same way. It's like cool so we should all be like you and talk about Jews and hate on Christians in Zoom calls and do literally nothing. There is no step two in this "plan" other than just admit defeat.
Spencer would tell you not to do anything to paint a target on yourself accelerate the collapse by furthering the more insane parts of the left so you can be the reasonable alternative to the communists when the Reichstag burns.
AA would tell you to get cozy with powerful tech executives to form an influential cabal that can influence policy and replace the existing elite with people of your ideology.
Fuentes would tell you to ridicule the left online as hard as possible to capture the youth and dominate the cultural arena as the progressives successfully did.
Regardless of how much of a fake grifter fed these people are, they all have identifiable plans for their political ideology to succeed.
No, Spencer's much-vaunted "liberal turn" is just a misunderstanding of the fact he isn't an accelerationist and doesn't want to see prevailing institutions collapse. He wants to take them over using crypsis and esoteric group-signaling using the same tactics he perceives have been used by Jews.
He wants the institutions to survive, so the next Christian-successor spiritual movement is ready to take the helm and reorient them in the same way they were taken over and reoriented against us.
Is this all the crusader and Shia LaBeouf as Padre Pio memes on Telegram, or something more?
Shia LaBeouf actually literally became a based tradcath under the influence of Mel Gibson. I don’t know whether he still is but last I’d heard he was a regular at St Vitus(FSSP parish in LA).
Yes. I've seen reporting he's being mentored by Mel Gibson. It's a nice redemption story.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well how’s that going for him? He has accomplished nothing except discrediting himself and making his goals more difficult.
Actually, his change toward this position is a result of the failures of political organizing. He has changed his approach significantly since the rise and fall of the Alt Right.
Right now his effort includes studying the aforementioned topic, in particular the Hebrew Bible as the ultimate keystone for understanding how esoteric, cryptic spiritual movements cohere races of people together and direct their behavior. And also how this practice extends to other forms of fictional art creation like film or comic books.
He has a book coming out on the theory he's been calling "Racial Esoteric Moralization", should be interesting. I do think he's correct that there has to be some sort of post-Christian Religion that organizes the behavior and identity of these disparate Right-Wing factions.
I tried to read about Racial Esoteric Moralization just now, but both places I tried to read about it (https://theapolloniantransmission.com/rem/ and https://politicaltheology.substack.com/p/once-more-between-rome-and-judea) just seemed like largely impenetrable babble, to be honest. A bunch of combing through ancient texts to find what the authors probably already wanted to see there. If you think that it is worth knowing about, I would appreciate if you could write a summary of it. I'm not saying this in a snarky way, it's just that both of the essays I just tried to read about REM made me feel such a combination of boredom and a sense of "this seems like a highly online right-wing version of astrology mixed with rehashes of Nietzsche insights" that I couldn't force myself to go through reading the entireties.
Yeah I've picked up on it from various Podcasts on movies and Bible Studies. They are doing a Podcast series on Genesis right now where they go through every single verse, but I think it's behind a paywall. They are close to releasing a book that will essentially be a debut for the theory. I'll probably read it and write a review when it comes out.
But in the meantime, Grok did a pretty stellar job providing a fair summary IMO:
One more followup:
The 4-word summary would be that "Myth influences racial formation."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes and his book is nonsense (what he has released). REM theory is unfalsifiable. It’s just whatever him and Mark think. And I would bet almost anything that he is wrong that there is a post Christian religion, especially on the right. And again he has accomplished nothing. He has a Substack and a Zoom call.
REM theory is only unfalsifiable insofar as all critical literary analysis is unfalsifiable. I agree Mark sometimes goes too far speculating on certain nuances, but the big picture items- Hebrew stores like Tower of Babel, Jacob and Esau, David and Goliath, esoterically depicting racial conflict and elevating a Jewish type is very obviously true and insightful. In the most important cases- i.e. Jacob and Esau representing a sibling rivalry between Jew and Aryan, this has always been acknowledged by the Rabbis who relate Esau to the progenitor of Edom, and therefore Rome and Rome's successor Europe. That's just an example for how REM aligns with the interpretation of the Rabbis in a very important case, maybe the most important case.
That analysis applied to modern filmography, i.e. Steven Spielberg is also only as "unfalsifiable" as all film criticism. But Spielberg films are unequivocally an example of REM theory generalizing to modern forms of art depiction, in which the Jewish identities of the art-creators is imbued in their mythological signals, which in turn influences the behavior of mass audiences of people.
The essence of REM Theory that Yahweh is a metaphor and synonym for Jews as a race is unequivocally true. Understanding that leads to a much deeper interpretation of these biblical stories, in particular understanding the stories in which Yahweh comes into conflict with Civilization (i.e. Tower of Babel).
The conclusion that the Hebrew Bible has influenced the creation of races of people, and therefore race-creation is downstream from myth-creation, is so obviously true that we should be shocked that nobody has made this observation before in the way REM has. Have to give it credit where due.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Never saw that one coming
There's actually a lot of parallel between Spencer's theory and the e/acc actually, in particular how Culture is a complex interaction between memes and genes. e/acc seems to stop short of (at least exoterically) recognizing this as consequential and vital for Race Formation, whereas that's Spencer's primary concern. For example, how a piece of literary fiction like the Hebrew Bible can mold races of people over thousands of years.
On the other hand, e/acc is correct about the upheaval of AI and Spencer like most of the DR is basically blind to the fact that it is going to change everything.
I would say I think the truth is in between e/acc and Spencer. Spencer + AI Realism, or e/acc + Racial Esoteric Moralization.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe he should have taken his own advice then because literally everyone thinks he's a clown. He hung out with some of the most deranged Nazis like Andrew Anglin and TRS, did a Heil Hitler salute in front of liberal journalists who used him as a patsy, and then went to Charlottesville where he basically killed the Alt-Right for good. Now that he is literally hated by everyone, all he can do is sit on the sideline and be a contrarian and grift.
He's also just straight up wrong on his takes about Christianity and white identity. Plus his takes on the Jews are deranged. He has endorsed the idea that Jews created Christianity to secretly control the goyim. He also believes that Mohammad didn't exist and was created by Jews. He also has said that Snorri Sturluson was a crypto Jew.
He is nota serious person.
I'm not objecting to his being a patsy. I'm objecting to his not having a plan/ideology.
Yeah he sucks at it and any successes of WNats are frankly not his own, but this is the forum where we try to not to handwave people as retards and instead consider their failure, isn't it?
I don't think we should gloat about how much of a lolcow Fuentes is either, for instance, and just consider whether his views have merit.
What I'm saying he doesn't get to give that advice when he did the complete opposite of that when he had the chance. So even if that's what he's saying now, we have years of evidence showing when given the chance he does the complete opposite. The reason he is doing what he is now is because he literally has no other option. He embarrassed himself so thoroughly that nobody will ever associate themselves with him. So it's easy to give that advice when that's the only option you have. He has a massive ego and would love to be in the limelight again if the opportunity arose, where he would probably make the exact same mistakes as before because he hasn't shown a hint of remorse for his actions or admitted any fault.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Boycott shills and only engage with those who volunteer their time and efforts for free", surely? (Hmm… Is this whole thing just an effort to lure more people to the Motte?)
I have listened to his podcast and he seems to say vote for Democrats because they are more competent. I don't even understand the point of that though because they literally stand for everything he supposedly supports. They are explicitly anti-white. What's the point of being a white nationalist if you're going to vote for the mixed race child of immigrants who wants to increase DEI and affirmative action? These guys just get off on being not like the other Nazis.
Uncharitably, Spencer's business is being a CNN jobber they can invite to get the scary Nazi take on things, and that opinion makes it more likely to get invited.
Charitably, he's an accelerationist and the left needs to be in as much power as possible before he becomes "the right".
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