You're trading low IQ enemies like the blacks for high IQ hostile foreigners such as Indians and Asians, who are against woke because it ultimately affects their group. My experiences with them from my line of work has shown me they have nothing but disdain for the European.
They are mutually exclusive. If there are signs of both from any given Asian, assuming a unity within that individual (which is not usual to be sure) then in fact it is neither.
The Manga "Delicious in Dungeon" is an interesting and very entertaining commentary on the naive European with fetishes, as well as being a kind of updated Japanese version Dante. Laios is the main character and hero specifically because of his poor propriety and autism. There is admiration and there is pity, and there is also support for. A Brahminic Agape that accepts and embraces things as they are might cover that.
There's still a divide between classical liberals and true utilitarians. The utilitatians support open borders. The loss to your country is supposedly less than the gain to the immigrants. Also things like Basic Income and gibs. Taking from the moderately wealthy to give to the lazy supposedly maximizes average happiness.
MechaBentham will decide the optimal policy is to pack ten trillion human units into your economic zone like sardines. With endless taxpayer subsidized VR experiences.
If this is what winning against wokies feels like, I'd rather lose.
Cramming in like sardines is less about average happiness and more about growing the market to sell more things while simultaneously reducing wages of everyone except asset owners
I know i'm late, but that book spoke to my soul. I was confused when I saw the popular concensus was he's a warmonger and a psycho.. Then I realized it's because modern men hate a true warrior like Jünger.
Just note that the accidentally Luciferian crypto-Marxist DrParvinizzle has as one of his loss conditions for America: "a renewed focus on God and Christianity".
It's not necessarily a loss condition, but "a renewed focus on God and Christianity" won't do us any good in the current world historical situation because racial issues must be addressed first.
Almost nobody in the west genuinely religious at this point anyway.
Musk and co. are businessmen at heart, and activism is bad for business. They'll never become activists for the right like corporations are activists for the left.
Nevertheless, if they are able to purge left-wing activism, it creates a vacuum for new ideas - our ideas.
You walk through a door and it all of a sudden it locks behind you. A Mechanical voice booms in the distance, “Do you want to play a game?” You do not.
You are stunned and stand still as though you are hiding your very presence. A 7ft tall mecha-clown appears and lurches towards you. Do you:
A. Bang and scream against the iron-clad door hoping to escape?
B. Jump towards the savage claws of the mecha-clown in hope of dealing damage to it’s fleshy bits? With the clown defeated you can make a better decision in this scenario.
C. Escape from the clown’s embrace and seek a new door or window to flee from? Perhaps you will get back or somewhere better through a different door.
The argument against returning to the 90s, is the 90s just led us exactly to where we were today. It's not a stable endpoint. Sure, the safeguards might be stronger this time if we can go back, as we're more keenly aware of where it can lead, but they'll eventually erode, and sooner or later the slippery slope has us again.
Mecha-Bentham would be "make GDP line go up" codified into ultimate authority. Unless someone was sensible enough to program it with better parameters for what actual human flourishing looks like, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that.
It's quite a bleak picture painted here. However, I would rather this than plane doors flying off and whites being excluded from jobs on racial grounds. Under this regime perhaps, dissidents may be able to be a bit more louder than is permitted now.
Ultimately the retvrn of Fresh Prince would also mask the process of permanent demographic change. A purely meritocratic regime outlook would worsen the issue of H-1B immigration in America and whatever similar program you have in Britain, growing the new subcontinental striver class while shrinking resources and energy toward developing native talent.
There is hope, though, that Elon and others will see the value in making citizenship meaningful and advantageous to citizens over non-citizens at the very least. He has said things along those lines.
There’s also hope that liberalism is just a halfway point on Elon’s intellectual journey, and that he is one of many sensitive young men in the libertarian-to-based pipeline.
It is clear Jordan Peterson has very liberal views which are incorrect, like his merit based system and worship of individualism. Do not discount him fully, for his work in the symbolic world is very, very important and is helping re-enchant the world.
Everyone with any voice or resources in normal society seems stuck in a social model that has already been dead and discredited for a couple decades now.
Storytelling is one way to reinforce or realign people's deeply held assumptions.
I tried my own hand at writing a series of novellas, all part of the same larger story that presuppose the burgeoning right wing view. The result is on Amazon.
What I am wondering - and perhaps you have already addressed this question somewhere - is what the main reason was for not just continuing with the "fresh prince" era. Why did they not just stick with 90s liberalism? Would there ever have been sufficient popular discontent against it? I doubt that. Likewise, why the imperial overextension in foreign policy? Were the wars in the Middle East, NATO expansion and global trade liberalization "necessary" in any sense? I feel that America would be in a stronger position if they had just kept to the 90s playbook.
You answered your own question. The elites - the true elites we are never, or hardly ever, allowed to glimpse - are chaos agents. Their economic and ideological schema require conflict, confusion and menticide. They were simply waiting for the technologies to catch up with the game. This apparently appalling era of tolerance, healthy scepticism and depoliticisation was not part of any 'playbook' at all, nor was it the start of any slippery slope. It's what happens when the powers-that-would-be take a nap before the big show. And it has nothing to do with 'liberalism' of any kind.
LBJ promised material equity in outcomes between different demographic groups in a Commencement Address at Howard University in 1965. The GOP line ever since has been that this is attainable.
A certain contingent on the right will be disappointed by this., i.e, the ones who actually want woke to intensify in order to precipitate the sort of societal collapse out of which they can forge the world more to their liking. These are doomed to be fringe though, because:
a) Christians and their "successor" Kantian Humanists can't countenance this, as it would transgress the Golden Rule by deliberately wishing for the suffering on those in the here and now in the vague hope that their "sacrifice" will produce something better
b) they're just a bunch of cosplay Vikings, at the end of the day
Oh, and of course we will be hearing a lot about " " "Judeo"-Christian" culture" from now on - this random association of 2 of the 3 Abrahamic faiths to the exclusion of the other which, of course, currently represents the main, perhaps only challenge to the liberal order, at least in the West.
I agree with the general thrust of your article but I do think Yarvin touched on a more important part of the problem with Rufo's approach, mainly that its propaganda. I think Rufo is peddling this back to fresh prince stuff as a propaganda vehicle to secure power for the Right. He doesn't actually believe in the stuff he writes, but some of the centrist tech lords you mention do. Yarvin argues propaganda can't work for the faction of truth. It's certainly rhetorically compelling but no faction has ever succeeded at anything without elite backing... where else are there elites worth coaxing?
he can't, rufo must know he's mischaracterizing entire fields and any undergrad student which has read a few works (baudrillard, foucault, etc) knows it. It's not that this descriptions are wrong of a certain kind of post structuralist thought, it's that he ascribes intention and ideological conformity to thinkers who in many cases hate each other, and are opposed. (ie, he's mishcharacterizing a part for the whole, a rather small part)
The only thing I can think of is that Rufo just assumes anyone reading his works has no background in postmodern anything, let alone political philosophy etc. and will never do follow up reading to verify anything.
So far this seems to have worked - which is kind of damning on his crowd
Right on point AA as usual.
Even when "wokeness" is put away,
You're trading low IQ enemies like the blacks for high IQ hostile foreigners such as Indians and Asians, who are against woke because it ultimately affects their group. My experiences with them from my line of work has shown me they have nothing but disdain for the European.
Not disdain. Jealousy
Why not both? 🤷
You're right, it is possible for the deluded to feel both emotions - otherwise they are mutually exclusive
They are mutually exclusive. If there are signs of both from any given Asian, assuming a unity within that individual (which is not usual to be sure) then in fact it is neither.
The Manga "Delicious in Dungeon" is an interesting and very entertaining commentary on the naive European with fetishes, as well as being a kind of updated Japanese version Dante. Laios is the main character and hero specifically because of his poor propriety and autism. There is admiration and there is pity, and there is also support for. A Brahminic Agape that accepts and embraces things as they are might cover that.
“Meritocracy” = soulless oriental bug man rote memorization. We must judge on IRON WILL and SPIRIT
There's still a divide between classical liberals and true utilitarians. The utilitatians support open borders. The loss to your country is supposedly less than the gain to the immigrants. Also things like Basic Income and gibs. Taking from the moderately wealthy to give to the lazy supposedly maximizes average happiness.
MechaBentham will decide the optimal policy is to pack ten trillion human units into your economic zone like sardines. With endless taxpayer subsidized VR experiences.
If this is what winning against wokies feels like, I'd rather lose.
Cramming in like sardines is less about average happiness and more about growing the market to sell more things while simultaneously reducing wages of everyone except asset owners
Exactly. It's all about sustaining consumerism.
White pill: has there ever been a time when Burnham, Lasch, Jünger et al. were so popular? Anti-/post-liberal reaction isn't going away in a hurry.
I use a copy of Storm and Steel as a dog whistle on my book shelf. I’ve made so many based friends from that book.
I know i'm late, but that book spoke to my soul. I was confused when I saw the popular concensus was he's a warmonger and a psycho.. Then I realized it's because modern men hate a true warrior like Jünger.
If you are referring to the WW1 memoir by Ernst Jünger, the title is Storm of Steel.
Oh no I hastily mistyped the title of a book I own! My deepest apologies for my grave error, you pompous halfwit
Just note that the accidentally Luciferian crypto-Marxist DrParvinizzle has as one of his loss conditions for America: "a renewed focus on God and Christianity".
This must be the 3rd or 4th shark-jump?
It's not necessarily a loss condition, but "a renewed focus on God and Christianity" won't do us any good in the current world historical situation because racial issues must be addressed first.
Almost nobody in the west genuinely religious at this point anyway.
Musk and co. are businessmen at heart, and activism is bad for business. They'll never become activists for the right like corporations are activists for the left.
Nevertheless, if they are able to purge left-wing activism, it creates a vacuum for new ideas - our ideas.
You walk through a door and it all of a sudden it locks behind you. A Mechanical voice booms in the distance, “Do you want to play a game?” You do not.
You are stunned and stand still as though you are hiding your very presence. A 7ft tall mecha-clown appears and lurches towards you. Do you:
A. Bang and scream against the iron-clad door hoping to escape?
B. Jump towards the savage claws of the mecha-clown in hope of dealing damage to it’s fleshy bits? With the clown defeated you can make a better decision in this scenario.
C. Escape from the clown’s embrace and seek a new door or window to flee from? Perhaps you will get back or somewhere better through a different door.
Choose your Strategy.
The argument against returning to the 90s, is the 90s just led us exactly to where we were today. It's not a stable endpoint. Sure, the safeguards might be stronger this time if we can go back, as we're more keenly aware of where it can lead, but they'll eventually erode, and sooner or later the slippery slope has us again.
Mecha-Bentham would be "make GDP line go up" codified into ultimate authority. Unless someone was sensible enough to program it with better parameters for what actual human flourishing looks like, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that.
It's quite a bleak picture painted here. However, I would rather this than plane doors flying off and whites being excluded from jobs on racial grounds. Under this regime perhaps, dissidents may be able to be a bit more louder than is permitted now.
Please don't indent the paragraphs.
Force of habit
Ultimately the retvrn of Fresh Prince would also mask the process of permanent demographic change. A purely meritocratic regime outlook would worsen the issue of H-1B immigration in America and whatever similar program you have in Britain, growing the new subcontinental striver class while shrinking resources and energy toward developing native talent.
There is hope, though, that Elon and others will see the value in making citizenship meaningful and advantageous to citizens over non-citizens at the very least. He has said things along those lines.
There’s also hope that liberalism is just a halfway point on Elon’s intellectual journey, and that he is one of many sensitive young men in the libertarian-to-based pipeline.
"Based Elon" supports massively expanding legal immigration which means H-1B
It is clear Jordan Peterson has very liberal views which are incorrect, like his merit based system and worship of individualism. Do not discount him fully, for his work in the symbolic world is very, very important and is helping re-enchant the world.
If that is all Peterson did nobody would have a problem with him. It's by far the best thing he does, I agree.
Everyone with any voice or resources in normal society seems stuck in a social model that has already been dead and discredited for a couple decades now.
Storytelling is one way to reinforce or realign people's deeply held assumptions.
I tried my own hand at writing a series of novellas, all part of the same larger story that presuppose the burgeoning right wing view. The result is on Amazon.
The Disciples of Dissent https://a.co/d/f8CI0AP
Roughly,
-the first novella deconstructs feminism and the girl boss trope.
-the second deals with the diversity coalition
-the third more with meta underpinnings of the left such as hedonism and anti-natalism.
What I am wondering - and perhaps you have already addressed this question somewhere - is what the main reason was for not just continuing with the "fresh prince" era. Why did they not just stick with 90s liberalism? Would there ever have been sufficient popular discontent against it? I doubt that. Likewise, why the imperial overextension in foreign policy? Were the wars in the Middle East, NATO expansion and global trade liberalization "necessary" in any sense? I feel that America would be in a stronger position if they had just kept to the 90s playbook.
You answered your own question. The elites - the true elites we are never, or hardly ever, allowed to glimpse - are chaos agents. Their economic and ideological schema require conflict, confusion and menticide. They were simply waiting for the technologies to catch up with the game. This apparently appalling era of tolerance, healthy scepticism and depoliticisation was not part of any 'playbook' at all, nor was it the start of any slippery slope. It's what happens when the powers-that-would-be take a nap before the big show. And it has nothing to do with 'liberalism' of any kind.
The 90s hard lots of issues under the surface that started to boil over in the 2000s, it was unstable
LBJ promised material equity in outcomes between different demographic groups in a Commencement Address at Howard University in 1965. The GOP line ever since has been that this is attainable.
A certain contingent on the right will be disappointed by this., i.e, the ones who actually want woke to intensify in order to precipitate the sort of societal collapse out of which they can forge the world more to their liking. These are doomed to be fringe though, because:
a) Christians and their "successor" Kantian Humanists can't countenance this, as it would transgress the Golden Rule by deliberately wishing for the suffering on those in the here and now in the vague hope that their "sacrifice" will produce something better
b) they're just a bunch of cosplay Vikings, at the end of the day
Oh, and of course we will be hearing a lot about " " "Judeo"-Christian" culture" from now on - this random association of 2 of the 3 Abrahamic faiths to the exclusion of the other which, of course, currently represents the main, perhaps only challenge to the liberal order, at least in the West.
I agree with the general thrust of your article but I do think Yarvin touched on a more important part of the problem with Rufo's approach, mainly that its propaganda. I think Rufo is peddling this back to fresh prince stuff as a propaganda vehicle to secure power for the Right. He doesn't actually believe in the stuff he writes, but some of the centrist tech lords you mention do. Yarvin argues propaganda can't work for the faction of truth. It's certainly rhetorically compelling but no faction has ever succeeded at anything without elite backing... where else are there elites worth coaxing?
Update: I was wrong. AA was spot on.
he can't, rufo must know he's mischaracterizing entire fields and any undergrad student which has read a few works (baudrillard, foucault, etc) knows it. It's not that this descriptions are wrong of a certain kind of post structuralist thought, it's that he ascribes intention and ideological conformity to thinkers who in many cases hate each other, and are opposed. (ie, he's mishcharacterizing a part for the whole, a rather small part)
The only thing I can think of is that Rufo just assumes anyone reading his works has no background in postmodern anything, let alone political philosophy etc. and will never do follow up reading to verify anything.
So far this seems to have worked - which is kind of damning on his crowd