Great Article "Why Everything is Liberal"

submitted by Richard_Parker from self.debatealtright

John Derbyshire mentioned this in his podcast, so I sought it out and read it:

hhttps://richardhanania.substack.com/p/why-is-everything-liberal

It is a very interesting thesis, namely that the political divide is roughly even, but that the lefties are much more ideologically fervent. That is not all, of course. Institutional power, Cultural Marxism taking hold in the universities. Very powerful fifth column of "fellow whites."

One thing that is interesting is the supposition that those not on the wokescold train are far less fervent because they are more content. This suggests a number of things. First, displaced whites may not wake up until they are made to be discontent. Another conclusion is that, as William Pierce stated, much of the white middle class does not give a fuck about anyone else. They get theirs, and to hell to with everybody else. Yet another observation is that the milquetoast, fuddy-duddy conservative inc platform inspires no one. Whether these considerations are white pills or black pills is unclear to me.

all 16 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      In what sense are you using the word "universalism" here and how was the Roman Empire an example of it?

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        As I see it, Roman civilisation meant Roman rule, so in my opinion it is not at all comparable with the later colonial-imperialist ideologies that I think you are referring to. I agree that in many cases the Romans granted Roman citizenship too freely, though. I think that was a result of imperial exhaustion and not in line with the original Roman spirit.

        [–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        ctrl+f "je" => phrase not found

        Like the recent NYT article on "Whites in Hollywood". lol

        [–]NeoRail 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Some of the principles examined in this article are very interesting. I think that the section on Ordinal vs Cardinal utility offers a pretty good explanation on how despite their overwhelming financial resources, "mainstream" parties often become hostage to determined radicals. Entryism as a political strategy was designed precisely with this truth in mind.

        There are, however, some incorrect and strange ideas too. I think one of the problems of the article is that its analysis is shallow and lazy. At one point, the author mentions a women's march against Trump that brought out four million people. Were all these people highly dedicated, highly informed and highly political citizens? Most of them probably just heard that Trump is a fascist on the news and thought they'd go "do their part" and show off the photos to their friends after they are done. People like this, especially in such large crowds, can be useful political tools to others, but typically lack political knowledge or ability themselves. Control of the large institutions that these people take their political cues from - such as the media - can go a long way in organising and controlling crowds like this. At the same time, another question worth considering is the potential cost of attending a march against Trump in contrast to the potential cost of attending a pro-Trump rally. Public protest has always been more costly and therefore less worthwhile for right-wingers. After all, what does protest amount to? This four million march didn't have any political conseqences either, so why would another group try to do something like that if it might actually cost it something?

        The strangest part for me was the quoted segment. The idea that uncontrolled oligarchic domination of institutions and the fragmentation of public life is "natural and organic", but state-run media is not, seems very hard to comprehend.

        [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

        I recently made a post about a similar topic. According to studies you only need to convince 25% of the population to reach a tipping point, and the most effective way to reach that number is through relentless ideological pressure, not plutocratic funding. It's why the radical right is more successful here on the European continent. It only took a relatively small amount of identitarian activists to get the Austrian government to pull out of the UN global migration pact, which eventually led to other European governments doing the same thing. My own government collapsed because of this. This is something American conservatives don't understand. You have to be fanatical.

        [–]Node 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        Most of our invitations to be 'fanatical' have been globalist traps, which have mostly all lost ground instead of gaining.

        [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        You mean in the US?

        [–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Yes. I have the impression that some headway is being made in Europe, but fanatical here will mean bullets flying. It's not at that point yet. Whether it ever will be remains to be seen.

        [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

        I disagree with the article. I echo empireearth's comment. Conservatives are just as politically active as liberals but the court, academic, dating trends, celebrity culture, religions, HR departments and a lot of other institutions in society have been straight up weaponized against right wingers. There is a LOT more danger for conservatives to engage in political activism (and lets be honest conservatives have a lot more to lose). In fact I think the article is exactly the opposite. Liberals are less politically engaged naturally but the system is incentivizing leftist activism. Bankroll, Incentive, glorify, and romanticize something and you get more of it.

        In addition to money, another way to measure cardinal utility is to look at protests. I tend not to trust media or academic estimates for exact numbers, since these things are hard to measure and their political biases mean that they may exaggerate the number who show up for liberal causes and do the opposite for conservatives. Nonetheless, even with that caveat, I don’t think anyone would deny that the women’s march, BLM, and Occupy Wall Street have drawn many more people than rallies for the Tea Party and Trump.

        I would put this question to the author: if I go to a BLM or pussy hat rally and burn a business, punch a bystander or smash up a cop car what happens to me? If I do the same actions during a conservative protest what happens to me? That's the difference. That's why you're getting more engagement on the left.

        [–]Blackbrownfreestuff 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        If I do the same actions during a conservative protest what happens to me?

        You don't have to do anything other than show up to be in serious trouble. Being seen could result loss of job and pemanent blacklisting. Organizing one would result in federal conspiracy charges or being slap sued into poverty.

        [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Exactly my point. Until we figure out how to counteract that we are fucked.

        [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        It is actually easy to counteract it. The weakness of the centralisation of power is also the strength of it: The power is concentrated on only a few hands. I don't want the sub banned, but the solution to a problem caused by a few heads is easy to solve.

        [–]Richard_Parker[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Hi,

        First of all, I think we need to reform what it means to be conservative. Conservative should mean uninspired, GOP establishment fuddy-duddy ineffectualism at its worst. Think of Liz Cheney, Lee Doren (who used to have a channel called How the World Works). People who dress like dorks and carry on about tax rates and inspire no one.

        Proper opposition to the Democrats is the Right, NOT conservatism. One may choose to call it dissident right, new right, alt right, what have you.

        That stated, while it is certainly true that wildly disparate approaches to January 6 vis-a-vis the BLM and Antifa riots is certainly important, I think it is just one of many factors. That most who do not pull the far left line are more or less content is the main component. That will change when race riots, the Great Replacement, start to adversely affect contingents of white middle class people who right now are still comfortable.

        As others stated, there are many other factors not addressed in this article. One being indoctrination from grade school to university.

        [–]TheJamesRocket 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        One thing that is interesting is the supposition that those not one the wokescold train are far less fervent because they are more content.

        This is a convoluted way of phrasing. You mean to say that the more content they are, the more fervent they are. Correct?

        First, displaced whites may not wake up until they are made to be discontent.

        There are lots of white conservatives in the U.S. who are aware. The events of Trumps Presidency, along with the 2020 Election fraud, were a wakeup call for his supporters. Unfortunately, they aren't doing jack shit to fight the system. Conservatives are adopting a 'wait and see' approach that is counter-productive to their goals.

        Another conclusion is that, as William Pierce stated, much of the white middle class does not give a fuck about anyone else. They get theirs, and to hell to with everybody else.

        That used to be the case. The middle class were safely insulated from many of the consequences of globalism (I.E., the offshoring of jobs, mass immigration, unaffordability of housing, wage stagnation), which left them feeling apathetic and unconcerned. But the pandemic brought their comfortable lifestyle to an end.

        [–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        They weren't insulated. The personal risk of going against the system was too great. They had too much to lose when noone else stood up.

        Things are changing.

        [–]Richard_Parker[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        You mean to say that the more content they are, the more fervent they are. Correct?

        I corrected a typo. Should read not on the wokescold train. And no I mean that a large portion of the GOP base, particularly older persons, are fat and happy, living the American dream. Their bottom line is not (yet) affected, so they are in no way as motivated. That will change in coming years as the chickens come home to roose. The question is if there will be a large enough portion of the white demographic to do what needs to be done.