Some issues with the Walt Bismarck approach you didn't address are issues related to technocratic rule and transhumanism specifically. I'm not sure about Walt Bismarck, but John Arcto notoriously still supports the vaxx and opposes questioning the global warming narrative.
The conspiracy theorists are absolute poison to this space.
I make no apologies for refusing to get sucked down that vortex, where everything associated with the other side is some kind of grand plot. Being a Humean skeptic, I don't like to make assumptions.
I know you think that the 'chuds' are not wrong about a single thing, but some of us are less tribalistic in our mentality, and try to look at conflicting interests and never place blind trust in any one political side to establish the facts.
> Being a Humean skeptic, I don't like to make assumptions.
Except the assumption that the official narrative of the moment is completely correct, no matter how many times major parts of it are eventually proven wrong.
Look we've had this discussion before, you sort of admitted I was right, but then went back to unquestioningly believing the mainstream narrative.
I don’t understand why there has to be exceptions for gay surrogacy. It wasn’t a thing for thousands of years. Maybe we should have rape exceptions? After all you can’t really stop it- it will always be around.
Whether Walt’s idea of allowing “elites” to participate in degeneracy is something you regard as good or bad, it’s worth pointing out, as you did, what exactly will stop that behavior from trickling down? That’s a huge part of the reason we’re in the situation we’re in currently. Our elites extol the virtues of gay marriage, sexual promiscuity, abortion, transgenderism, single motherhood, polyamory, transactional relationships, affairs, divorce, breaking off communications with family and friends on ideological grounds, etc. and you don’t have to look far to see how many of those things have become mainstream and entrenched in our culture. Unless there’s a plan on how to tear out the current elite or convince them not to promote these things AND have a plan to stop the behaviors or attitudes from trickling down then I think Walt should just keep dreaming.
Americans are different and notions of “equality” have been baked into the cake since the founding. You’re not going to convince Americans to accept an elite class that can behave however they want while the rest of society just sucks it up and plays by the rules.
Yep. But it hasn't always been out in the open and accepted as normal. In the very recent past, as in well within the living memory of older people, elites kept their misbehavior hidden and projected an image of virtue to the public.
I've read Walt's stuff,. and while it can be entertaining reading (and I think he is often being intentionally provocative, which makes for interesting reading at times), the proposals are either not intended to be taken seriously, or are wildly utopian in overlooking basic realities.
The vision of having two sets of moral standards -- one for "elites" and one for "normies", based on the observed fact that some at the top level of the education ladder in the meritocratic elite seem to weather a season or three of "screwing around in their twenties" much better than the typical lesser-educated normies do. And the point is made that there were always de facto looser morals for the true social elites relative to the masses, etc.
The problem with applying this kind of logic to the current world, however, is, as you have pointed out elsewhere in the comments here, the fact that in our current panopticon, there is no way to hide this behavior and, in fact, the dominant culture promotes, constantly and energetically, the non-hiding of it -- it is to be celebrated, affirmed, and certainly not hidden. In part this is because it's not satisfying for the same elites Walt is talking about to have to keep their behaviors quiet -- this makes them feel a bit shameful, and the entire point of the liberation movement was to delete shame, both personal and social, from sexual choices. Reinstituting this will be extraordinarily difficult, and it cewrtainly won't happen by means to an appeal to a bilateral, differentiated hierarchy of sexual morality.
But even leaving aside that difficulty, the reality is that we live in a digital panopticon -- it simply won't be the case that this behavior ever really goes hidden again unless there is a massive shift culturally away from the panopticon -- and I don't see Walt or others with similar views discussing the feasibility of that happening (likely because it's pretty hard to imagine given the large amount of $$$$ that are generated by maintaining the panopticon).
And if you can't keep the behaviors hidden from the masses (either because you don't want to, or because the panopticon doesn't let you, or both), you will have zero success in preventing the spread of these mores "downward" in the "socio-sexual hierarchy". After all, who wants to be a loser and adopt the mores or the loser class? Surely Walt doesn't expect that normies, men and women alike, will just accept the idea that "look, only a small number of people have what it takes to be the winners, you just need to accept you aren't in that group, and adapt mores thath suit your status". As the saying goes ... good luck with that.
---
On the abortion issue, his view is a common one. That doesn't mean it's coherent or consistent, but I do think that a lot of people are more comfortable than you think with having an incoherent and inconsistent approach on abortion along the lines Walt has described: don't like it, but want it available in case it's really needed", which is obviously inconsistent other than saying "sometimes I may need the ability to do something I think is bad, because even though it's bad it may be an attractive option for various reasons". That's not morally coherent, but it's an understandable human point of view, and I think many people share it -- in part because it's a more convenient perspective for them, but also in part because people do not value moral consistency very much. They value what "feels right in the moment", and that may not be what the morally consistent approach is. This brings up a larger cultural issue which is beyond the scope of your piece, I think, but suffice to say that the position Walt expresses there is more widely held, especially among the social class Walt is generally discussing in his writing.
>That doesn't mean it's coherent or consistent, but I do think that a lot of people are more comfortable than you think with having an incoherent and inconsistent approach on abortion along the lines Walt has described: don't like it, but want it available in case it's really needed", which is obviously inconsistent other than saying "sometimes I may need the ability to do something I think is bad, because even though it's bad it may be an attractive option for various reasons". That's not morally coherent, but it's an understandable human point of view, and I think many people share it -- in part because it's a more convenient perspective for them, but also in part because people do not value moral consistency very much.<
Yeah that's all very true. My point is that, if you're indulging in that sort of intellectual laziness and double-think, why should anyone take you seriously? The whole point of participating in this space is to try and rise above the moral standards (or lack thereof) of the average everyday normie who puts zero thought into anything.
> Well, in this age of "alternative facts" it's becoming almost impossible to agree on "the truth" and "being right."
As opposed to the age of three networks and centralized propaganda. Back then it was easy to force people to agree on the same narrative. Admittedly that narrative tended to be objectively false, but at least people agreed on it.
Yes, there was indeed an agreed-upon narrative among the centralized "news" organizations, but there was also a legitimate effort to find sources and corroboration and evidence; today, that effort to substantiate claims is out the window.
If Trump dropped dead of a heart attack during the upcoming debate, I can imagine there would immediately be reports that the CIA killed him with an arsenic-spiked water bottle, or whatever. And millions of people would believe it, because it came from their own trusted news source.
In the movie All the President's Men, the Washington Post editor keeps sending Woodward and Bernstein back out to get more evidence, and they do; they find a money trail that leads to Nixon resigning (he wouldn't have resigned if he wasn't guilty). Today, someone says MTG says Jewish space lasers caused the California fires, and millions of people believe her, and send her millions of dollars.
And Trump is still running on the Big Lie that he won in 2020 - he didn't. 60+ courts threw his case for lack of evidence. And yet people still believe he won.
So how do we discern "truth" or "objective reality" when people live in different information silos?
You just have to do your best with what you have. This means that uncertainty is pervasive, there will often be no quick or easy answers, and yes, many people will believe false things (but as Eugine pointed out, this was also a feature of our previous situation in which the Ministry of Truth was dominant, the difference of course being that people didn't even realize the true nature of their information environment).
The institutions that were supposed to be stewards of the truth beclowned themselves and forfeited their own credibility, so this is what we're stuck with. Institutions that took generations to build, once they've been soiled, cannot be replaced or reformed overnight.
> Yes, there was indeed an agreed-upon narrative among the centralized "news" organizations, but there was also a legitimate effort to find sources and corroboration and evidence
Yes, kind of like their was no famine in the USSR during the 1920s.
> he wouldn't have resigned if he wasn't guilty
Don't be so sure. The centralized narrative was much more powerful back in the day.
> And yet people still believe he won.
Because he clearly did.
Or do you have a better explanation for the synchronized stopping of reporting across multiple states followed by statistically impossible jumps for Biden, the multiple instances of observers being kicked or tricked out of the counting room followed by the count resuming in one case the counters literally boarding up the windows to keep the observers from seeing what's happening, the videos of counters running the same ballots multiple times through the machines, the sworn eyewitness affidavits, the miscellaneous statistical irregularities, etc.?
Oh, why am I asking. You're just a propaganda-spouting regime hack, don't bother denying it, I've looked at your substack.
Eugine, you still believe Trump won (and trot out the same old list of internet BS) despite 60+ courts and judges in a dozen states with dozens of judges (even the Supreme Court, TWICE) all rejected that evidence as BS.
I guess you don't believe in the US justice system any more - except when thy agree your opinion, and then you'd be shouting it to the rooftops. But all the courts rejected your so-called proof as internet bullshit.
My friend, you have drunk the delusional far-right Kool-Ade, and you are making a fool of yourself spouting all this denialism BS, and I bet I'm not the first person (I mean REAL People) who say you're nuts, or just lost down the internet rabbit hole. You're clearly a prime target for scammers and grifters like Trump - piling up nonsense that no sane courtroom would admit as evidence (look how many of Trump's lawyers and advisors have pleaded GUILTY to spouting lies -they're all gonna lose their lawyer's licences).
I'm sure there's a cult just waiting to send you an invitation. Wonder what your friends and family think: uh, earth-to-Eugine, your tinfoil hat is making you look a little, well, delusional.
Like the lady holding the sign "Dems Eat Babies" and the interviewer says "you sound a little crazy" and she says "Democrats eat babies and you think I'M crazy?"
Well, good luck Eugine, and someday when the Trump Trance breaks and you all see you've been suckered (like the folks in crypto-ponzi-schemes) then won't you feel like a fool. And good luck to your family that has to listen to your nonsense. I bet they're sick to death of your Trump BS; so you spend your life scrolling down through the internet rabbit hole with like-minded delusional suckers who don't know they're being grifted by the Greatest Con-man in American History. But con-men need stupid, gullible, weak-minded fools who buy their bullshit.
Here's a word of TRUTH: Donald Trump doesn't give a shit about you or anyone else; he's in it for himself, and just grifting off all the suckers like you.
PT Barnum said it a long time ago: there's a sucker born every minute. And Barnum made a lot of dough off those suckers, just like Trump's reeling in the cash from the MAGA suckers.
I think there's gonna be a great money-making opportunity in the Deprogramming MAGA-heads industry; just lay your money down and I'll snap you out of your Trump Trance, in 10 easy-to-pay instalments.
Any, I'm usually respectful to everyone, but anyone who believes Trump won in 2020, well, sorry, like the woman who believes Dems Eat Babies, you're all just a joke. So stick that where the sun don't shine in your red MAGA hat (made in China, sucker).
> Eugine, you still believe Trump won (and trot out the same old list of internet BS)
Which you or anyone else has yet to refute, or even address in any way that passes a basic laugh test.
> I guess you don't believe in the US justice system any more - except when thy agree your opinion, and then you'd be shouting it to the rooftops. But all the courts rejected your so-called proof as internet bullshit.
So you aren't actually capable of thinking for yourself and thus need to defer to the "proper authorities".
So does producing eight paragraphs of meaningless screeching make you feel better about not being able to think for yourself?
>>>Which you or anyone else has yet to refute, or even address in any way that passes a basic laugh test.
Duh, it's been refuted by dozens of courts, and admitted by a whole circle of Trump lawyers and insiders. Are you deaf and blind. Or just refuse to see the truth. Trump lost, and you're delusional if you think otherwise.
>>>So you aren't actually capable of thinking for yourself and thus need to defer to the "proper authorities".
au contraire, I think for myself, and post what I believe, and don't need anyone else (especially cult-nuts like you) telling me what to think
I guess getting through to someone like you who's surrendered your mind to the Cult of Trump is hopeless. Spew your pseudo-scholarship and rabbit hole insanity all you want, the world sees you a delusional dupe - bet your family thinks so too. Well, like the lady said, "Dems eat babies, and you think I'M crazy?" Yes, you're crazy. But you know what, you're free to be crazy and delusional and to send money to Trump - the Grifter-in-Chief is counting on you. End of discussion.
Despite 60+ court cases in a dozen different states with dozens of different judges (including SCOTUS, twice!) but I guess you know better than all those courts. So why even have courts? Maybe do a poll on the internet and the one with the most Likes becomes the Truth.
And I don't know how you can call me a "propaganda-spouting regime hack"? No one's paying me; I don't work for any political party; and I don't even think Biden's the way forward. But I do have my OWN opinions and I put a lot of time into researching and writing my articles, because I think there's a danger of neo-fascism (the old poison in a new red-white-and-blue bottle) and it's still a free country with free speech and I'm entitled to my opinion. If you disagree, then disagree. But don't attack me personally.
This information is very easily accessible online. You could use an AI to get the basic facts. No need to restrain your curiosity on this. It was coined by Yarvin and is funded by Thiel.
To understand how Walt thinks aborting first trimester babies is moral but older babies are not, you have to understand his moral intersubjectivism. It’s an unusual morality, but essentially he thinks that what is moral is what society agrees is moral. So since polls are ok with aborting first trimester babies, he is ok with it. He tries to shift morality by shifting public opinion to agreeing that his lifestyle is moral.
I mean sure, but that's just post-modernism, right? At some point you need to have an actual reason for why people should shift their opinion to be more in line with yours. If someone asks why you're right, "well most of society agrees that this is moral" is a shitty reason, especially if you're trying to push a belief that actually isn't supported by most of society (which again, by definition, that's what you're trying to do as a dissident).
So to give an example here, if confronted by a sex negative feminist, Walt wouldn't make the appeal to them that they should believe in his views of sexuality instead because "most of society agrees with him." He would make arguments about why his view of sexuality is true and the feminist's is false, or at the very least, he'd make arguments about which one is more appealing for whatever reasons. Falling back on "well most of society agrees with me" is only something you do if you don't have any real arguments to put forward.
First, I'm not impressed at all with chasing thots. And it doesn't matter what side you are on, be it some grifter fucking and chucking girls, or a different grifter using feminine shaming arguments along with feminine metrics that only manifested as maladaptive behavior in captivity such as alpha, beta, etc.
So already, I'm not on the side of the e celebs putting more miles on them, and I'm not on the side of those who enable them by pretending the prius with 300k miles is a ferrari.
The abortion problem is also something neither of them will touch. Put simply: No one worth anything would exterminate their own children no matter how much such were allowed and encouraged.
So the problem isn't whether it's banned or not (which doesn't do anything anyway), but rather that a rounding error short of one hundred percent of females voluntarily spayed themselves through the pill, one of several other methods, the experimental gene therapy, and so forth. The subject cannot even arise in this context unless the female quit doing that (read: had the intention of weaponizing it against the man by enslaving him with it) at which point the man tries escaping the trap. Alternately, he does escape the trap, at which point the female kills it because it's no longer serving its purpose (the latter is considerably more likely, no matter how much tradcucks pretend otherwise).
Which brings us to the real lesson here - it's not as if the females will go "Oh, I can't exterminate my own children, I'd better be a good wife and mother!" That Evil will merely manifest in other, less obvious ways if you don't allow them to self filter before you go sticking your dick in crazy! At least a considerable portion of the single mother spawn who have a small chance of being based and a massive chance of being simpanzees ultimately stem from this female torture.
By agreeing and amplifying their insanity, you effectively prevent abortion as no one is breeding them in the first place.
You could argue no one is breeding any of them in the first place, but that just proves men got the menu - don't stick your dick in crazy!
> People who don’t care about being right aren’t even here to read any of this crap—they’re mainstream political normies listening to Daily Wire podcasts or something.
Hey, most of the people listening to the Daily Wire care about truth.
> In the future, humans will be able to breed without the sin of heterosexual intercourse. So an illegalization of heterosexuality might be coming down the line.
The people pushing that aren't the monotheists. Hint: look at who is supporting things like surrogacy.
Yea, encouraging men to actually approach women was the good part of PUA. Richard Hanania has a good article on this. But the fact that this knowledge now has to be transmitted through “manosphere” online content is indicative of the overall social rot.
If you want relationships and marriages, you have to let men actually pursue women. Sex negative feminism and wokeshit in general has vilified this dynamic though.
Some issues with the Walt Bismarck approach you didn't address are issues related to technocratic rule and transhumanism specifically. I'm not sure about Walt Bismarck, but John Arcto notoriously still supports the vaxx and opposes questioning the global warming narrative.
The conspiracy theorists are absolute poison to this space.
I make no apologies for refusing to get sucked down that vortex, where everything associated with the other side is some kind of grand plot. Being a Humean skeptic, I don't like to make assumptions.
I know you think that the 'chuds' are not wrong about a single thing, but some of us are less tribalistic in our mentality, and try to look at conflicting interests and never place blind trust in any one political side to establish the facts.
> Being a Humean skeptic, I don't like to make assumptions.
Except the assumption that the official narrative of the moment is completely correct, no matter how many times major parts of it are eventually proven wrong.
Look we've had this discussion before, you sort of admitted I was right, but then went back to unquestioningly believing the mainstream narrative.
I don’t understand why there has to be exceptions for gay surrogacy. It wasn’t a thing for thousands of years. Maybe we should have rape exceptions? After all you can’t really stop it- it will always be around.
As Carl Schmitt said: Sovereign is he who makes the exception.
Whether Walt’s idea of allowing “elites” to participate in degeneracy is something you regard as good or bad, it’s worth pointing out, as you did, what exactly will stop that behavior from trickling down? That’s a huge part of the reason we’re in the situation we’re in currently. Our elites extol the virtues of gay marriage, sexual promiscuity, abortion, transgenderism, single motherhood, polyamory, transactional relationships, affairs, divorce, breaking off communications with family and friends on ideological grounds, etc. and you don’t have to look far to see how many of those things have become mainstream and entrenched in our culture. Unless there’s a plan on how to tear out the current elite or convince them not to promote these things AND have a plan to stop the behaviors or attitudes from trickling down then I think Walt should just keep dreaming.
Americans are different and notions of “equality” have been baked into the cake since the founding. You’re not going to convince Americans to accept an elite class that can behave however they want while the rest of society just sucks it up and plays by the rules.
Elites have always participated in degeneracy.
That's why people don't see Donald Trump's philandering as a problem because they see it as totally normal for men of his station.
But it's degenerate. And it included children for all of history just like it did for Boomer elites.
Yep. But it hasn't always been out in the open and accepted as normal. In the very recent past, as in well within the living memory of older people, elites kept their misbehavior hidden and projected an image of virtue to the public.
maybe it's time to discuss the "touchy" topic of Trump's philandering with his own daughter:
https://neofascism.substack.com/p/a-touchy-topic
These are some good points.
It's on the gay issue where I think Walt is overly tolerant of the 'based gays' (will he be saying in 20 years the 'based tr00ns)?.
But aside from that, I think the Barstool Manifesto was a good compromise.
I've read Walt's stuff,. and while it can be entertaining reading (and I think he is often being intentionally provocative, which makes for interesting reading at times), the proposals are either not intended to be taken seriously, or are wildly utopian in overlooking basic realities.
The vision of having two sets of moral standards -- one for "elites" and one for "normies", based on the observed fact that some at the top level of the education ladder in the meritocratic elite seem to weather a season or three of "screwing around in their twenties" much better than the typical lesser-educated normies do. And the point is made that there were always de facto looser morals for the true social elites relative to the masses, etc.
The problem with applying this kind of logic to the current world, however, is, as you have pointed out elsewhere in the comments here, the fact that in our current panopticon, there is no way to hide this behavior and, in fact, the dominant culture promotes, constantly and energetically, the non-hiding of it -- it is to be celebrated, affirmed, and certainly not hidden. In part this is because it's not satisfying for the same elites Walt is talking about to have to keep their behaviors quiet -- this makes them feel a bit shameful, and the entire point of the liberation movement was to delete shame, both personal and social, from sexual choices. Reinstituting this will be extraordinarily difficult, and it cewrtainly won't happen by means to an appeal to a bilateral, differentiated hierarchy of sexual morality.
But even leaving aside that difficulty, the reality is that we live in a digital panopticon -- it simply won't be the case that this behavior ever really goes hidden again unless there is a massive shift culturally away from the panopticon -- and I don't see Walt or others with similar views discussing the feasibility of that happening (likely because it's pretty hard to imagine given the large amount of $$$$ that are generated by maintaining the panopticon).
And if you can't keep the behaviors hidden from the masses (either because you don't want to, or because the panopticon doesn't let you, or both), you will have zero success in preventing the spread of these mores "downward" in the "socio-sexual hierarchy". After all, who wants to be a loser and adopt the mores or the loser class? Surely Walt doesn't expect that normies, men and women alike, will just accept the idea that "look, only a small number of people have what it takes to be the winners, you just need to accept you aren't in that group, and adapt mores thath suit your status". As the saying goes ... good luck with that.
---
On the abortion issue, his view is a common one. That doesn't mean it's coherent or consistent, but I do think that a lot of people are more comfortable than you think with having an incoherent and inconsistent approach on abortion along the lines Walt has described: don't like it, but want it available in case it's really needed", which is obviously inconsistent other than saying "sometimes I may need the ability to do something I think is bad, because even though it's bad it may be an attractive option for various reasons". That's not morally coherent, but it's an understandable human point of view, and I think many people share it -- in part because it's a more convenient perspective for them, but also in part because people do not value moral consistency very much. They value what "feels right in the moment", and that may not be what the morally consistent approach is. This brings up a larger cultural issue which is beyond the scope of your piece, I think, but suffice to say that the position Walt expresses there is more widely held, especially among the social class Walt is generally discussing in his writing.
>That doesn't mean it's coherent or consistent, but I do think that a lot of people are more comfortable than you think with having an incoherent and inconsistent approach on abortion along the lines Walt has described: don't like it, but want it available in case it's really needed", which is obviously inconsistent other than saying "sometimes I may need the ability to do something I think is bad, because even though it's bad it may be an attractive option for various reasons". That's not morally coherent, but it's an understandable human point of view, and I think many people share it -- in part because it's a more convenient perspective for them, but also in part because people do not value moral consistency very much.<
Yeah that's all very true. My point is that, if you're indulging in that sort of intellectual laziness and double-think, why should anyone take you seriously? The whole point of participating in this space is to try and rise above the moral standards (or lack thereof) of the average everyday normie who puts zero thought into anything.
"The essence of being a dissident is that you care more about the truth—about being right—than you do about political convenience."
Well, in this age of "alternative facts" it's becoming almost impossible to agree on "the truth" and "being right."
There's an old Bob Dylan line "you're right from your side, and I'm right from mine"
So how do we solve problems (THAT'S the issue, solving problems, not winning debates) when we can't agree on basic objective reality.
Who won the 2020 election?
Is climate change a hoax?
Does fluoridation make people gay? or communist?
In negotiations, the starting point is to find one thing we can agree on. And then look for another.
No agreement, no solutions.
So maybe it's time to drop the tribal ideologies and get pragmatic; how are we gonna fix this problem? Let's find one thing to agree on.
And as for Substack Notes, nawh, Twitter's bad enough, we don't need another sewer of human venting.
> Well, in this age of "alternative facts" it's becoming almost impossible to agree on "the truth" and "being right."
As opposed to the age of three networks and centralized propaganda. Back then it was easy to force people to agree on the same narrative. Admittedly that narrative tended to be objectively false, but at least people agreed on it.
Yes, there was indeed an agreed-upon narrative among the centralized "news" organizations, but there was also a legitimate effort to find sources and corroboration and evidence; today, that effort to substantiate claims is out the window.
If Trump dropped dead of a heart attack during the upcoming debate, I can imagine there would immediately be reports that the CIA killed him with an arsenic-spiked water bottle, or whatever. And millions of people would believe it, because it came from their own trusted news source.
In the movie All the President's Men, the Washington Post editor keeps sending Woodward and Bernstein back out to get more evidence, and they do; they find a money trail that leads to Nixon resigning (he wouldn't have resigned if he wasn't guilty). Today, someone says MTG says Jewish space lasers caused the California fires, and millions of people believe her, and send her millions of dollars.
And Trump is still running on the Big Lie that he won in 2020 - he didn't. 60+ courts threw his case for lack of evidence. And yet people still believe he won.
So how do we discern "truth" or "objective reality" when people live in different information silos?
You just have to do your best with what you have. This means that uncertainty is pervasive, there will often be no quick or easy answers, and yes, many people will believe false things (but as Eugine pointed out, this was also a feature of our previous situation in which the Ministry of Truth was dominant, the difference of course being that people didn't even realize the true nature of their information environment).
The institutions that were supposed to be stewards of the truth beclowned themselves and forfeited their own credibility, so this is what we're stuck with. Institutions that took generations to build, once they've been soiled, cannot be replaced or reformed overnight.
> Yes, there was indeed an agreed-upon narrative among the centralized "news" organizations, but there was also a legitimate effort to find sources and corroboration and evidence
Yes, kind of like their was no famine in the USSR during the 1920s.
> he wouldn't have resigned if he wasn't guilty
Don't be so sure. The centralized narrative was much more powerful back in the day.
> And yet people still believe he won.
Because he clearly did.
Or do you have a better explanation for the synchronized stopping of reporting across multiple states followed by statistically impossible jumps for Biden, the multiple instances of observers being kicked or tricked out of the counting room followed by the count resuming in one case the counters literally boarding up the windows to keep the observers from seeing what's happening, the videos of counters running the same ballots multiple times through the machines, the sworn eyewitness affidavits, the miscellaneous statistical irregularities, etc.?
Oh, why am I asking. You're just a propaganda-spouting regime hack, don't bother denying it, I've looked at your substack.
Eugine, you still believe Trump won (and trot out the same old list of internet BS) despite 60+ courts and judges in a dozen states with dozens of judges (even the Supreme Court, TWICE) all rejected that evidence as BS.
I guess you don't believe in the US justice system any more - except when thy agree your opinion, and then you'd be shouting it to the rooftops. But all the courts rejected your so-called proof as internet bullshit.
My friend, you have drunk the delusional far-right Kool-Ade, and you are making a fool of yourself spouting all this denialism BS, and I bet I'm not the first person (I mean REAL People) who say you're nuts, or just lost down the internet rabbit hole. You're clearly a prime target for scammers and grifters like Trump - piling up nonsense that no sane courtroom would admit as evidence (look how many of Trump's lawyers and advisors have pleaded GUILTY to spouting lies -they're all gonna lose their lawyer's licences).
I'm sure there's a cult just waiting to send you an invitation. Wonder what your friends and family think: uh, earth-to-Eugine, your tinfoil hat is making you look a little, well, delusional.
Like the lady holding the sign "Dems Eat Babies" and the interviewer says "you sound a little crazy" and she says "Democrats eat babies and you think I'M crazy?"
Well, good luck Eugine, and someday when the Trump Trance breaks and you all see you've been suckered (like the folks in crypto-ponzi-schemes) then won't you feel like a fool. And good luck to your family that has to listen to your nonsense. I bet they're sick to death of your Trump BS; so you spend your life scrolling down through the internet rabbit hole with like-minded delusional suckers who don't know they're being grifted by the Greatest Con-man in American History. But con-men need stupid, gullible, weak-minded fools who buy their bullshit.
Here's a word of TRUTH: Donald Trump doesn't give a shit about you or anyone else; he's in it for himself, and just grifting off all the suckers like you.
PT Barnum said it a long time ago: there's a sucker born every minute. And Barnum made a lot of dough off those suckers, just like Trump's reeling in the cash from the MAGA suckers.
I think there's gonna be a great money-making opportunity in the Deprogramming MAGA-heads industry; just lay your money down and I'll snap you out of your Trump Trance, in 10 easy-to-pay instalments.
Any, I'm usually respectful to everyone, but anyone who believes Trump won in 2020, well, sorry, like the woman who believes Dems Eat Babies, you're all just a joke. So stick that where the sun don't shine in your red MAGA hat (made in China, sucker).
> Eugine, you still believe Trump won (and trot out the same old list of internet BS)
Which you or anyone else has yet to refute, or even address in any way that passes a basic laugh test.
> I guess you don't believe in the US justice system any more - except when thy agree your opinion, and then you'd be shouting it to the rooftops. But all the courts rejected your so-called proof as internet bullshit.
So you aren't actually capable of thinking for yourself and thus need to defer to the "proper authorities".
So does producing eight paragraphs of meaningless screeching make you feel better about not being able to think for yourself?
>>>Which you or anyone else has yet to refute, or even address in any way that passes a basic laugh test.
Duh, it's been refuted by dozens of courts, and admitted by a whole circle of Trump lawyers and insiders. Are you deaf and blind. Or just refuse to see the truth. Trump lost, and you're delusional if you think otherwise.
>>>So you aren't actually capable of thinking for yourself and thus need to defer to the "proper authorities".
au contraire, I think for myself, and post what I believe, and don't need anyone else (especially cult-nuts like you) telling me what to think
I guess getting through to someone like you who's surrendered your mind to the Cult of Trump is hopeless. Spew your pseudo-scholarship and rabbit hole insanity all you want, the world sees you a delusional dupe - bet your family thinks so too. Well, like the lady said, "Dems eat babies, and you think I'M crazy?" Yes, you're crazy. But you know what, you're free to be crazy and delusional and to send money to Trump - the Grifter-in-Chief is counting on you. End of discussion.
well, there it is. You say Trump clearly won.
Despite 60+ court cases in a dozen different states with dozens of different judges (including SCOTUS, twice!) but I guess you know better than all those courts. So why even have courts? Maybe do a poll on the internet and the one with the most Likes becomes the Truth.
And I don't know how you can call me a "propaganda-spouting regime hack"? No one's paying me; I don't work for any political party; and I don't even think Biden's the way forward. But I do have my OWN opinions and I put a lot of time into researching and writing my articles, because I think there's a danger of neo-fascism (the old poison in a new red-white-and-blue bottle) and it's still a free country with free speech and I'm entitled to my opinion. If you disagree, then disagree. But don't attack me personally.
> But don't attack me personally.
If you don't want to be called a "propaganda-spouting regime hack", don't act like one.
It’s a very artificial and controlled debate.
How so?
Who coined the term Vitalism? Who funds it?
> Who coined the term Vitalism?
I've been somewhat curious about that myself.
My working hypothesis is some Nietzschean who decided it sounded better than "nihilism".
This information is very easily accessible online. You could use an AI to get the basic facts. No need to restrain your curiosity on this. It was coined by Yarvin and is funded by Thiel.
Lol Vitalism means that the spirit is primary and the material world is an effect.
To understand how Walt thinks aborting first trimester babies is moral but older babies are not, you have to understand his moral intersubjectivism. It’s an unusual morality, but essentially he thinks that what is moral is what society agrees is moral. So since polls are ok with aborting first trimester babies, he is ok with it. He tries to shift morality by shifting public opinion to agreeing that his lifestyle is moral.
https://newaltright.substack.com/p/pets-deserve-more-than-livestock?utm_source=activity_item
I mean sure, but that's just post-modernism, right? At some point you need to have an actual reason for why people should shift their opinion to be more in line with yours. If someone asks why you're right, "well most of society agrees that this is moral" is a shitty reason, especially if you're trying to push a belief that actually isn't supported by most of society (which again, by definition, that's what you're trying to do as a dissident).
So to give an example here, if confronted by a sex negative feminist, Walt wouldn't make the appeal to them that they should believe in his views of sexuality instead because "most of society agrees with him." He would make arguments about why his view of sexuality is true and the feminist's is false, or at the very least, he'd make arguments about which one is more appealing for whatever reasons. Falling back on "well most of society agrees with me" is only something you do if you don't have any real arguments to put forward.
Two things.
First, I'm not impressed at all with chasing thots. And it doesn't matter what side you are on, be it some grifter fucking and chucking girls, or a different grifter using feminine shaming arguments along with feminine metrics that only manifested as maladaptive behavior in captivity such as alpha, beta, etc.
So already, I'm not on the side of the e celebs putting more miles on them, and I'm not on the side of those who enable them by pretending the prius with 300k miles is a ferrari.
The abortion problem is also something neither of them will touch. Put simply: No one worth anything would exterminate their own children no matter how much such were allowed and encouraged.
So the problem isn't whether it's banned or not (which doesn't do anything anyway), but rather that a rounding error short of one hundred percent of females voluntarily spayed themselves through the pill, one of several other methods, the experimental gene therapy, and so forth. The subject cannot even arise in this context unless the female quit doing that (read: had the intention of weaponizing it against the man by enslaving him with it) at which point the man tries escaping the trap. Alternately, he does escape the trap, at which point the female kills it because it's no longer serving its purpose (the latter is considerably more likely, no matter how much tradcucks pretend otherwise).
Which brings us to the real lesson here - it's not as if the females will go "Oh, I can't exterminate my own children, I'd better be a good wife and mother!" That Evil will merely manifest in other, less obvious ways if you don't allow them to self filter before you go sticking your dick in crazy! At least a considerable portion of the single mother spawn who have a small chance of being based and a massive chance of being simpanzees ultimately stem from this female torture.
By agreeing and amplifying their insanity, you effectively prevent abortion as no one is breeding them in the first place.
You could argue no one is breeding any of them in the first place, but that just proves men got the menu - don't stick your dick in crazy!
> People who don’t care about being right aren’t even here to read any of this crap—they’re mainstream political normies listening to Daily Wire podcasts or something.
Hey, most of the people listening to the Daily Wire care about truth.
Yeah, I could've picked a better scapegoat there, maybe Fox News.
> In the future, humans will be able to breed without the sin of heterosexual intercourse. So an illegalization of heterosexuality might be coming down the line.
The people pushing that aren't the monotheists. Hint: look at who is supporting things like surrogacy.
I've already heard transhumanists say they consider it irresponsible to leave the genetics of children down to chance.
Yea, encouraging men to actually approach women was the good part of PUA. Richard Hanania has a good article on this. But the fact that this knowledge now has to be transmitted through “manosphere” online content is indicative of the overall social rot.
If you want relationships and marriages, you have to let men actually pursue women. Sex negative feminism and wokeshit in general has vilified this dynamic though.