I think you are correct, Mr. Rufo. I just finished the biography of Martin Luther by Eric Metaxas, and was surprised to read about some very kooky people that took his side in the reformation but started preaching crazy ideas that did much harm to the cause.
As you point out, Chris, some moral positions are a non-starter. For me, one of these is the vilification of Ukraine on the right. I don’t have a problem with those who wish to debate how much the US should be sending. I DO however have a huge problem with vilification of Ukraine and praise of Russia in order to persuade Americans that aiding Ukraine is morally wrong. There are influential populists who know they’re lying about the facts to manufacture support for Russia and the victims to these lies who live in that particular echo chamber. That coalition is as evil to me as those who are lying about racism in America in order to manipulate their army of followers.
I have the opposite view. Support for Ukraine is discrediting to me.
One of the big reasons there was a fracture on the right is that the institutional right supports foreign interventionism and forever wars. During the 2016 campaign Trump was the only person to criticize the Iraq War. Most people on the right seem to have learned nothing from the War on Terror.
For many of us, Ukraine is a just another neocon war. We don't see much daylight between the Ukrainian and Russian governments, we don't consider the outcome of the war important either geopolitically or morally, and we feel shame for our nation having played a role in the wars starting and continuing it.
Aiding Ukraine is morally wrong. Just as Iraq was morally wrong. Just as Vietnam was morally wrong.
> I have the opposite view. Support for Ukraine is discrediting to me.
How dare the Ukrainians defend their country.
> the institutional right supports foreign interventionism and forever wars.
Sorry, but pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist won't make it go away.
> we don't consider the outcome of the war important either geopolitically or morally, and we feel shame for our nation having played a role in the wars
So you don't care about people being hurt as a result of wars or bad regimes as long as you get to wash your hands of the whole thing.
The Ukrainians are a conscript army of men that can't leave. Recruiters kidnap people off the street, beat them up, and send them to die in WWI style offensives over shelled out farming villages that if they still had any people in them largely don't want to be ruled by Kiev and mostly just want the war to end.
You have an interesting way to describe the first war of territorial aggression in Europe since 1945 and the response of the victim to that aggression,
Same old talking points from the same wars we all regret today.
I care about people being hurt. I believe the US took several actions that increased the chance of war significantly and I wish it didn't take those actions.
I believe that the number one goal should be to end the war. Each day of war sees death and destruction.
I don't think anyone on the ground benefits substantially from the various negotiation terms that are likely to be discussed. Internal political incentives keep the war going because it's in the interest of decision makers, not the people suffering from the war.
Let me be clear about something. I do not feel being ruled by the regime in Kiev represents at significant improvement in quality of life over being ruled by Moscow. That goes double for the areas in the conflict zone. The costs of war are immense, and so I would need to believe that Kiev controlling this province or that village would make a gigantic difference to the long run welfare of those effected. I don't see that.
I see two failed states, largely similar, engaging in Western Front WWI style slaughter for no good reason.
> Same old talking points from the same wars we all regret today.
What do you mean "we". My only regret about most of those wars is that people like yourself were able to sabotage the war effort, greatly prolonging and increasing the amount of suffering in the process.
> I believe that the number one goal should be to end the war.
Funny, the WEF has the same goal. You sound like you should hook up with them. What, you thought there was some way of accomplishing that goal short of establishing a quasi-totalitarian world state?
So Eugine, where do you get your news? I would suggest that you take a look at the Ukraine since 2014 and see why Russian is in this war. They did not start it. They are defending their land and people. 400,000 Ukraine’s have died because of greed. I would you would care enough to get to the truth than believe what you are told to believe.
Personally I don’t hear anyone praising Russia. And I think it’s important to distinguish between the Ukrainian government (as corrupt as Russian government) and the Ukrainian people. When people on the right “vilify” Ukraine, they are talking about its government.
The main reason the Ukrainians were aligning with the West is because they wanted a less corrupt government. Unfortunately, in the meantime the West was going insane.
A difficult question. I think we need to prioritize going after the woke. And those on the right who are off are not anywhere near the threat that the woke globalists are.
I hesitate to say NO enemies to the right, but we have to prioritize.
Curious question, does the Left have any enemies to the Left anymore? I know there are anti-woke liberals who refuse to believe that wokeness is the logical outcome of liberalism (see Deneen on this). But in general, does the Left eschew anyone as too extreme?
That might be an indication of whether we have truly devolved into friend-enemy politics.
In 2020, they let the guardrails down. But in the past year, the center-left has started to reassert itself and marginalize some of the more extreme BLM factions.
I have also read articles by gay people criticizing the trans movement. I think the coalition that needs uniting is the one in the abandoned center. I know a third party has never succeeded in the US. But we also have never been more politically divided and the fringes have never been more powerful within their parties. Under the right leader, it may be possible now to have a winning third party. It would be far more palatable for many to compromise with center left than far right.
Those aren't "enemies too extreme to the Left". Instead those are people the faction in control of the Democratic Party (the political vehicle of the Left in America) views as "not extreme enough".
I guess it hinges on how you view the Democrats. Are they a party dominated by the far-Left extremists? Or are they a party of centrists with some very loud, far-Left voices? For many years I believed the latter. I'm honestly not sure at this point. The Democratic leadership of the US Congress kneeling in worship of a racist, communist organization (BLM) was kind of an eye-opener for me about who's really in charge. To be fair, the Right's Jericho Rally in Dec 2020 was also an eye opener to me. The difference I see is, while there's plenty of crazy on both sides, the Left's crazy is in control most of the institutions in America.
Biden ran on being centrist and unifying the country- yet he's pursuing a new basis of "unity" - see: James Lindsay on Maoist America. A bit of an ah-ha for me on that one.
Perhaps another way to put this is that they are attempting to re-found the country on an entirely new basis. They are attempting to give it an explicitly theological (ideological) basis.
But what is the "Center?" It is a principled position, or some compromise with...whatever?
Re: your post above on Ukraine - just how much dissent from your opinion until those who do not agree with you (I do not) are "villifiers" and no better than the race-revivalists?
I can't speak for Lucy, but for me victim blaming Ukraine by saying its wanting to align with the West to defend against Russian aggression (and hopefully reduce corruption) justifies the Russian aggression isn't acceptable.
"Victim-blaming Ukraine by its wanting to align with the West to defend against Russian aggression" is pretty loaded, Eugine - it presumes all the answers to questions it really does not ask. As to "hopefully reduce corruption," perhaps that is better left unsaid...
How about Russia having been a defensive power for centuries, and "the West" (the American Govt.) having broken every promise and expanded aggressively; how about "our" empire having become what Athens became when they told their own allies, the Melians: "The strong do what they will, the weak do what they must" - and then slaughtering them. That our leaders openly talk about "killing Russians" (and every Ukrainians man - and woman - near-to fighting age) rather echoes that sentiment (Thucydides. Peloponnesian Wars).
I have yet to see a moralistic "take" on foreign policy that did not urge maximum bloodshed to..."end all wars." The American Govt. has not even tried to craft an enforceable peace - by its own admission.
All of this is directly related to what you dislike here at home - why you are here; your citizenship has been degraded to the point where you are nearly - and I say nearly, or I would not be here - an imperial subject. You don't think that we could become subject to domestic drone warfare, here? This will "come home" - just like the "War on Terror" has.
I will add - lest we degenerate into régime/party talking points - that I don't need to sympathize with "Russia" to say what I have said - never mind their invasion/war.
Imperialism always carries moralistic...justifications - and that includes domestic imperialism - the source of our complaints on this forum.
> How about Russia having been a defensive power for centuries,
Having defensively conquered a huge empire.
> and "the West" (the American Govt.) having broken every promise and expanded aggressively;
Where by "expanded aggressively" you mean didn't forbid former Russian satellites from joining NATO.
> how about "our" empire having become what Athens became when they told their own allies, the Melians: "The strong do what they will, the weak do what they must"
Funny, all the people I've heard endorse that sentiment have been anti-Ukrainian.
> I have yet to see a moralistic "take" on foreign policy that did not urge maximum bloodshed to..."end all wars."
Periods of peace have only ever happened under the protection of a dominant power. Hence, the tendency to name them after that power, e.g., Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana.
> All of this is directly related to what you dislike here at home - why you are here; your citizenship has been degraded to the point where you are nearly - and I say nearly, or I would not be here - an imperial subject.
Do you have any idea what kind of rights citizens of other countries have? Hint: less than Americans.
"Enemies" in politics? This is my simple acid test for deciding where my enemies are: I hate bullies, all kinds....bullies on the Left; bullies on the Right and bullies in the middle. In an ideal world (which of course it isn't) once a political movement set it's moral creed against bullies of whatever stamp, almost every other social/political 'issue' would become redundant....there'd be no need of 'human rights', no need of anti-this that-or-the-other - a creed based on just one simple 'human responsibility': don't try to bully your fellow man.
Of course here in the early 21st century, the great majority of political bullying is done in the name of 'Progress' but I still apply my acid test right across the political spectrum.
Conservatives have a generational opportunity to win the normies and erode Dem holds on key demos. Republicans can win big -- as long as they are running the sane candidate in comparison to a progressive moron.
Interestingly, I sense that the Democrats have abided by the no enemies on the left for sometime, but it's crumbling. To paraphrase Gerard Baker in today's WSJ, globalists, green freaks, and nihilists are losing their grip. Not a day too soon if you ask me.
People are people. Freedom is doing what you want. Liberty is doing what is right. Do no harm and don’t take others stuff. Do onto others as you would want done to you. Be kind. Do the right thing when no one is looking. 🙏🏻🇺🇸
We are living it. Your position is correct. Those of us dissidents are a mix of independents, conservatives, and conscientious objectors from the "former left/liberal". We are living through a situation at a family-members place of employment where some left-leaning politics happened, it got out in public, and not to go in to specifics but they've received what appears to be extreme threats from a right wing individual or group. This, galvanizes the left, empower the establishment, and lumps us dissidents easily (by their media) into one group of extremists. In summary, going to the point of threats is a horrible strategy that I condemn.. I get it, both sides have violent and/or threatening extremists. The dissident movement is hurt by extremists making threats. The left can do it all day long, they enjoy cover and hero status.
"No enemies to the right" (and same with "left") strikes me as particularly dangerous because of its ambiguity and room for plausible deniability. It is one thing to advocate for, say, a relative shift in emphasis away from intra-conservative fighting toward focusing on other issues (and maybe that is a good idea, maybe not, I don't know), but quite another to ally oneself with overtly repulsive people and ideas. In this case I think the answer is simple but not easy: remain principled, and do not sacrifice integrity.
Good point, Martin. I think a shift in focus is important. I also think that "no enemies to the right," without qualifications and exceptions, is too categorical to be productive in the real world.
Have you read your own comment, Mr. psychiatrist? It's full of ambiguity too. Who decides who is overtly repulsive, and based on what metrics? Who decides the same about ideas?
Which are those righteous principles that you think people should be guided by?
I am, for example, repulsed by what psychiatry considered paraphilias 50 years ago. Are you?
Like most people, I'm not familiar with any of the four thinkers lined up for this debate. Googling didn't help their case. I'm averse to theory, theology, and pontifications.
Yes, there is a scary "woke" army out there, commies, identity politicians etc. trying to take over everything. Isn't best opposition to that movement is a broad coalition of everybody else?
"Conservative" is a limiting term. It excludes independents still furious about the Dobbs decision, and turns off agnostics, libertines and libertarians, moderate Democrats, either the pro-Trump or the anti-Trump depending on who's talking, and Boomers who remember the Vidal-Buckley feud, rooted for neither, and enjoyed a spectacle where the intellectuals got down and dirty with the rest of us.
The problem is that the hook up culture enabled by abortion and libertinism is one of the things that set us on the path that ultimately lead to trans as the emptiness of the libertine lifestyle leads to people seeking out ever more extreme and deviant forms of sex.
Don't act like you discovered prudish, sexually repressed thinking. It's been here since the Puritans got a shock when they landed on Plymouth Rock, per Cole Porter. "In olden days, a glimpse of stocking..." Flappers! Jazz music! Comic books! "Impure thoughts!" Panty raids! Hef! Those damned hippies and their Sexual Revolution! "Hook up culture"?-- love the turn of the century Tom Wolfe reference, but by that time even committed libertines were well aware of the dangers of excess, and wise conservatives had learned to keep their thoughts on sexuality out of their political campaigns.
Now you somehow link abortion rights to the "path to trans"? A more direct route to what you call deviance runs from Anthony Comstock, through the priest-perverts of the Catholic abuse scandals, to the right wing's own long march to the Dobbs decision. Problem is, that last bit has taken the "sex positive" vs. "save it for marriage" battle from the soapboxes to the ballot boxes. The "L" word you need to worry about in that fight isn't "libertine" (rooted in liberty and freedom) but rather "loser", because whenever reproductive freedom is on the ballot, the anti-sex side takes one in the L column.
> Don't act like you discovered prudish, sexually repressed thinking.
I didn't discover anything. I'm repeating ancient wisdom that our culture foolishly rejected and is now suffering from it.
It would appear you are essentially arguing that you are all for driving off the cliff, and don't see the connection to the whole "crashing into the canyon below" thing.
> A more direct route to what you call deviance runs from Anthony Comstock, through the priest-perverts of the Catholic abuse scandals
There are many more abusive teachers than abusive priests. The latter get the attention because the media wants to distract us from the former.
In personal behavior, follow any ancient wisdom you want. During political interaction, be pragmatic.
Opposing the imposition of strange gender (and racial) ideology and language on minors is a good place to draw the line, particularly when dealing with local education politics.
Opposing abortion loudly and persistently, or systematically shunning pro-choice candidates (as the GOP has been doing) is a one way ticket to palookaville. Watch and learn the hard way if you disagree with me on this. Elections have profound consequences for the economy and public safety.
In the long run, the anti-abortion faction of the GOP must either yield control and satisfy itself non-coercive efforts at persuasion, or be bypassed by a third party effort. Yield control on abortion (and genuine LGB rights, as presently secured) and the GOP can get its way on the economy, crime, and other issues. Fail to yield on the social issues, and come the post-Trump era the sanctimoniously branded GOP will consign itself to permanent minor party status.
> Opposing the imposition of strange gender (and racial) ideology and language on minors is a good place to draw the line,
Abortion and "LGB rights" were considered equally strange when they were imposed by the supreme court.
> Yield control on abortion (and genuine LGB rights, as presently secured)
In other words, accept that the leftwing ratchet. In another decade people like yourself will be arguing "Accept 'trans rights' and draw the line at pedophilia".
I also have learned that the mainstream, old guard, traditional, (insert words here for the people in power) are all either corrupt, lazy or power hungry. None are to be trusted.
I am an independent thinker with a mostly leftist political background. My values are very anti-authoritarian, and I oppose authoritarianism on both the left and the right. I am a strong supporter of the U.S. Constitution as our country's guiding document, and am particularly dedicated to the Bill of Rights. I do not want a "socialist" system in the U.S. but am in favor of moderate safety nets, such as Social Security. I want to be a part of a coalition whose primary purpose is to oppose the woke cult's efforts to "disrupt and dismantle" our societal norms, freedoms and laws.
I do not support racism or sexism in any of their forms, and I see both of these tendencies operating among some people on both the right and the left. Racist and sexist attitudes strongly interfere with my willingness to make common cause with their proponents, but I am open to honest and respectful dialogue with people who hold these positions.
A level of tension appears to be emerging between people who more or less share my values and agendas, and people who share with each other an agenda of forming a new conservative movement or party. Perhaps it would be helpful if we could separate those two very important projects, so that conservative people would not feel pressured to adopt positions held by anti-woke independents like myself, and I would not feel pressured to adopt positions of theirs that I strongly oppose, such as total bans on abortion access.
I think that limiting the focus and goals of coalitions might help reduce internal fracturing. A lot of wars have been fought in this manner, including WWII. I don't need to embrace the Republican Party to join with Republicans and other Americans on the right for the purpose of combatting the increasing authoritarianism in our country. I am interested in forming alliances for the purpose of attaining goals that we do have in common, without being pressured to change my values and beliefs to fit in with those of a group. That is precisely what I am opposing when I reject woke conformity.
> I do not support racism or sexism in any of their forms
What do you mean by "racism" and "sexism", everyone has their own definitions these days? Further nearly all the definitions floating around being "anti-racist" or "anti-sexist" ultimately requires one to reject the real biological differences between the races or sexes and thus can only be enforced via totalitarian means.
I am referring more to arguments intended to prove that some demographic is inferior to others or more blameworthy. I reject the belief that white people are responsible for black peoples’ current social problems, although that can be true on an individual level ( a white person is contributing to a black person’s problems). Likewise, I reject the argument that the woke movement is the result of women gaining public power.
If Charles Haywood is now the "dissident right", we are screwed. Some new, irrelevant figure that's coming with 2016-era MAGA talking points, opposed by fearful, paranoid shitlibs like James Lindsay?
The real dissident right, Mr. Rufo, you are not engaging with, I guess. You'd have to talk with somebody like, I dunno, Devon Stack, or Morgoth - people that have been doing this for a decade now.
Or with Jared Taylor and Amren.
The truth is, you simply want to be the one to police boundaries. Everyone wants that. You want to be the one that is saying where speech becomes too extreme to be given the light of day in a debate.
In many ways, you are similar to the shitlibs you claim to fight, and simply refuse to discuss genuine issues like ethnicity and race.
For example, everyone, including Richard Dawkins, acknowledges that eugenics work - how else could we have so many specific dog breeds. Yet everyone has a heart attack when it comes to humans.
A good challenge. I think you're right that Jared Taylor would be a good test case for the principle of "no enemies to the right." My own point of view is that the ideology of Taylor is a political and moral dead end. That's not to say, for example, that he should be banned from social media, which I believe is wrong. But it is to say that I would argue against Taylor's position and believe that it would not find traction on the Right.
Taylor is basically a milquetoast separatist. He does not have strong opinions on foreign policy, he rarely touches on sex and gender, he is not anti-Semitic, and simply wants that European whites be given the same privileges as Blacks in the US, and freedom of association be restored.
Do remember, the integration was made at the point of a gun, as we all know the images of the National Guard making sure whites are no longer able to disassociate from groups they desired nothing to do with.
Does that sound like freedom and liberty? It does not for me.
I am 100% positive he would welcome a discussion. He is still banned on social media, even under Elon, even though he is a polite gentleman, and only his ideas are impolite. Meanwhile, his detractors, like Michael E. Jones, a raging anti-Semite but racial universalist because of Catholicism, was allowed back on, just as an example.
If these ideas are so dated, it has to be proven. I appreciate honesty, so I'll say from the start that freedom of association is not negotiable for me, and I do not believe in universalism.
I also appreciate that you have your comments open, and that you replied. I imagine you face mountains of hostility and real idiotic replies, you're incredibly busy, yet you still have time to put in a reply to a random anon. We're not all "demons" as Jordan Peterson thinks, and I definitely want you and DeSantis to succeed, as I like policy above culture wars online, by far.
Yes, I strongly disagree with Peterson on anonymity/pseudonymity. And I would encourage Elon to allow many accounts with which I personally disagree, including Taylor, back on X/Twitter, in the interest of a wide range of public speech and debate.
If it's gotten to the pt. of mask-off political persecutions of a major leader, and biasing of elections, and yet people are still debating "no enemies..." etc. then right-wing or just anti-woke politics in general, will be a laughable joke (it's already lame and ineffectual , & the Rep. Party still needs to become much more populist). Things have gotten radical, and we're debating radicalism???
Listen to the debate here: https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1706790626182955508.
I think you are correct, Mr. Rufo. I just finished the biography of Martin Luther by Eric Metaxas, and was surprised to read about some very kooky people that took his side in the reformation but started preaching crazy ideas that did much harm to the cause.
As you point out, Chris, some moral positions are a non-starter. For me, one of these is the vilification of Ukraine on the right. I don’t have a problem with those who wish to debate how much the US should be sending. I DO however have a huge problem with vilification of Ukraine and praise of Russia in order to persuade Americans that aiding Ukraine is morally wrong. There are influential populists who know they’re lying about the facts to manufacture support for Russia and the victims to these lies who live in that particular echo chamber. That coalition is as evil to me as those who are lying about racism in America in order to manipulate their army of followers.
I have the opposite view. Support for Ukraine is discrediting to me.
One of the big reasons there was a fracture on the right is that the institutional right supports foreign interventionism and forever wars. During the 2016 campaign Trump was the only person to criticize the Iraq War. Most people on the right seem to have learned nothing from the War on Terror.
For many of us, Ukraine is a just another neocon war. We don't see much daylight between the Ukrainian and Russian governments, we don't consider the outcome of the war important either geopolitically or morally, and we feel shame for our nation having played a role in the wars starting and continuing it.
Aiding Ukraine is morally wrong. Just as Iraq was morally wrong. Just as Vietnam was morally wrong.
Appreciate your civil tone and respect your convictions without agreeing with them.
War is extraordinarily profitable for the folks running things, that's all they care about.
💰💰💰💰💰💰
> I have the opposite view. Support for Ukraine is discrediting to me.
How dare the Ukrainians defend their country.
> the institutional right supports foreign interventionism and forever wars.
Sorry, but pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist won't make it go away.
> we don't consider the outcome of the war important either geopolitically or morally, and we feel shame for our nation having played a role in the wars
So you don't care about people being hurt as a result of wars or bad regimes as long as you get to wash your hands of the whole thing.
"How dare the Ukrainians defend their country."
The Ukrainians are a conscript army of men that can't leave. Recruiters kidnap people off the street, beat them up, and send them to die in WWI style offensives over shelled out farming villages that if they still had any people in them largely don't want to be ruled by Kiev and mostly just want the war to end.
You have an interesting way to describe the first war of territorial aggression in Europe since 1945 and the response of the victim to that aggression,
Same old talking points from the same wars we all regret today.
I care about people being hurt. I believe the US took several actions that increased the chance of war significantly and I wish it didn't take those actions.
I believe that the number one goal should be to end the war. Each day of war sees death and destruction.
I don't think anyone on the ground benefits substantially from the various negotiation terms that are likely to be discussed. Internal political incentives keep the war going because it's in the interest of decision makers, not the people suffering from the war.
Let me be clear about something. I do not feel being ruled by the regime in Kiev represents at significant improvement in quality of life over being ruled by Moscow. That goes double for the areas in the conflict zone. The costs of war are immense, and so I would need to believe that Kiev controlling this province or that village would make a gigantic difference to the long run welfare of those effected. I don't see that.
I see two failed states, largely similar, engaging in Western Front WWI style slaughter for no good reason.
You speak well on this subject.
Too bad he knows nothing about it.
He seems to know something, Eugine!
> Same old talking points from the same wars we all regret today.
What do you mean "we". My only regret about most of those wars is that people like yourself were able to sabotage the war effort, greatly prolonging and increasing the amount of suffering in the process.
> I believe that the number one goal should be to end the war.
Funny, the WEF has the same goal. You sound like you should hook up with them. What, you thought there was some way of accomplishing that goal short of establishing a quasi-totalitarian world state?
So Eugine, where do you get your news? I would suggest that you take a look at the Ukraine since 2014 and see why Russian is in this war. They did not start it. They are defending their land and people. 400,000 Ukraine’s have died because of greed. I would you would care enough to get to the truth than believe what you are told to believe.
> So Eugine, where do you get your news?
Personal connections in the areas involved.
> They are defending their land and people.
So, how many Ukrainian tanks are there in Russian territory?
Personally I don’t hear anyone praising Russia. And I think it’s important to distinguish between the Ukrainian government (as corrupt as Russian government) and the Ukrainian people. When people on the right “vilify” Ukraine, they are talking about its government.
The main reason the Ukrainians were aligning with the West is because they wanted a less corrupt government. Unfortunately, in the meantime the West was going insane.
A difficult question. I think we need to prioritize going after the woke. And those on the right who are off are not anywhere near the threat that the woke globalists are.
I hesitate to say NO enemies to the right, but we have to prioritize.
Curious question, does the Left have any enemies to the Left anymore? I know there are anti-woke liberals who refuse to believe that wokeness is the logical outcome of liberalism (see Deneen on this). But in general, does the Left eschew anyone as too extreme?
That might be an indication of whether we have truly devolved into friend-enemy politics.
In 2020, they let the guardrails down. But in the past year, the center-left has started to reassert itself and marginalize some of the more extreme BLM factions.
There are liberals have loudly criticized the woke left. See e.g. https://thehub.ca/2023-06-02/patrick-luciani-you-dont-have-to-be-a-conservative-to-be-anti-woke/
I have also read articles by gay people criticizing the trans movement. I think the coalition that needs uniting is the one in the abandoned center. I know a third party has never succeeded in the US. But we also have never been more politically divided and the fringes have never been more powerful within their parties. Under the right leader, it may be possible now to have a winning third party. It would be far more palatable for many to compromise with center left than far right.
Those aren't "enemies too extreme to the Left". Instead those are people the faction in control of the Democratic Party (the political vehicle of the Left in America) views as "not extreme enough".
I guess it hinges on how you view the Democrats. Are they a party dominated by the far-Left extremists? Or are they a party of centrists with some very loud, far-Left voices? For many years I believed the latter. I'm honestly not sure at this point. The Democratic leadership of the US Congress kneeling in worship of a racist, communist organization (BLM) was kind of an eye-opener for me about who's really in charge. To be fair, the Right's Jericho Rally in Dec 2020 was also an eye opener to me. The difference I see is, while there's plenty of crazy on both sides, the Left's crazy is in control most of the institutions in America.
Biden ran on being centrist and unifying the country- yet he's pursuing a new basis of "unity" - see: James Lindsay on Maoist America. A bit of an ah-ha for me on that one.
Perhaps another way to put this is that they are attempting to re-found the country on an entirely new basis. They are attempting to give it an explicitly theological (ideological) basis.
What do you mean by "centrist"? A centrist from a decade ago would be considered "far right" today.
But what is the "Center?" It is a principled position, or some compromise with...whatever?
Re: your post above on Ukraine - just how much dissent from your opinion until those who do not agree with you (I do not) are "villifiers" and no better than the race-revivalists?
I can't speak for Lucy, but for me victim blaming Ukraine by saying its wanting to align with the West to defend against Russian aggression (and hopefully reduce corruption) justifies the Russian aggression isn't acceptable.
"Victim-blaming Ukraine by its wanting to align with the West to defend against Russian aggression" is pretty loaded, Eugine - it presumes all the answers to questions it really does not ask. As to "hopefully reduce corruption," perhaps that is better left unsaid...
How about Russia having been a defensive power for centuries, and "the West" (the American Govt.) having broken every promise and expanded aggressively; how about "our" empire having become what Athens became when they told their own allies, the Melians: "The strong do what they will, the weak do what they must" - and then slaughtering them. That our leaders openly talk about "killing Russians" (and every Ukrainians man - and woman - near-to fighting age) rather echoes that sentiment (Thucydides. Peloponnesian Wars).
I have yet to see a moralistic "take" on foreign policy that did not urge maximum bloodshed to..."end all wars." The American Govt. has not even tried to craft an enforceable peace - by its own admission.
All of this is directly related to what you dislike here at home - why you are here; your citizenship has been degraded to the point where you are nearly - and I say nearly, or I would not be here - an imperial subject. You don't think that we could become subject to domestic drone warfare, here? This will "come home" - just like the "War on Terror" has.
I will add - lest we degenerate into régime/party talking points - that I don't need to sympathize with "Russia" to say what I have said - never mind their invasion/war.
Imperialism always carries moralistic...justifications - and that includes domestic imperialism - the source of our complaints on this forum.
> How about Russia having been a defensive power for centuries,
Having defensively conquered a huge empire.
> and "the West" (the American Govt.) having broken every promise and expanded aggressively;
Where by "expanded aggressively" you mean didn't forbid former Russian satellites from joining NATO.
> how about "our" empire having become what Athens became when they told their own allies, the Melians: "The strong do what they will, the weak do what they must"
Funny, all the people I've heard endorse that sentiment have been anti-Ukrainian.
> I have yet to see a moralistic "take" on foreign policy that did not urge maximum bloodshed to..."end all wars."
Periods of peace have only ever happened under the protection of a dominant power. Hence, the tendency to name them after that power, e.g., Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana.
> All of this is directly related to what you dislike here at home - why you are here; your citizenship has been degraded to the point where you are nearly - and I say nearly, or I would not be here - an imperial subject.
Do you have any idea what kind of rights citizens of other countries have? Hint: less than Americans.
"Do you have any idea..." "Hint..."
Really?
"Enemies" in politics? This is my simple acid test for deciding where my enemies are: I hate bullies, all kinds....bullies on the Left; bullies on the Right and bullies in the middle. In an ideal world (which of course it isn't) once a political movement set it's moral creed against bullies of whatever stamp, almost every other social/political 'issue' would become redundant....there'd be no need of 'human rights', no need of anti-this that-or-the-other - a creed based on just one simple 'human responsibility': don't try to bully your fellow man.
Of course here in the early 21st century, the great majority of political bullying is done in the name of 'Progress' but I still apply my acid test right across the political spectrum.
Fair point of view.
Conservatives have a generational opportunity to win the normies and erode Dem holds on key demos. Republicans can win big -- as long as they are running the sane candidate in comparison to a progressive moron.
Lot of truth to this.
Yes....Republicans have been exceptional at losing what should be EASY victories....
The problem is how much election fraud takes place in Dem strongholds, something that has been true since the days of Tammy Hall.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, we’re not going to run the sane candidate.
Interestingly, I sense that the Democrats have abided by the no enemies on the left for sometime, but it's crumbling. To paraphrase Gerard Baker in today's WSJ, globalists, green freaks, and nihilists are losing their grip. Not a day too soon if you ask me.
Bingo.
People are people. Freedom is doing what you want. Liberty is doing what is right. Do no harm and don’t take others stuff. Do onto others as you would want done to you. Be kind. Do the right thing when no one is looking. 🙏🏻🇺🇸
Good basic rules—politics needs to allow them to flourish again.
We are living it. Your position is correct. Those of us dissidents are a mix of independents, conservatives, and conscientious objectors from the "former left/liberal". We are living through a situation at a family-members place of employment where some left-leaning politics happened, it got out in public, and not to go in to specifics but they've received what appears to be extreme threats from a right wing individual or group. This, galvanizes the left, empower the establishment, and lumps us dissidents easily (by their media) into one group of extremists. In summary, going to the point of threats is a horrible strategy that I condemn.. I get it, both sides have violent and/or threatening extremists. The dissident movement is hurt by extremists making threats. The left can do it all day long, they enjoy cover and hero status.
"No enemies to the right" (and same with "left") strikes me as particularly dangerous because of its ambiguity and room for plausible deniability. It is one thing to advocate for, say, a relative shift in emphasis away from intra-conservative fighting toward focusing on other issues (and maybe that is a good idea, maybe not, I don't know), but quite another to ally oneself with overtly repulsive people and ideas. In this case I think the answer is simple but not easy: remain principled, and do not sacrifice integrity.
Good point, Martin. I think a shift in focus is important. I also think that "no enemies to the right," without qualifications and exceptions, is too categorical to be productive in the real world.
Have you read your own comment, Mr. psychiatrist? It's full of ambiguity too. Who decides who is overtly repulsive, and based on what metrics? Who decides the same about ideas?
Which are those righteous principles that you think people should be guided by?
I am, for example, repulsed by what psychiatry considered paraphilias 50 years ago. Are you?
Like most people, I'm not familiar with any of the four thinkers lined up for this debate. Googling didn't help their case. I'm averse to theory, theology, and pontifications.
Yes, there is a scary "woke" army out there, commies, identity politicians etc. trying to take over everything. Isn't best opposition to that movement is a broad coalition of everybody else?
"Conservative" is a limiting term. It excludes independents still furious about the Dobbs decision, and turns off agnostics, libertines and libertarians, moderate Democrats, either the pro-Trump or the anti-Trump depending on who's talking, and Boomers who remember the Vidal-Buckley feud, rooted for neither, and enjoyed a spectacle where the intellectuals got down and dirty with the rest of us.
I encourage you to give a listen to the recording! I'll also post some highlights in the next few days.
The problem is that the hook up culture enabled by abortion and libertinism is one of the things that set us on the path that ultimately lead to trans as the emptiness of the libertine lifestyle leads to people seeking out ever more extreme and deviant forms of sex.
Don't act like you discovered prudish, sexually repressed thinking. It's been here since the Puritans got a shock when they landed on Plymouth Rock, per Cole Porter. "In olden days, a glimpse of stocking..." Flappers! Jazz music! Comic books! "Impure thoughts!" Panty raids! Hef! Those damned hippies and their Sexual Revolution! "Hook up culture"?-- love the turn of the century Tom Wolfe reference, but by that time even committed libertines were well aware of the dangers of excess, and wise conservatives had learned to keep their thoughts on sexuality out of their political campaigns.
Now you somehow link abortion rights to the "path to trans"? A more direct route to what you call deviance runs from Anthony Comstock, through the priest-perverts of the Catholic abuse scandals, to the right wing's own long march to the Dobbs decision. Problem is, that last bit has taken the "sex positive" vs. "save it for marriage" battle from the soapboxes to the ballot boxes. The "L" word you need to worry about in that fight isn't "libertine" (rooted in liberty and freedom) but rather "loser", because whenever reproductive freedom is on the ballot, the anti-sex side takes one in the L column.
> Don't act like you discovered prudish, sexually repressed thinking.
I didn't discover anything. I'm repeating ancient wisdom that our culture foolishly rejected and is now suffering from it.
It would appear you are essentially arguing that you are all for driving off the cliff, and don't see the connection to the whole "crashing into the canyon below" thing.
> A more direct route to what you call deviance runs from Anthony Comstock, through the priest-perverts of the Catholic abuse scandals
There are many more abusive teachers than abusive priests. The latter get the attention because the media wants to distract us from the former.
In personal behavior, follow any ancient wisdom you want. During political interaction, be pragmatic.
Opposing the imposition of strange gender (and racial) ideology and language on minors is a good place to draw the line, particularly when dealing with local education politics.
Opposing abortion loudly and persistently, or systematically shunning pro-choice candidates (as the GOP has been doing) is a one way ticket to palookaville. Watch and learn the hard way if you disagree with me on this. Elections have profound consequences for the economy and public safety.
In the long run, the anti-abortion faction of the GOP must either yield control and satisfy itself non-coercive efforts at persuasion, or be bypassed by a third party effort. Yield control on abortion (and genuine LGB rights, as presently secured) and the GOP can get its way on the economy, crime, and other issues. Fail to yield on the social issues, and come the post-Trump era the sanctimoniously branded GOP will consign itself to permanent minor party status.
> Opposing the imposition of strange gender (and racial) ideology and language on minors is a good place to draw the line,
Abortion and "LGB rights" were considered equally strange when they were imposed by the supreme court.
> Yield control on abortion (and genuine LGB rights, as presently secured)
In other words, accept that the leftwing ratchet. In another decade people like yourself will be arguing "Accept 'trans rights' and draw the line at pedophilia".
I'm learning that nothing is extreme.
I also have learned that the mainstream, old guard, traditional, (insert words here for the people in power) are all either corrupt, lazy or power hungry. None are to be trusted.
I am an independent thinker with a mostly leftist political background. My values are very anti-authoritarian, and I oppose authoritarianism on both the left and the right. I am a strong supporter of the U.S. Constitution as our country's guiding document, and am particularly dedicated to the Bill of Rights. I do not want a "socialist" system in the U.S. but am in favor of moderate safety nets, such as Social Security. I want to be a part of a coalition whose primary purpose is to oppose the woke cult's efforts to "disrupt and dismantle" our societal norms, freedoms and laws.
I do not support racism or sexism in any of their forms, and I see both of these tendencies operating among some people on both the right and the left. Racist and sexist attitudes strongly interfere with my willingness to make common cause with their proponents, but I am open to honest and respectful dialogue with people who hold these positions.
A level of tension appears to be emerging between people who more or less share my values and agendas, and people who share with each other an agenda of forming a new conservative movement or party. Perhaps it would be helpful if we could separate those two very important projects, so that conservative people would not feel pressured to adopt positions held by anti-woke independents like myself, and I would not feel pressured to adopt positions of theirs that I strongly oppose, such as total bans on abortion access.
I think that limiting the focus and goals of coalitions might help reduce internal fracturing. A lot of wars have been fought in this manner, including WWII. I don't need to embrace the Republican Party to join with Republicans and other Americans on the right for the purpose of combatting the increasing authoritarianism in our country. I am interested in forming alliances for the purpose of attaining goals that we do have in common, without being pressured to change my values and beliefs to fit in with those of a group. That is precisely what I am opposing when I reject woke conformity.
> My values are very anti-authoritarian
> I do not support racism or sexism in any of their forms
What do you mean by "racism" and "sexism", everyone has their own definitions these days? Further nearly all the definitions floating around being "anti-racist" or "anti-sexist" ultimately requires one to reject the real biological differences between the races or sexes and thus can only be enforced via totalitarian means.
I am referring more to arguments intended to prove that some demographic is inferior to others or more blameworthy. I reject the belief that white people are responsible for black peoples’ current social problems, although that can be true on an individual level ( a white person is contributing to a black person’s problems). Likewise, I reject the argument that the woke movement is the result of women gaining public power.
> I reject the argument that the woke movement is the result of women gaining public power.
I prefer not to reject reality.
That kind of comment does not generally lead to constructive interaction let alone compromise and coalition-building, Mr. Nier.
Sorry, but reality is what it is. "Compromising" with it doesn't work.
If Charles Haywood is now the "dissident right", we are screwed. Some new, irrelevant figure that's coming with 2016-era MAGA talking points, opposed by fearful, paranoid shitlibs like James Lindsay?
The real dissident right, Mr. Rufo, you are not engaging with, I guess. You'd have to talk with somebody like, I dunno, Devon Stack, or Morgoth - people that have been doing this for a decade now.
Or with Jared Taylor and Amren.
The truth is, you simply want to be the one to police boundaries. Everyone wants that. You want to be the one that is saying where speech becomes too extreme to be given the light of day in a debate.
In many ways, you are similar to the shitlibs you claim to fight, and simply refuse to discuss genuine issues like ethnicity and race.
For example, everyone, including Richard Dawkins, acknowledges that eugenics work - how else could we have so many specific dog breeds. Yet everyone has a heart attack when it comes to humans.
Are we special or are we mammals too?
Just as an example.
A good challenge. I think you're right that Jared Taylor would be a good test case for the principle of "no enemies to the right." My own point of view is that the ideology of Taylor is a political and moral dead end. That's not to say, for example, that he should be banned from social media, which I believe is wrong. But it is to say that I would argue against Taylor's position and believe that it would not find traction on the Right.
Taylor is basically a milquetoast separatist. He does not have strong opinions on foreign policy, he rarely touches on sex and gender, he is not anti-Semitic, and simply wants that European whites be given the same privileges as Blacks in the US, and freedom of association be restored.
Do remember, the integration was made at the point of a gun, as we all know the images of the National Guard making sure whites are no longer able to disassociate from groups they desired nothing to do with.
Does that sound like freedom and liberty? It does not for me.
I am 100% positive he would welcome a discussion. He is still banned on social media, even under Elon, even though he is a polite gentleman, and only his ideas are impolite. Meanwhile, his detractors, like Michael E. Jones, a raging anti-Semite but racial universalist because of Catholicism, was allowed back on, just as an example.
If these ideas are so dated, it has to be proven. I appreciate honesty, so I'll say from the start that freedom of association is not negotiable for me, and I do not believe in universalism.
I also appreciate that you have your comments open, and that you replied. I imagine you face mountains of hostility and real idiotic replies, you're incredibly busy, yet you still have time to put in a reply to a random anon. We're not all "demons" as Jordan Peterson thinks, and I definitely want you and DeSantis to succeed, as I like policy above culture wars online, by far.
Yes, I strongly disagree with Peterson on anonymity/pseudonymity. And I would encourage Elon to allow many accounts with which I personally disagree, including Taylor, back on X/Twitter, in the interest of a wide range of public speech and debate.
If it's gotten to the pt. of mask-off political persecutions of a major leader, and biasing of elections, and yet people are still debating "no enemies..." etc. then right-wing or just anti-woke politics in general, will be a laughable joke (it's already lame and ineffectual , & the Rep. Party still needs to become much more populist). Things have gotten radical, and we're debating radicalism???
Hopefully James Lindsay will attend.
Invited him but don’t believe he will attend.