Conviction is easy when you have someone to hate. Hatred is the glue that holds societies together at scale. It's hard to agree what is good, easy to agree who to hate. It's not wrong to define yourself by what you oppose, but it does cause a problem if that thing stops existing
Two reasons the leftward ratchet continues: 1. leftism in practice creates the conditions it claims to correct. 2. it has an extremely legible scapegoat. Let's start with the second one.
The left hates men, and it hates whites, in that order. The reason for this boils down to "fuck you, dad", but if we are slightly more nuanced, they hate whoever is above them, and they define "above them" as white men. It's clean, tautological, and impervious to empiricism
In contrast, whites and men don't hate anyone in particular. We are at the end of a decade-long campaign to redefine hatred as "not giving up all your possessions and prestige to enemies." This is necessary because American whites are among the least hateful people in the world
You can justify hatred if you can claim that the object of your hate despises you already. For this reason it is necessary to redefine hatred as "passively allowing this injustice to continue." A meditation on the redefinition of justice is left as an exercise for the reader
In contrast to this, the right has no legible scapegoat. Contrary to the propaganda, we don't hate blacks or women or any other such thing, except under the orwellian and inverted leftist definitions of hate. Lately we've been able to join together to hate the woke. A good start
The problems with scapegoat-based coalitions are legion, among them that they necessarily overlook the conditions that create the scapegoat. Wokism itself is a scapegoat-based coalition that needs to exist in a state of permanent revolution in order to sustain itself
Hating wokism is good because it's easy, which means it scales well, but it's also a weak position if you refuse to understand the circumstances that give rise to wokism, namely liberalism
Liberalism claims to facilitate difference but it does so by suppressing difference. That's fine, contradiction is the motor of ideology. The important thing is to understand that liberalism can never be an end itself, its definition is freedom from telos
You should always treat liberty as a liminal state between goals. Liberalism is always just an attempt to wrestle an equilibrium from multiple competing illiberalisms. The liberty of the American constitution was supposed to be the liberty to worship God
Equilibria between illiberalisms is fragile. If one of them ever gets the upper hand, then decadent transitory liberalism collapses into a stabler, illiberal state.
It goes against every instinct we have to share philosophical space with our enemies. If someone has values that contradict yours, their mere existence is an attack. Hatred makes strong coalitions, and here we are.
Never believe the woke when they say they don't hate you. They do. If they think you are one of them, they will drop the mask and tell you the truth. They want to persecute, immigrate, and cancel middle class whites out of existence.
We suspect it might be possible to dampen hatred (which would stabilize liberalism) if only we could turn off the social media machine that feeds us these irreconcilable, antagonistic narratives. I often think this. Let me tell you why that won't work.
It's easy to lose sight of the fact that the internet is a communication tool. Everything it does, it does by making communication faster. All the money in tech was made with the same trick: find a market with information asymmetry, clear it faster, take a cut. That's all it is
The easy money in tech dried up when all the previously slow markets began clearing at the speed of internet. When information moves faster, capital flows faster. Industry operates at the speed of capital. Anyone who uses the internet will out-compete anyone who fails to
The problem with all this is that there is also a market for ideology. All ideology is illiberal, for the same reason all predators are hungry. Twitter is to politics what Amazon is to retail. Conflict is the product, and now it has same-day delivery
So we can't turn off the ideology market accelerator because we need the FIRE economy accelerator, and as long as the communication pipe exists, we won't be able to stop ideology from flowing through it.
If you personally divorce from the cloud, all that happens is you get "left behind". This same problem exists at the national scale as the individual. If a whole country shuts off the cloud, other countries just eat its lunch.
You can't afford to do that because information (even a glut of information) has value, and separating the wheat from the tares is a mathematically intractable problem. Whoever curates your information feeds owns your soul.
This is also the reason that all flavors of localism are dead on arrival. If your plan to save the world involves no one ever defecting from an equilibrium where we all have a voluntary handicap, I have some bad news
To recap: Liberalism destroys itself because it's unstable. Communication technology is an accelerant. If you hate Wokism, the answer isn't liberalism, it's to find a better illiberalism that is antagonistic to wokism
The American Civic Religion is defunct, because wokism is civic religion 2.0. A high frequency trading computer out-competes a room full of nerds with calculators, and wokism out-competes the american civic religion 1.0 for the exact same reason
The American Civic Religion's incompatible premises of liberty and equality could only persist because of what Lawrence Auster called Unprincipled Exceptions. Unprincipled exceptions can only exist when information markets are inefficient. Wokism is what happens when they clear.
You can now understand why trying to roll back wokism to American Civic Religion 1.0 is like trying to roll back high frequency trading algorithms to a room full of dweebs wearing pocket protectors. We don't get to choose the arena where our counter-ideology has to compete.
Unprincipled exceptions are a strategy ideologies use to implement fault tolerance. In the world of efficient information markets, the strategy fails, and liberalism stops working, because it depends on them.
As long as high tech communication technology exists, successful ideologies will have to be illiberal in order to compete. When information markets are efficient, humans, who are stupid, demand that ideologues conform to their principles
Now, I will grant you, that in fighting with the left, they do not seem to be principled at all. In fact, it seems that the only principle is friend/enemy. That is true, but I am not writing to the woke. I am writing to the people "on my side" who make principled concessions
The left is correct when they say you can't turn back the clock. Part of the reason the woke are winning is that liberal principles necessarily concede to woke demands. The old equilibria won't come back without a technological collapse
Reject the dying liberal values that have brought us to the brink of malaise and decrepitude, and work instead toward building an illiberalism that affirms the vitality, beauty, and strength of the greatest
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A common refrain these days — actually we’ve been hearing it for years — is that whites are under attack, and that we need to start practicing identity politics, white identity politics. Supposedly, this is the only thing that can save us from extinction.
It sounds superficially plausible; we are being overrun by the brown hordes. What do they have that we lack? What strategy or quality must we adopt to compete?
They tell me that “individualism” is bad, that it makes you “rootless”—
—instead we are supposed to favor "collectivism," in which the individual is subsumed into the group.
I used to argue in favor of white identity politics, but I’ve seen first-hand how rapidly it degrades into gynolatry, communism, and victim-worship
Imagine believing that you could enjoy your “career” or your job. The biggest psyop (hate that word) ever perpetrated against women is telling them that men find a sense of purpose in their job
We work because we want the byproducts of work, not because we like toil
To live in corporate life you are forced to constantly affirm this lie. “Oh I want a fulfilling job” “I want to do good in the world” “I love working with all these awesome people” — no, I want a paycheck; I barely tolerate all of this bullshit as my soul is screaming silently
Work is a prison and it doesn’t matter if it’s blue or white collar work, and it doesn’t matter if you’re a CEO or cashier. None of this is fulfilling. Being an adult means enduring a lifetime of prison conditions because everything of value is built in hell
TikTok sells short fantasies about lifestyles and love
A woman carefully staging a video about how she cooks for her family (notice no husband is shown) is performing a sexual fantasy
but the fantasy has just a tiny veneer of plausible deniability, it lets men pretend that that's not what they're doing
Remember, incels don't want sex (sex is cheap) or else they would just buy it. They want all the other second-order things around sex that you can't buy
any time a woman posts herself online, whether she's doing an explicitly sexual thing or not, she is still presenting herself *as an object of desire*
The layer of separation makes her an unattainable object, though she may resemble an attainable object
The problem here is that this is a woman, deep down inside, mentally, she will always be a woman
Men have an inherent essence which makes us resilient against the coldness of the universe. It's not just that she lacks the reproductive hardware, she also lacks the mental hardware
Basically she's crying because people are now treating her like a man, something she thought she wanted, but she actually had no idea what it's like to be a man, and still doesn't — because there is something essential to it which goes far beyond exo-testosterone and a beard
most women are so solipsistic that when they encounter unfiltered male consciousness, they can only react by assuming we are defective women, when there is actually an entire, invisible aspect of "maleness" that they can't even perceive
This part of heartiste is actually “the problem” imo. Most men don’t want the truth and react badly to learning it. People react badly to these things now because once you understand how women work, you either turn into medgold or rollo. Most people find both repellant
Roosh had a medgold arc but eventually the psychic externalities were too much for him, so he retreated into religion. This was in every way a retreat. Normie conservatives and leftoids alike insist on idealizing women and pretending they have a purer or higher nature than men
Roosh’s religious conversation was an attempt to recapture that innocence, probably not very successful
Men are the real romantics, women are the real cold, calculating pragmatists. Majority of men don’t want women as they are in reality, they want a romanticized ideal of women
Christians would like this project to disarm Nietzsche for them, Nietzscheans would like it to materialize Christ. Neither will get their wish. I have worked on this for four months now, and it is imperfect, like me, but I am honored to share it with you
Yes, it is three and a half hours long. If I had more time, it might be shorter. But I have other projects to work on and I have hit a point of diminishing returns.
I don’t want to give it all away, I want you to read it, but I also want people to find it, so I have to write a thread about it. There is something in here to offend absolutely everyone, whether racially, sexually, or most of all, religiously. No one escapes