There’s a small faction of ‘respectable centrist’ scolds who mourn the role they lost as the primary fake opposition that the blob lib uniparty would relentlessly crush.
Part of getting rid of the libs involves getting rid of these people too because they’re…
…terrible at politics, they only know how to lose, and they’ve actually accelerated all the degradations they pretend to resist by taking up space and resources that should have been handed to someone competent.
They’re desperate for relevance and similar to libs,…
…politics for these people is a mechanism for social competition; the difference is that libs compete to be Good, while these people compete to be Respectable and the Voice of Reason.
The truth is that they only know how to lose. They’ve lost again and again and never…
I think there’s a fundamental confusion with this discourse.
I think Wanye’s advice is good and we are wealthier as a society than we ever have been and our standard of living is amazing and it’s never been easier to be comfortable materially.
…intellectual life is garbage and social life is becoming increasingly rancid and alienating and it’s harder than ever to form a fulfilling adult life.
So, if you’re reasonably smart and have a decent work ethic you’ll probably end up being comfortable materially but…
…at the same time, yes, they do hate you, and yes, the culture is engineered for confusion and unhappiness. So the doomerism is really an instance of giving them what they want without even putting up a fight. My demo (younger Gen X) was much more oppositional…
First, he argues that David Axelrod, who excelled at getting affluent white urbanites to vote for black mayors, brought an advertising mentality to politics. Axelrod’s father was a psychologist…
…and his mother was an ad exec. Axelrod’s innovation was to create ‘permission structures’ - or socialization frameworks - that would lead people to vote against their own interests because they wanted to see themselves as the sort of socially desirable person who would vote…
…for a specific candidate (‘I am a Good Person, not a regressive chud, etc’). This tendency subsequently transformed politics from focusing on material negotiations to generating social status. People were way more enthusiastic about being ‘Obama voters’…
The big lib project, from Obama on, was to construct a new dispensation that would succeed the cohering but fraying social, military, and cultural experiences of WWII and the Cold War.
Gov’t (the admin state in particular) would partner with NGOs, media, and academia to create…
…a new liberal economic order legitimized by the continuous generation of *Progress* (i.e. institutionally approved identity narcissism and new liberatory adventures) while civil liberties (free speech, privacy, 2A, etc.) were continuously undermined.
The uniparty blob…
…simultaneously shrunk the range of acceptable political discourse by creating ‘consensus’ that an increasing number of high stakes political issues were ‘decided’ and now ‘above politics.’
This paradoxically rose the stakes of politics as opponents of managed democracy…
The answer is that we’re going on a decade now of enforced cultural and academic mediocrity where almost all institutional knowledge production has converged on a narrow set of tedious, preapproved intellectual tropes.
…
…
‘Calling people smelly is ideological and represents a means of social control.’
Yeah, ok brilliant insight.
PhD Smelly herself is incidental - the reason she’s getting attention is that she serves as an avatar for the institutions and social class who churn out the…
…regressive, pseudo ideological bilge that is culturally and academically dominant and so she’s on the receiving end of a lot of displaced anger.
Obviously it’s better to have a coherent politics that focuses on the institutions rather than individual people but…