In today’s episode of Walt Right Perspectives I speak with Dave Greene, who writes here on Substack at Fiddler’s Greene and is active on YouTube as The Distributist. Dave recently published an article criticizing what he calls the “New Secular Right” or “LinkedIn Right”, and he groups me into this category alongside Hanania and Cofnas. In this call we discuss several points from this article, most notably Dave’s strategic reservations with my highly personal notion of politics and more oblique tactics.
You do want the dissidents and artists and outlier geniuses having kids, actually. Things like intelligence, personality, and achievement in life are all more heritable than environment driven. Why would you purposely remove the most capable and accomplished people from the gene pool?
Also, Brahmins have never been a singleton or celibate class, marriage and children have always been highly promoted and supported for us. And until the industrial revolution even in the western world intelligence and wealth both strongly correlated with successful fertility- only after it have we slipped into an inverted relationship. Monks and priests who were supposed to stay celibate were the exception to this correlation, and even then, a lot of them were known to have had “housekeepers” and many bastard children anyway.
You keep saying "everything is always shifting". Would be good if you said, or Dave pressed, you as to whether its shifting for the better or worse and in what respects.
HBD is not "mainstream" or "allowed" because it breaks the regime. It breaks the entire moral/religious structure of the present ruling class which Dave pointed out. You had no coherent response to this.
Why does being pro-Israel "give people space" ?
Your self-proclaimed role as the "good guy" dating "damaged women" with the intention of marrying them comes across as highly cringeworthy. Have you actually fulfilled this role?
Dave identifies the collective action problem regarding social mores and you reply "the optimal game theory strategy is to collaborate in the long term" yet claim to take a hyper individualistic approach to politics. This is inconsistent and makes no sense.
Dave articulates a point about seeking eternally true things that can be understood and adopted by people regardless of intelligence and you respond that you post content that will drive away "low openness" people. I understand there is a positive correlation. Do you think having a decivilizational worldview makes one superior?
"We haven't had the chance to establish a real dialectic here. Over the course of the next CENTURY we can sort of figure out a middle ground"
It's just entropy / poison seeping itself into a pro-civilizational ethos.
What is the point of a "dialectic" ? To arrive at truth? So long as there is power up for grabs in a decivilizational (leftist) regime, the dialectic is resolved in favor of destruction. This is a key insight of Nick Land.
"Liberalism is, on one hand, the regime without faith, the regime that hands over everything, even the essentials of the country’s destiny, to free discussion. For Liberalism, nothing is absolutely true or false. The truth is, in each case, what the greater number of votes say. Thus, it does not matter to Liberalism if a people agrees upon suicide, provided that the proposed suicide is carried out in accordance with electoral practice. And since for the functioning of electoral practice the existence of factions must be encouraged and strife between them must be stimulated, the Liberal system is the system of permanent disunion, permanent want of popular faith in any profound community of destiny." — José Antonio Primo de Rivera
"You need to have a way of approaching edge cases that doesn't create a slippery slope". Do you think this is what's going on?. You seem to want to take advantage of the large opportunity called the "conservative movement" to personally enrich yourself monetizing decline. Simping for DeSantis? Come on.
What I desire is a sanctuary on this earth, untainted by the perspectives espoused by you and Hanania's desire to destroy.
College educated white women aren't overwhelmingly Democrat according to Pew. 40% voted for Trump, which is a higher share than Trump's share of the Hispanic vote.
The meme that Trump's winning Hispanics might come true in November if current polling holds, but it wasn't true in 2020. He performed within the normal range for a Republican in 2020, which was similar to McCain in 2008, less than Bush in 2004, and more than Romney in 2012. Republicans always do better with Hispanics in Florida and Texas than elsewhere, so his performance there wasn't impressive in historical context.
Maybe I'm more Calvinist than the both of you, but I think right opposing gay marriage is as hopeless as the left making rent control work. Eventually equilibrium will assert itself!
Now, perhaps Greene will agree and assert this as a reason to oppose democracy itself. But democracy is also an equilibrium that will assert itself given a certain amount of (human productivity based) development. See Taiwan and South Korea
Now I'm a liberal and I think that these things are equilibria precisely because they statify human value. But your milage may vary on that. Either way, it is all in the hands of Providence.
The idea of gay marriage within the human species has only existed for a few decades and was/is imposed through heavy government intervention. IT is the anti-market rent control analogue, not the resistance to it.
On Dave’s attraction to true believers in the movement, from Eric Hoffer’s True Believer:
Mass movements that are good at what they do: a) make previously content outsiders frustrated; b) further frustrate their adherents while pretending to advance the movement. This means that the strongest mass movements are inevitably going to be the ones that are the best at not delivering the goods.
If you like true believers, it is better not to give them what they want.
You do want the dissidents and artists and outlier geniuses having kids, actually. Things like intelligence, personality, and achievement in life are all more heritable than environment driven. Why would you purposely remove the most capable and accomplished people from the gene pool?
Also, Brahmins have never been a singleton or celibate class, marriage and children have always been highly promoted and supported for us. And until the industrial revolution even in the western world intelligence and wealth both strongly correlated with successful fertility- only after it have we slipped into an inverted relationship. Monks and priests who were supposed to stay celibate were the exception to this correlation, and even then, a lot of them were known to have had “housekeepers” and many bastard children anyway.
Lol I knew you were going to say something about that
You keep saying "everything is always shifting". Would be good if you said, or Dave pressed, you as to whether its shifting for the better or worse and in what respects.
HBD is not "mainstream" or "allowed" because it breaks the regime. It breaks the entire moral/religious structure of the present ruling class which Dave pointed out. You had no coherent response to this.
Why does being pro-Israel "give people space" ?
Your self-proclaimed role as the "good guy" dating "damaged women" with the intention of marrying them comes across as highly cringeworthy. Have you actually fulfilled this role?
Dave identifies the collective action problem regarding social mores and you reply "the optimal game theory strategy is to collaborate in the long term" yet claim to take a hyper individualistic approach to politics. This is inconsistent and makes no sense.
Dave articulates a point about seeking eternally true things that can be understood and adopted by people regardless of intelligence and you respond that you post content that will drive away "low openness" people. I understand there is a positive correlation. Do you think having a decivilizational worldview makes one superior?
"We haven't had the chance to establish a real dialectic here. Over the course of the next CENTURY we can sort of figure out a middle ground"
It's just entropy / poison seeping itself into a pro-civilizational ethos.
What is the point of a "dialectic" ? To arrive at truth? So long as there is power up for grabs in a decivilizational (leftist) regime, the dialectic is resolved in favor of destruction. This is a key insight of Nick Land.
"Liberalism is, on one hand, the regime without faith, the regime that hands over everything, even the essentials of the country’s destiny, to free discussion. For Liberalism, nothing is absolutely true or false. The truth is, in each case, what the greater number of votes say. Thus, it does not matter to Liberalism if a people agrees upon suicide, provided that the proposed suicide is carried out in accordance with electoral practice. And since for the functioning of electoral practice the existence of factions must be encouraged and strife between them must be stimulated, the Liberal system is the system of permanent disunion, permanent want of popular faith in any profound community of destiny." — José Antonio Primo de Rivera
"You need to have a way of approaching edge cases that doesn't create a slippery slope". Do you think this is what's going on?. You seem to want to take advantage of the large opportunity called the "conservative movement" to personally enrich yourself monetizing decline. Simping for DeSantis? Come on.
What I desire is a sanctuary on this earth, untainted by the perspectives espoused by you and Hanania's desire to destroy.
Good show, thanks guys
College educated white women aren't overwhelmingly Democrat according to Pew. 40% voted for Trump, which is a higher share than Trump's share of the Hispanic vote.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/
The meme that Trump's winning Hispanics might come true in November if current polling holds, but it wasn't true in 2020. He performed within the normal range for a Republican in 2020, which was similar to McCain in 2008, less than Bush in 2004, and more than Romney in 2012. Republicans always do better with Hispanics in Florida and Texas than elsewhere, so his performance there wasn't impressive in historical context.
Maybe I'm more Calvinist than the both of you, but I think right opposing gay marriage is as hopeless as the left making rent control work. Eventually equilibrium will assert itself!
Now, perhaps Greene will agree and assert this as a reason to oppose democracy itself. But democracy is also an equilibrium that will assert itself given a certain amount of (human productivity based) development. See Taiwan and South Korea
Now I'm a liberal and I think that these things are equilibria precisely because they statify human value. But your milage may vary on that. Either way, it is all in the hands of Providence.
The idea of gay marriage within the human species has only existed for a few decades and was/is imposed through heavy government intervention. IT is the anti-market rent control analogue, not the resistance to it.
Interesting to hear the viewpoint of a more traditional religious conservative that didn't annoy the hell out of me
The thing I can't puzzle out is your ethos.
What are you "on the right" for in one sentence?
https://newaltright.substack.com/p/im-still-right-wing
Hmm. Idk fam.
On Dave’s attraction to true believers in the movement, from Eric Hoffer’s True Believer:
Mass movements that are good at what they do: a) make previously content outsiders frustrated; b) further frustrate their adherents while pretending to advance the movement. This means that the strongest mass movements are inevitably going to be the ones that are the best at not delivering the goods.
If you like true believers, it is better not to give them what they want.
Nice getting Dave on.