One thing that I notice about leftists, especially reeeaaally annoying Redditors and “Chud Left” types is that they soy over frutiger aero, net art, and vaporwave. I think the reason is because they don’t like their progressive modernity, and wish that they were back in the Obama era where everything was more optimistic for them.
More evidence that their ideas are dying! 
As I’ve said before, I really think it’s stupid for leftists to go back to the working class. They are basically signing up to be the low-class loser party.
What do you think @Zenitsu ?
I think what we are seeing here is an aspect of the left’s base asserting itself more loudly.
This aspect is effective at getting votes, but they aren’t actual leaders in real-world institutions. The leaders are not threatened by them. The liberal-elite culture will not bend for them one single degree. They will be used to get votes.
The liberal-elite culture is not showing any signs of changing in any way. In elite spheres that are so incredibly multicultural, with the heritage Americans being extremely underrepresented, there is a situation where entire institutions need liberalism to protect their own staff.
Ultimately the Chud left is indeed rather dumb, and if it had a great impact, it would hurt the cause. I predict that it will remain a little undercurrent that exists for the lower-class voters who want to have podcaster affirmation that they and their side is the side of Chud and that they can be real men while advocating for this cause.
But it’s also true that we’re already multicultural, and that there isn’t any excitement in the multicultural “game.”
So the left might bend in a different direction, slip, and become the low-class party.
Obviously the Elon / Dark MAGA phenomenon is dumb, but it’s possible that it could become high-status, especially if the right starts to abandon the working class.
Like, it could become high-status to be racist. The reason why it’s so taboo is really just because it’s low-status. When a girl finds out you’re racist, they tell you to “grow up.”
And think about this: in the past, all women were right-wing. They wanted to ban alcohol etc. Now you’re seeing a lot of them fawn over Nick Fuentes.
Leftism is the working class. If they’re not for the working class, they’re not leftists.
That’s what the left is today, largely formed by class traitors, just in the downward direction. They’re “would-be” aristocrats uncomfortable with their natural position.
I don’t really understand why he has to call it the “chud left”, it seems like he’s just describing classical leftism. Something a scruffy union welder would be into.
I disagree with the entire notion that the lower class is useless, it’s not the “loser” class. The reason that it seems this way is because our whole society is too busy LARPing to settle into their natural role.
Compare the union welder from earlier and a young woman in academia. Naturally, the laborer should fall closer in values to leftism, and the intellectual to aristocracy. Yet, they’re all turned around.
It’s why it feels so gross to look at, it’s incredibly gauche.
The working man turned failed stock-bro. The aristocratic woman of the arts turned into some disabled member of the global proletariat.
They’re both trying to be something they’re not, that’s why they come off as losers.
IDK about women being racist or something. This might be somewhat contrived I’d guess.
But there might be a social phenomenon of women bending to men’s will, here. There is a huge number of never-married white people - more than other races - and there might be a growing trend of women realizing that they have to stand with their men if they want to get married. Seems like a no-brainer to me, but women sometimes struggle to understand that they have to do something to get something, because of all of the freebies in the female life.
Women have bent to men’s will for all of history. Even while they bend, they cannot change their inner feelings. They still will hate the conservatism. This is the story of my mother.
It results in hate-filled marriages in the longrun and psychological damage to the children.
Women don’t hold beliefs like that, seriously. Not in a disparaging way, it’s just not beneficial to them. The natural role of men and women is different, and it drives them to different forms of risk aversion, thus way of forming political belief.
Men can’t be wrong about threats. Strange guy wants to join the roaming gang of hominids? The outcome of that could be brutal if he judges wrong.
He tells his mate, she tells the others. If one woman out of the dozen or so in the group protested, the other eleven would immediately start to chimp out. She cannot deviate from the set plan, it could kill their families. So she’s motivated out of fear not to, less she be kicked out of the group, unable to take care of herself.
Even in modernity it’s the same.
Best course of action.
Acknowledgment.
Reform.
Group compliance.
Well, they’re the loser class because civilization is fundamentally exploitative. You have few elites who matter a whole lot, and many proles who do not matter at all.
When your party courts the working class, they can use that demographic to win elections, but not much else. What matters is the feelings of elites, and which ideology seems high-status. Because then opponents shut their mouths, so as not to get fired and lose their status.
So it doesn’t matter which party wins, the one that really matters is the one that the elites are afraid of. You can have 9 Republican presidents in a row, and if the elite sentiment is liberal, you’re getting a liberal shift.
I’ve seen this before. They can bend to the man, but they still have to bend to consensus. So they will become RINOs.
Pitching it as exploitive is an absorbed leftist ideation. When done right, it’s symbiosis.
One million 80iq lumpen literally cannot form a stable society. A thousand aristocrats with no proles would be worthless.
This part I firmly agree. I’ll explain in detail, first by casting doubt, then by explaining why I agree.
Some sort of shakeup is happening in the economic elite, and where this goes I do not know.
It’s critical for people (not you and I since we’ve discussed this before, but normies) to remember that there is a social elite, and economic elite, and a power elite. The most paradigmatic places for each - business, celebrity, and government.
The social elite dominates culture. The social elite can and does always contain a fair number of economic elites who on paper don’t look like social elites. It also contains some power elites. Universities, major corporations, and more become part of culture, even though on paper they are power and economic entities.
The point is, it’s unclear how much broader cultural effect will come from any particular trend in some economic elites. They have to get into the social elite somehow. They’re struggling at the moment. Otherwise, Mamdani would not be defeating them. We must remember that New York high finance had a massive Republican aspect for basically forever and yet it had no effect on the culture (except I suppose the culture of prep-school attending Northeasterners).
Having said that, I do believe that this Musk situation is going to create a change.
There is increasing dissatisfaction with the libertarian aspect of the elite which is going to throw its weight around culturally. It might become more common for Jews to be libertarian due to the Israel issue.
Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan recently invested like 200 Million or something in San Francisco. He’s fairly libertarian, I think, but don’t know for sure. But we can be fairly sure that these folks are going to change California a bit.
I do think that there will be dissatisfaction within much of the elite among white and Jewish people. The non-whites will probably hold down the fort of the liberal culture. The whites will become somewhat ghettoized, but they will probably adapt easily. Whether they will reconnect and band together with the rest of the caucasian population in the country is another big question.
I also just want to say this: left-wing economics is wrong. I think that the lolberts are actually right about laissez-faire, and that we’ve been misrepresenting their arguments. Civilization is unfair, but the market harmonizes with the citizenry when you keep the government out of it. We just need to regulate the market to prevent firms from doing stuff like dumping chemicals in the rivers.
I actually think it’s the opposite: I think the cool thing right now is to be a libertarian-contrarian.
It’s been popular to say that laissez-faire economics has gone too far, and that this has caused the cost-of-living crisis. This is simply not true.
And during a time when all hope is lost, whining about groceries and inflation and housing prices isn’t very inspiring. So ironically, this tough economic situation is creating a need for optimism, for a “pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps”-mentality.
And that will naturally appeal to the right-wing, and that will end the populism nonsense.
Two examples:
Libertarianism is really hipster atm
People get annoyed with the libertarians who spout laissez-faire ideations like there’s not a massive mechanical monstrosity of a governing system specifically to keep the serfs from scalping the lords when they don’t hold up their side of the bargain. That’s people’s gripe at the moment.
The current state of constant extraction for diminishing returns is exhausting people, it’s why so many turn to leftism as a reaction. A truly laissez-faire system might work, but it’s a bit utopian in the current social environment. The reason it couldn’t work is just the moral character of the powers that be. They don’t have a God to answer to, they feel no responsibility for their serfs.
Sometimes, even worse. They’re not even just a neutral supply pool, they’re cattle to be slaughtered. Goyim.
Well, the reason why we have this crisis is because of inflation, regulations, mass immigration, and barriers to entry. None of those things are laissez-faire.
Libertarians want the market to harmonize, and when you introduce things like rent controls or higher taxes, it de-harmonizes the market.
Gov’t brings in a gazillion Indians —> disharmonizes the inventory —> disharmonizes the prices
Libertarianism cannot create a utopian society, but healthy markets are harmonical. They have little, cheap homes to access the poor, and big, expensive homes to access the rich. If you just de-regulated housing, then it would become a race to the bottom.
For example, let’s say that the tax rate in a certain state is 20%. This is the rate that everyone learns to live with, and prices / incomes harmonize around this figure.
But say that the tax rate was always 2%, and then the government suddenly changed it to 20. Well, then lots of businesses would leave the state. Even though they could live with it in scenario 1. You’ve just de-harmonized the market.
I mean think about it: the crisis began after COVID.
I understand the libertarian argument.
Libertarians love to do the communist thing where they think everyone around them just doesn’t “get” it.
We’re past it, we were a while ago. It seems hip on twitter because that’s where GenXers and Millenials love to post. They come out of the woodwork any time there’s economic gripe.
I would argue that populism is dated, soon to be dead. It was already dated when Trump came in. Gotta buy the rumor and sell the news. The genuine right thinkers were on populism when everyone else was hip on neo-cons. Now moving onto something different, underneath the mainstream.
The government doesn’t “bring” immigrants in. They just don’t stop them. So, it’s actually a result of less government intervention.
Mismanagement of inflation, sure. I’d prefer sound money, but when the whole world has massive inflation following the lockdown it isn’t necessarily the result of one system. China had inflation, even with a command economy. The Swiss had inflation, worse than 2008.
Deregulation isn’t an ontological good, it’s just that over-regulation is bad. If de-regulation worked infinite advancements would come out of the Cronenberg-esque Victorian slum factories built into two bedroom houses in India.