. . . the (((Daily Wire))) with Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin . . .
The Rubin Report is supposedly ‘an opponent of identity politics’, although Rubin ‘identifies with the libertardian/classical liberal wing of contemporary right-of-center political thought’. Rubin is really a Jewish homosexual activist married to another man and adopted a child, that’s his real identity . . . a ‘Jewish Pioneer of Sexual Degeneracy.’
It has a lot to do with why I have moved towards the independent center. When I was young, independent thinking was not widely banned on the political left, and I felt fairly welcome. Now, the progressive left is mostly dogmatically attached to their strategies and no dissent is allowed.
The strutting martinets of my youth were from the right. The neo-progressive left now seems to have even more of them (in my non-random environment at least).
My experience is that this is not inherent to liberalism (and has not always been true), but largely a more recent phenomenon as a toxic mind virus (ideology) has infected most progressives and many liberals.
They think they are still liberal. In fact, they think they are still non-political (the new ideology is just about doing the moral thing, which all reasonable people should agree with; that that moral thing happens to be entirely aligned with neo-progressive politics is coincidental).
I would say that one of the key steps in being absorbed into this ideology is "supporting the oppressed is the prime directive, displacing truth and traditional concepts like reciprocality, merit, and the golden rule". Because it's selflessly supporting the weakest and most vulnerable, one has the unquestionable moral high ground, and when you have that, you need not treat others as you wish to be treated (like listening to them if they will listen to you). That's just for people with the same moral standing, which doesn't apply.
And I posit that this is part of why the new ideology became so much censorious. They are convinced they have righteousness on their side because they are caring people who accept their white cis heteronormative guilt, and so it's OK if they shut down dissent. If doing so would protect a marginalized person from the psychological harm of being disagreed with, all the more moral and praiseworthy. But eventually the power corrupts and they may reflexively shut down disagreement even without that justification.
I don't think this ideology has as much traction with more traditional conservative values (which is not to say there are no mind viruses more crafted to appeal to conservatives). But I see elements of the victimhood narrative crop up on the Right as well, just not as centrally yet.
From the perspective of a very long time liberal, it's like a horror film about the invasion of mind controlling aliens (ok, an exaggeration). People start changing personalities.
And that is NOT traditional liberalism. It's an infected version.
Excellent comment, thank you. I like to describe myself as a "recovering liberal", though perhaps I mean "recovering progressive". I don't have a lot of patience with labels as they can mean pretty much what people want them to.
At any rate, like you I've witnessed, with horror, the ground shifting under my feet so that up is down, down is up, and you can't trust anybody. Having always been a science nerd, the obvious lies during the first year of Covid started peeling the scales from my eyes. Now I look back in shock at all the lies that I unquestionably accepted for many years.
Your idea of the Moral Thing now being to support the oppressed really rings true with what I've watched happen in the last decade or two (I'm 69). Resiliency and the golden rule seem to have flown straight out the window without anybody noticing.
NATO – an anti-white and anti-family institution . . .
After the apocalypse of 1945, a number of global organizations have been formed with the aim of maintaining and expanding totalitarian liberalism. One of the earliest organizations formed for this purpose was the war alliance "North Atlantic Treaty Organization", or NATO, which can be seen as the military wing of globalism.
In addition to ensuring that Washington always has international support for its military campaigns, NATO as an institution is explicitly anti-white and explicitly dedicated to "racial justice" for racial aliens living in white countries. As early as 1999, NATO authored reports blaming nationalists for a number of modern problems and warning against the influence of nationalism.
In 2023, the war alliance held a summit at its headquarters in Brussels on race where the alliance's leaders pledged to fight "homogeneous attitudes" and to use NATO's "collective intelligence" for the purpose.
In fact, NATO is so dedicated to its anti-white agenda that it openly advocates that institutions must be reshaped to be "inclusive," in other words, restructured to be more anti-white, and consist of fewer white employees and executives.
Coming back nearly a year later, it occurs to me to wonder if the results would have been different a decade, or a few decades, ago.
My guess is that it might have been. Political cultures change.
It is an open question for me whether the censoring tendency that you tentatively observed on the left side (if real) is inherent downstream consequence of following the slope of liberal principles, or an avoidable mutation that could have played out differently.
For example, liberalism cherished and defended freedom of expression. Nearly all kids learned the aspirational "sticks and stones my break my bones but words will never hurt me". It's not literally true, but it speaks to the cultural value of emotional robustness and stability, as well as internal locus of control. And in turn, it helps set a bright line between words and violence; we learn to ignore annoying words, rather than needing to take physical action to stop them.
But at some point, we integrated very reasonable concept that emotional abuse, especially of a child, can be as damaging as physical or sexual abuse. Then the same might be applied to a spouse. But where is the line between arguing and emotional abuse? The difference can be in the eye of the beholder, a vague and subjective boundary which can be fudged for rhetorical advantage. So we saw some people apply "emotional abuse" a bit too freely to reinforce their position. And that in turn set the stage for concepts like "microaggressions". Disagreement gets reframed as causing harm, as a verbal attack as damaging as a physical attack. It becomes an actionable grievance. It becomes a moral duty to protect designated vulnerable groups from the harm caused by not just intentional insults, but any criticism, any questioning of a narrative, any dissent from a strategy. Words are (tactically, not universally or reciprocally) equated with violence. And then the slogan becomes "silence is violence". Shutting down speakers we disagree with becomes a moral mandate in order to protect the marginalized, who are imagined dying the the streets every day because a dissenting voice was allowed a platform. And "freedom of speech" should only apply to speech which doesn't offend the wrong person or group - which isn't freedom of speech at all, since there was no danger of banning agreement with power. After all, the first Amendment (in the US) is just some words on paper written by white cis men centuries ago, why should we give it any weight at all when victims are dying every day?
Was that slide down the slope inevitable, or nearly so? Or was there an unforced error, a wrong turn, a stage at which liberal political culture could have said "stop here, we've taken the concept as far as makes sense", but which we missed?
I don't know. My sense is that the words=actions slippery slope which liberals or progressives have followed was part of a larger trend with many interacting concepts growing more common in the culture, and that things could have gone differently.
If and when the West declines enough to make the problems of the direction we are going it unavoidable, it will serve warning to the other cultures of the world. In some of them, freedom of speech is not a guiding principle anyway, but they will observe the outcome of a culture which slips into self harm and cutting while convincing itself it's only surgically lancing an abcess to allow healing. And they will avoid taking a similar path.
Excellent description of the slippery slope. Not many people would stop to ask whether it had to be that way. Enough incentive for me to go check out your substack, thanks.
Thanks for writing this unique piece. It's reminds me of an old joke
How do you catch a unique mouse?
You niq up on it
How do you catch a tame mouse
Tame way
U niq up on it
This piece niqs up on you
++++++
Constitutional law issue.
I have the right to do as I please.
The government can impose reasonable restrictions but cannot deny me my right to my General Welfare.
We do not live in a majority rule government.
The Republican Fascists and Democratic Fascists have created that for their own benefits.
Our problems all stem from this two sides
We have 2 sides:
Republican Fascists
Democratic Fascists.
Conservative versus liberal right versus left Fascists.
Rich versus poor and so forth.
Look at most legislation. It is one side versus the other side
That is why we are in the mess we are in.
The missing wording is "promote the general welfare"
All laws must be based upon providing for the General Welfare of all people.
All laws must allow for all sides to have their "general welfare"
++++++
It is the people establishing the constitution.
It is the US government guaranteeing to each State ( not people ) a Republican Form of Government
++++
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
(Preamble to the US Constitution.)
+++++
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. ( Article IV, Section 4 US Constitution)
ALL LAWS MUST ALLOW FOR ALL PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO DO AS THEY PLEASE WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS BUT WITH REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
We have just eliminated fascist government legislators
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol No. 7 – World-Wide Wars
❝We must be in a position to respond to every act of opposition by war with the neighbors of that country which dares to oppose us: but if these neighbors should also venture to stand collectively together against us, then we must offer resistance by a universal war.❞
Before Substack there were Facebook pages. I have two strikes against me. 1, I am an atheist and 2, I am a climate skeptic. The atheist bit is really not a problem to believers. My brand of atheism is a problem to American atheists. They have a rigidly orthodox dogma on abortion, political leanings, race, gender, climate and the rest of the laundry list. I was kicked off several American atheist pages, not for abusive argument but simply for persisting in presenting my quiet viewpoint. Pro-choicers are welcome on pro-life pages. Climate alarmists are welcome on skeptic pages. Not so the other way round. Although I've been to Facebook Jail a couple of times, the Facebook Stasi are overall pretty tolerant I think except where COVID is concerned. Naturally this bias did not always pertain and in the somewhat distant past the lynch mob was as likely to be conservatives as bolsheviks. Today... I do a LOT of self-censoring. Cancel Culture is not my imagination.
Jewish Loot and Neglected Fruit: How the Mainstream Right Serves Jews and Betrays Whites...
March 25, 2022/in British Politics, Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon
“Low-hanging fruit!” cry deluded right-wingers all over the West. “Why doesn’t my favored party on the mainstream right pluck that fruit and defeat the left?” Well, they’ve been crying that for decades and will still be crying it when the left pack them off to a slave-labor camp or an organic gas-chamber. Some of those right-wingers are too stupid to see the truth; some are too frightened to admit it. Their favored party on the mainstream right doesn’t pluck the low-hanging fruit because it doesn’t want to defeat the left. And it doesn’t want to defeat the left because it is the left. That is, it’s financed and controlled by Jews who support the left and its anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-Western agenda.
Did they just cancel without warning or was one given?
It is assumed that the manner was equally bad by both you and whoever you were responding too so it was the content not the manner that was the problem.
I thought I already unsubscribed once from this lousy Substack. This time I am making sure of it.
How the 'Grift Right' Gimps for the Left . . .
. . . the (((Daily Wire))) with Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin . . .
The Rubin Report is supposedly ‘an opponent of identity politics’, although Rubin ‘identifies with the libertardian/classical liberal wing of contemporary right-of-center political thought’. Rubin is really a Jewish homosexual activist married to another man and adopted a child, that’s his real identity . . . a ‘Jewish Pioneer of Sexual Degeneracy.’
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
Interesting experiment. Alas, not surprising.
It has a lot to do with why I have moved towards the independent center. When I was young, independent thinking was not widely banned on the political left, and I felt fairly welcome. Now, the progressive left is mostly dogmatically attached to their strategies and no dissent is allowed.
The strutting martinets of my youth were from the right. The neo-progressive left now seems to have even more of them (in my non-random environment at least).
My experience is that this is not inherent to liberalism (and has not always been true), but largely a more recent phenomenon as a toxic mind virus (ideology) has infected most progressives and many liberals.
They think they are still liberal. In fact, they think they are still non-political (the new ideology is just about doing the moral thing, which all reasonable people should agree with; that that moral thing happens to be entirely aligned with neo-progressive politics is coincidental).
I would say that one of the key steps in being absorbed into this ideology is "supporting the oppressed is the prime directive, displacing truth and traditional concepts like reciprocality, merit, and the golden rule". Because it's selflessly supporting the weakest and most vulnerable, one has the unquestionable moral high ground, and when you have that, you need not treat others as you wish to be treated (like listening to them if they will listen to you). That's just for people with the same moral standing, which doesn't apply.
And I posit that this is part of why the new ideology became so much censorious. They are convinced they have righteousness on their side because they are caring people who accept their white cis heteronormative guilt, and so it's OK if they shut down dissent. If doing so would protect a marginalized person from the psychological harm of being disagreed with, all the more moral and praiseworthy. But eventually the power corrupts and they may reflexively shut down disagreement even without that justification.
I don't think this ideology has as much traction with more traditional conservative values (which is not to say there are no mind viruses more crafted to appeal to conservatives). But I see elements of the victimhood narrative crop up on the Right as well, just not as centrally yet.
From the perspective of a very long time liberal, it's like a horror film about the invasion of mind controlling aliens (ok, an exaggeration). People start changing personalities.
And that is NOT traditional liberalism. It's an infected version.
Excellent comment, thank you. I like to describe myself as a "recovering liberal", though perhaps I mean "recovering progressive". I don't have a lot of patience with labels as they can mean pretty much what people want them to.
At any rate, like you I've witnessed, with horror, the ground shifting under my feet so that up is down, down is up, and you can't trust anybody. Having always been a science nerd, the obvious lies during the first year of Covid started peeling the scales from my eyes. Now I look back in shock at all the lies that I unquestionably accepted for many years.
Your idea of the Moral Thing now being to support the oppressed really rings true with what I've watched happen in the last decade or two (I'm 69). Resiliency and the golden rule seem to have flown straight out the window without anybody noticing.
NATO – an anti-white and anti-family institution . . .
After the apocalypse of 1945, a number of global organizations have been formed with the aim of maintaining and expanding totalitarian liberalism. One of the earliest organizations formed for this purpose was the war alliance "North Atlantic Treaty Organization", or NATO, which can be seen as the military wing of globalism.
In addition to ensuring that Washington always has international support for its military campaigns, NATO as an institution is explicitly anti-white and explicitly dedicated to "racial justice" for racial aliens living in white countries. As early as 1999, NATO authored reports blaming nationalists for a number of modern problems and warning against the influence of nationalism.
In 2023, the war alliance held a summit at its headquarters in Brussels on race where the alliance's leaders pledged to fight "homogeneous attitudes" and to use NATO's "collective intelligence" for the purpose.
In fact, NATO is so dedicated to its anti-white agenda that it openly advocates that institutions must be reshaped to be "inclusive," in other words, restructured to be more anti-white, and consist of fewer white employees and executives.
https://nordfront.se/nato-en-antivit-och-familjefientlig-institution
Coming back nearly a year later, it occurs to me to wonder if the results would have been different a decade, or a few decades, ago.
My guess is that it might have been. Political cultures change.
It is an open question for me whether the censoring tendency that you tentatively observed on the left side (if real) is inherent downstream consequence of following the slope of liberal principles, or an avoidable mutation that could have played out differently.
For example, liberalism cherished and defended freedom of expression. Nearly all kids learned the aspirational "sticks and stones my break my bones but words will never hurt me". It's not literally true, but it speaks to the cultural value of emotional robustness and stability, as well as internal locus of control. And in turn, it helps set a bright line between words and violence; we learn to ignore annoying words, rather than needing to take physical action to stop them.
But at some point, we integrated very reasonable concept that emotional abuse, especially of a child, can be as damaging as physical or sexual abuse. Then the same might be applied to a spouse. But where is the line between arguing and emotional abuse? The difference can be in the eye of the beholder, a vague and subjective boundary which can be fudged for rhetorical advantage. So we saw some people apply "emotional abuse" a bit too freely to reinforce their position. And that in turn set the stage for concepts like "microaggressions". Disagreement gets reframed as causing harm, as a verbal attack as damaging as a physical attack. It becomes an actionable grievance. It becomes a moral duty to protect designated vulnerable groups from the harm caused by not just intentional insults, but any criticism, any questioning of a narrative, any dissent from a strategy. Words are (tactically, not universally or reciprocally) equated with violence. And then the slogan becomes "silence is violence". Shutting down speakers we disagree with becomes a moral mandate in order to protect the marginalized, who are imagined dying the the streets every day because a dissenting voice was allowed a platform. And "freedom of speech" should only apply to speech which doesn't offend the wrong person or group - which isn't freedom of speech at all, since there was no danger of banning agreement with power. After all, the first Amendment (in the US) is just some words on paper written by white cis men centuries ago, why should we give it any weight at all when victims are dying every day?
Was that slide down the slope inevitable, or nearly so? Or was there an unforced error, a wrong turn, a stage at which liberal political culture could have said "stop here, we've taken the concept as far as makes sense", but which we missed?
I don't know. My sense is that the words=actions slippery slope which liberals or progressives have followed was part of a larger trend with many interacting concepts growing more common in the culture, and that things could have gone differently.
If and when the West declines enough to make the problems of the direction we are going it unavoidable, it will serve warning to the other cultures of the world. In some of them, freedom of speech is not a guiding principle anyway, but they will observe the outcome of a culture which slips into self harm and cutting while convincing itself it's only surgically lancing an abcess to allow healing. And they will avoid taking a similar path.
Excellent description of the slippery slope. Not many people would stop to ask whether it had to be that way. Enough incentive for me to go check out your substack, thanks.
Oops, there's nothing there yet.
Yeah, I haven't taken time to write on it. Thanks for checking, tho!
Given what's happening in Germany, the UK, and Ireland at the moment, it seems to be a coordinated decline. Intentional or not, who knows.
Thanks for writing this unique piece. It's reminds me of an old joke
How do you catch a unique mouse?
You niq up on it
How do you catch a tame mouse
Tame way
U niq up on it
This piece niqs up on you
++++++
Constitutional law issue.
I have the right to do as I please.
The government can impose reasonable restrictions but cannot deny me my right to my General Welfare.
We do not live in a majority rule government.
The Republican Fascists and Democratic Fascists have created that for their own benefits.
Our problems all stem from this two sides
We have 2 sides:
Republican Fascists
Democratic Fascists.
Conservative versus liberal right versus left Fascists.
Rich versus poor and so forth.
Look at most legislation. It is one side versus the other side
That is why we are in the mess we are in.
The missing wording is "promote the general welfare"
All laws must be based upon providing for the General Welfare of all people.
All laws must allow for all sides to have their "general welfare"
++++++
It is the people establishing the constitution.
It is the US government guaranteeing to each State ( not people ) a Republican Form of Government
++++
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
(Preamble to the US Constitution.)
+++++
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. ( Article IV, Section 4 US Constitution)
ALL LAWS MUST ALLOW FOR ALL PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO DO AS THEY PLEASE WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS BUT WITH REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
We have just eliminated fascist government legislators
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol No. 7 – World-Wide Wars
❝We must be in a position to respond to every act of opposition by war with the neighbors of that country which dares to oppose us: but if these neighbors should also venture to stand collectively together against us, then we must offer resistance by a universal war.❞
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/protocol-no-7-world-wide-wars
Before Substack there were Facebook pages. I have two strikes against me. 1, I am an atheist and 2, I am a climate skeptic. The atheist bit is really not a problem to believers. My brand of atheism is a problem to American atheists. They have a rigidly orthodox dogma on abortion, political leanings, race, gender, climate and the rest of the laundry list. I was kicked off several American atheist pages, not for abusive argument but simply for persisting in presenting my quiet viewpoint. Pro-choicers are welcome on pro-life pages. Climate alarmists are welcome on skeptic pages. Not so the other way round. Although I've been to Facebook Jail a couple of times, the Facebook Stasi are overall pretty tolerant I think except where COVID is concerned. Naturally this bias did not always pertain and in the somewhat distant past the lynch mob was as likely to be conservatives as bolsheviks. Today... I do a LOT of self-censoring. Cancel Culture is not my imagination.
Jewish Loot and Neglected Fruit: How the Mainstream Right Serves Jews and Betrays Whites...
March 25, 2022/in British Politics, Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon
“Low-hanging fruit!” cry deluded right-wingers all over the West. “Why doesn’t my favored party on the mainstream right pluck that fruit and defeat the left?” Well, they’ve been crying that for decades and will still be crying it when the left pack them off to a slave-labor camp or an organic gas-chamber. Some of those right-wingers are too stupid to see the truth; some are too frightened to admit it. Their favored party on the mainstream right doesn’t pluck the low-hanging fruit because it doesn’t want to defeat the left. And it doesn’t want to defeat the left because it is the left. That is, it’s financed and controlled by Jews who support the left and its anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-Western agenda.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/i/106604868/jewish-loot-and-neglected-fruit-how-the-mainstream-right-serves-jews-and-betrays-whites
Did they just cancel without warning or was one given?
It is assumed that the manner was equally bad by both you and whoever you were responding too so it was the content not the manner that was the problem.
Update. Robert Reich eventually canceled me.