Yes or in socio-economic terms globalism vs localism/regionalism.

Purely in evolutionary terms diversity is more adaptive because you have a wider range of attributes that can fit changing circumstances.

We used to be a lot more genetically and culturally diverse in the past, but we generally went in the other direction the past 12.000 years culminating in the globalised world we have now.

The general arc historically has been towards more integration. But I don't think this is necessarily the direction we should expect the future to go.

For splitting apart of a species you need seperation and evolutionary bottlenecks. Maybe we will get seperation and evolutionary bottlenecks.

The general arc historically has been towards more integration. But I don't think this is necessarily the direction we should expect the future to go. — ChatteringMonkey

I wish I could come back in 10,000 years and see what happened. :grin:

Maybe we will get seperation and evolutionary bottlenecks. — ChatteringMonkey

Maybe from climate change?

The philosophy of staying together is liberalism and egalitarianism. The philosophy of splitting is what Land is talking about. — frank

This strikes me as totally incoherent. They aren't related(on my first reading.. This isn't an impugning). the "philosophy of staying together" as a species? What thinker has broached this outside of sci fi? Real question, and not one I think is a gotcha. I'd like to know who to read on that, because its clearly a prima facie conservative line of thinking.

I think it's pretty confusing when people speak about 'liberal' values when referring to directly conservative actions. Is it that there's something more to the story of the dichotomy? I think so, and that conversation is rarely had prior to the kind of us v them utterings all throughout the forum on these sorts of threads.

They aren't related — AmadeusD

What two things aren't related?

Some kind of philosophy of hte species remaining a single, pure species (yes, that's on purpose) and the concept of liberal/egalitarian thinking.

I don't think they relate, let alone align (again, on first reading. I'm just beginning thoughts on it).

The idea is that some people opposed DEI because they think it forces stupid people to the top, where they contaminate the elite with their stupid genes. Chattering Monkey and I were adding in some futurism.

Remember, when you go to make sense of history, you inevitably narrate it according to some presuppositions or biases. Same thing with trying to understand the present moment.

This inspires me to look at all the significant viewpoints on the scene and place them as if on a chessboard where I can move them around and let them interact. Do I escape bias this way? Probably not entirely, but it's maybe a little more sophisticated than the rooting-for-my-team approach, which is just blind bs.

This strikes me as totally incoherent. They aren't related(on my first reading.. This isn't an impugning). the "philosophy of staying together" as a species? What thinker has broached this outside of sci fi? Real question, and not one I think is a gotcha. I'd like to know who to read on that, because its clearly a prima facie conservative line of thinking. — AmadeusD

Nick Land influenced a lot of MAGA ideology. They want closed borders, de-globalisation, multi-polar world, protectionism, less immigration etc etc.... as opposed to liberal democrats wanting open borders, globalisation, uni-polar world, free trade, more immigration. It's not necessarily about the stated goals of said ideologies, but about the policies they tend to support and the implications of those.

Maybe from climate change? — frank

Yes that would be one of the main ones.

Purely in evolutionary terms diversity is more adaptive because you have a wider range of attributes that can fit changing circumstances. — ChatteringMonkey

Every stance in these discussions is precarious.

I see a tension between inclusion of diversity (yielding adaptability, other goods, etc) and exclusion (yielding the lines that frame the diverse) when it comes to race. You don’t get diverse things if you don’t keep things exclusive of each other. You don’t get the authentically Asian or Pacific Islander without exclusivity. Should we want all the races to blend into one, or all people to realize we single people are a single people of many different races?

The equity-inclusion crowds then, in practice, build an anti-diversity world; inclusion is at odds with diversity. The racist crowds are anti-human, so self-defeating, and much worse, but inclusiveness has to be grounded in a respect for exclusivity, or it may also tend away from the better world we seek.

So the first thing to settle in the discussion of race, to me, from all sides, has to be whether people, as people, are already homogeneous, with no significant diversity yet to speak of, as people. We shouldn’t start the conversation by grappling with diversity versus inclusion. We need to first address who must be included in the conversation about different races (namely, all people, which is redundant with all races of people) before we can really have that conversation.

If someone can’t accept that, they need to explain themselves before the conversation can move anywhere.

It should be as good that there are many different personalities at one table in one family, as it is good that the Asian and the African and the European, etc are so different as one people, in the one human race. It’s obvious who the people are (in all races) and only a racist could be confused about that.

The real problem isn’t people accepting all the differences, it’s people accepting they are no different than other people, and no matter what the race, we’re all at bottom only people, and as people, there really isn’t a such thing as white people or black people or green people. We need to accept all the samenesses, not the differences first.

The only real surface dividing people, is between this particular individual, and that one, and when seeing the differences between individuals, in their uniqueness, skin color tells us so little it should barely make the discussion.

You don’t get the authentically Asian or Pacific Islander without exclusivity. — Fire Ologist

I don't think it matters how we treat them. They're still Filipino. That's not something we're creating with our hiring practices.

The idea is that some people opposed DEI because they think it forces stupid people to the top, where they contaminate the elite with their stupid genes. — frank

I see. I may be ignorant to how well-subscribed that view is. My understanding is even the duller coterie among that sort of group aren't seriously suggesting that stupid people will become another race. I see you're adding in some futurism. Fair enough - I guess my response is just to that then LOL. I don't really see the connection. But thank you for that clarification.

This inspires me to look at all the significant viewpoints on the scene and place them as if on a chessboard where I can move them around and let them interact. Do I escape bias this way? Probably not entirely, but it's maybe a little more sophisticated than the rooting-for-my-team approach, which is just blind bs. — frank

Definitely true. I think the risk here is taht its going to still result in various, conflicting views. For instance, I feel I also do this to the degree that I am able, psychologically and in terms of my knowledge of history and the present - but my conclusiosn would be much different I'd think. View from nowhere rears its head i guess.

It's not necessarily about the stated goals of said ideologies, but about the policies they tend to support and the implications of those. — ChatteringMonkey

This seems to leapfrog the issues in the prior suggestions. What's wrong with less immigration? Or at least, and this is the general MAGA line, less illegal immigration? Those are, for this context, rhetorical. If you want to skip to the next paragraph, the one below it responds directly to the above quote..

I understand it's likely what you're pushing at is that the motivator for them is actually just "less wogs, pls" or some nonsense like that. But that's only going to cover a, probably somewhat small, proportion of that group. Many will just be plain ignorant, and then there will be varying degrees of reasonable argument (one being extremely sensitive, because it's allowable and in fact considered morally 'right' when applied to any ethnicity that isn't white. Which is patently racist - another discussion). This goes to what I was initially suggesting:

What's your goal? Reducing harm? Ok. Good goal. Lets discuss how to get there and hash-out the theoretics of X or Y course of action/policy.... This base-line is almost never set down and so the arguments proceed from one another's bias about how the motiviations (even though unknown) are somehow evil. There is no point talking about policies and actions unless you can hold them up to a stated goal and point out that either A. the goal is unwarranted, or B. the policies/actions wont achieve the goal. Even if this is purely practical, and its just that no ones going to listen to you when you can't even stop yourself from pretending to know their mind, that's totally valid imo. Don't do that.

It also seems patently clear that, over the years, many 'liberal' policies with both 'pleasant' stated goals, and apparently good reason to believe the policy will get there, have resulted in something else (unforeseen, unwanted etc..). So, that doesn't seem a great benchmark for either 'side' to critique the other.

The equity-inclusion crowds then, in practice, build an anti-diversity world; inclusion is at odds with diversity. The racist crowds are anti-human, so self-defeating, and much worse, but inclusiveness has to be grounded in a respect for exclusivity, or it may also tend away from the better world we seek. — Fire Ologist

Very good. I think not only is it self-defeating in that sense (which admittedly, might just come down to the linguistics of hte bumper-stickers) but is exactly opposite to what anyone truly wants - which is for things like racialised thinking to disappear. It is explicitly encouraging racialised and sexualised policies (most other aspects of DEI are reasonable, such as having ramps for disabled employees or whatever so that there's no barrier to hiring them).

We need to accept all the samenesses, not the differences first. — Fire Ologist

Yes. This seems particularly important for sex, imo. The conversation is so intensely stupid around sex/gender because this obvious starting point is ignored (or, misused to suggest something ridiculous). For race, its a bit less ridiculous because you can't miss that someone is black, or South Asian or ebony (here referring to mid-Africans with truly dark, sun-kissed tones and is not meant to be derogatory or anything).

One that's sorted, the differences become obvious, and the response should be similar to Shaun Murphys about 'being a boy'. THe question is ridiculous. You are the race you are, and you have the attributes you have. Its not a moral question, and has nothing to do with right or wrong. It is the case that we have all these races with (relatively) distinct genetic profiles which we can trace back thousands of years.

I think, though, we're missing hte point. the Alt-Right (and indeed, the intensely DEI crowd) pigeon hole people by observing behaviour, and tying it race. And both sides of that are woefully inept, and inconsistent. Statistics, basically. Which is what everyone does preconsciously, constantly, all the time, about everything. But couple that with 'ideology' and you have a timebomb.

the Alt-Right (and indeed, the intensely DEI crowd) pigeon hole people by observing behaviour, and tying it race. — AmadeusD

:100: although I’d say we need to remove the word “indeed” and pull that parenthetical out of the parentheses in line with the rest of the statement.

And if we changed “pigeon hole” (a putting down) to “set equal persons on a pedestal” (a respect for the uniqueness of individuals and peoples), we have our statement of an honorable goal for this conversation.

“The alt right and the intensely DEI crowd pigeon hole people by observing behavior and tying it to race.”

That’s bad, so let’s talk with the goal that “the right and the left only seek to set equal persons on a pedestal by observing behavior and tying it to race (or culture, or sex, or class, or intelligence, or physical beauty, etc, etc..)”

What's your goal? Reducing harm? Ok. Good goal. Lets discuss how to get there and hash-out the theoretics of X or Y course of action/policy.... This base-line is almost never set down and so the arguments proceed from one another's bias about how the motiviations (even though unknown) are somehow evil. There is no point talking about policies and actions unless you can hold them up to a stated goal and point out that either A. the goal is unwarranted, or B. the policies/actions wont achieve the goal. Even if this is purely practical, and its just that no ones going to listen to you when you can't even stop yourself from pretending to know their mind, that's totally valid imo. Don't do that.

I think their goal is to overthrow the liberal democratic world order we have had the past 75 years. This is not about some policy change left or right, but about a total system change based on core values that are not the same.

If this is indeed their goal, then what they are doing kindof makes sense.

I think their goal is to overthrow the liberal democratic world order we have had the past 75 years. This is not about some policy change left or right, but about a total system change based on core values that are not the same.

If this is indeed their goal, then what they are doing kindof makes sense. — ChatteringMonkey

Exactly.

Would it be a bad thing is the liberal world order ended Frank?

Land (and Moldbug) have a narrow view of how tolerance works in public life:

The Jews of 17th-century Amsterdam, or the Huguenots of 18th-century London, enjoyed the right to be left alone, and enriched their host societies in return. The democratically-empowered grievance groups of later modern times are incited by political leaders to demand a (fundamentally illiberal) right to be heard, with social consequences that are predominantly malignant. For politicians, however, who identify and promote themselves as the voice of the unheard and the ignored, the self-interest at stake could hardly be more obvious.

Tolerance, which once presupposed neglect, now decries it, and in so doing becomes its opposite. Were this a partisan development, partisan politics of a democratic kind might sustain the possibility of reversion, but it is nothing of the kind. “When someone is hurting, government has got to move” declared ‘compassionate conservative’ US President George W. Bush, in a futile effort to channel the Cathedral. When the ‘right’ sounds like this it is not only dead but unmistakably reeking of advanced decomposition. ‘Progress’ has won, but is that bad? — Nick Land, The Dark Enlightenment, Part 3

The expectation that people are to be respected as persons happens more in some places than others. It is a way of life that is not sustainable if enough people stop operating with that respect. The equality of civil rights and equal treatment under the law are important but are meaningless if that respect is absent from the commons.

The tolerance for the ghettos that Land applauds is encoded in the U.S. Constitution with the Establishment of Religion clause of the First Amendment. It provides a safe place for intolerance and discrimination within their members' way of life. As regards to the education of children, it gives each American the right to screw up their kids.

By that measure, the alt-right does not want to have control of the commons but to force everybody else to live in their ghetto.

Would it be a bad thing is the liberal world order ended Frank? — ChatteringMonkey

If you mean should America's global influence end. Yes. It should.

By that measure, the alt-right does not want to have control of the commons but to force everybody else to live in their ghetto. — Paine

Libertarians truly want freedom and they think democracy has failed in its mission to provide that. They have joined hands with Neo-Nazis in order to make their sentiments known. To what extent do they realize that there's a looming disaster in that? I honestly don't think they care. They're useless dust for history's bin.

his introduction, Land argues that the alt-right is reaction to a Left that has placed race on an untouchable holy altar. He's saying that the media reinforces a climate in which it's not acceptable to question certain assumptions, such as the existence of systemic racism, and he goes on to say that this intransigence actually created the alt-right.

"The Alt-Right is the Frankenstein monster progressivism has built. It is uniquely adapted to what the people have become in our time. Liberal failure has been succeeded by that of the left, and the Alt-Right has inherited the rotten remains." --Nick Land, the Dark Enlightenment — frank

As a lefty, I largely agree with this and I've been saying similar things for years. The left shoots themselves in the foot by becoming extreme caricatures of themselves.

Libertarians truly want freedom and they think democracy has failed in its mission to provide that — frank

The term "libertarian" applies to many forms of expression which support starkly different political agendas. Take Hayek, for instance, who advocated for a completely free market but did not support the deletion of civic governance.

What Land describes as 'conservative' may be more accurately described as nativist. Genealogically speaking, that makes the alt-right closer to the overt racism and cultural hegemony of Pat Buchanan than to various flavors of anarchy.

Land explicitly welcomes the benefits of enlightened despotism. What shall be called libertarian in that environment?

Take Hayek, for instance, who advocated for a completely free market but did not support the deletion of civic governance. — Paine

Hayek favored dictatorship as the best way to preserve the freedom of the market. He's an ideological grandfather of Land and his friends.

What Land describes as 'conservative' — Paine

What did he describe as conservative? He isn't conservative in any meaningful sense. He's post-Leftism.

As a lefty, I largely agree with this and I've been saying similar things for years. The left shoots themselves in the foot by becoming extreme caricatures of themselves. — flannel jesus

I also get what he's saying. There's a little bit of zombie-ness in progressivism.

Hayek favored dictatorship as the best way to preserve the freedom of the market. He's an ideological grandfather of Land and his friends. — frank

On what basis do you say that? What do you make of Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom, where the intervention of government into private transactions is deemed the source of all tyranny?

What did he describe as conservative? He isn't conservative in any meaningful sense. He's post-Leftism. — frank

I don't understand what post-Leftism means. Land quotes Moldbug in the paragraph preceding my previous quote:

The spontaneous tolerance that characterized classical liberalism, rooted in a modest set of strictly negative rights that restricted the domain of politics, or government intolerance, surrenders during the democratic surge-tide to a positive right to be tolerated, defined ever more expansively as substantial entitlement, encompassing public affirmations of dignity, state-enforced guarantees of equal treatment by all agents (public and private), government protections against non-physical slights and humiliations, economic subsidies, and – ultimately – statistically proportional representation within all fields of employment, achievement, and recognition. That the eschatological culmination of this trend is simply impossible matters not at all to the dialectic. On the contrary, it energizes the political process, combusting any threat of policy satiation in the fuel of infinite grievance. “I will not cease from Mental Fight, Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand: Till we have built Jerusalem, In England’s green and pleasant land.” Somewhere before Jerusalem is reached, the inarticulate pluralism of a free society has been transformed into the assertive multiculturalism of a soft-totalitarian democracy. — ibid.

Whatever is the opposite of that is what Land said had died when Bush said:

“When someone is hurting, government has got to move” — ibid

zombie? Not sure what exactly is meant by that

Hayek favored dictatorship as the best way to preserve the freedom of the market. He's an ideological grandfather of Land and his friends.
— frank

On what basis do you say that? — Paine

I read a book about him? He praised the Chilean dictator and commented that a dictator is the best solution to threats to freedom. I'm not going to look it up and provide a quote though. I just don't care enough. Sorry.

zombie? Not sure what exactly is meant by that — flannel jesus

No reflection. Just outrage.

Yeah, I don't think that's a left problem though. I think we're seeing that from all quarters. The left and right are just doing that in different ways.

Yeah, I don't think that's a left problem though. I think we're seeing that from all quarters. The left and right are just doing that in different ways. — flannel jesus

Agreed.

The idea is that some people opposed DEI because they think it forces stupid people to the top, where they contaminate the elite with their stupid genes. — frank

Some, but not many. These kind of racist fears are not what many had in mind when opposing the overreactions or excesses of DEI or anti-racism. And that's what they were: workplace excesses that usually showed just how easily especially one can lose a job in the US.

Yet then to go on with the current administration going full word-nazi and erasing "incorrect" words? JD Vance stating that these kinds of minor issues to be a far higher level of threats to Europe than the Russia military aggression and real war? Talk about an overreaction on a monumental scale out of proportions, which indeed makes everybody question just how sinister the real objective is.

Let's remember that Jordan Peterson got his fame and publicity by going against a Canadian law could be interpreted as setting rules for language. That kind of "word policing", which likely didn't have much effect in Canada, gave rise to Peterson. And now you have the Trump administration erasing words like equity from government documents and websites and people going through personal mails of government employees to fire them if they have been against the administration.

I remember one Democrat openly admitting that the party went too far in the DEI / anti-racism narrative thinking that it's the next step after the civil rights movement. That was an honest statement, but then, as typically happens, the counter reaction from the MAGA crowd wipes absolutely everything aside.