Near the beginning of the essay, you describe the ruling class as "unbelievably cynical," yet in the rest of the piece you consistently take the absolute most cynical interpretation of everything they do. For example, you claim that all their actions on climate and DEI are intended to preserve the power of their own class, ignoring the possibility that they actually believe at least some of what they say they do.
You also claim that the ruling class lacks virtue, but I would note that their enemies, the post-liberals (who are actually the ones currently ruling the government) are also extremely vicious - in some cases hypocritically espousing virtue while failing to embody it themselves, in others openly denigrating virtue and elevating vice. I say this not to defend the ruling class, which I somewhat agree with your criticisms of, but to point out that if anything is going to improve, someone is going to have to present a better alternative.
Cards on the table here: I think that alternative has a better chance of coming from a splinter faction of the upper middle class left (your "ruling class") than from either the intellectual or populist right. As much as some members of this class like to bash bourgeois virtues like personal responsibility, hard work, honesty, and traditional marriage, you're more likely to find them actually practiced by this group than by any other class in America today. I think you're more likely to be able to get those people to change their rhetoric around the values they already practice, than you are to get, say, the populist right embrace an ethic of personal responsibility instead of blaming elites and immigrants for all their problems. I take it you disagree with me there, but in that case I encourage you to apply some introspection toward whatever side you pick and encourage it to be the best version of itself. The poison of political tribalism is that it lets us condemn the failings of the other side while ignoring the same or worse among our allies.
1. A cynical interpretation of the elites' behavior does not invalidate the observation that the elites themselves are cynical. For readers like myself, the author's accusation checks out because it lines up with what many of us have seen in public and in private from people of that class. Also, wouldn't the old adage "it takes one to know one" apply here?
2. We agree there needs to be a better alternative. I strongly disagree on your assessment of where it would come from.
3. You've chalked up all of the opponents of globalist leftism to, essentially, unproductive unintellectual right-wing radicals whose only societal and political understanding is informed by resentment. This is a tremendous category error that would be akin to chalking up all opponents of post-liberals to violent indoctrinated left-wing anarchists all under the age of 25. Many right-leaning people opposed to the globalist project are also typical productive members of society who care about their families. Most of the time, the difference is they don't try to convince people traditional values are unfashionable or backward or oppressive while hypocritically observing them in their own lives.
Call me crazy, but I think the alternative we're talking about is going to come from people animated by the feeling that the espoused elite worldview is destructive odious bullshit, rather than those who find that worldview palatable enough to wear it as a fashionable mask - or, if you prefer we be less cynical, those who genuinely want that world for larger society even if they view it as impractical for themselves. Neither possibility presents a rosy picture for a change in messaging: the former group are clearly willing to sell their values for clout, and the latter see their way of life as some sort of necessary evil acting as a placeholder for the Great Society that is to come.
If you're going to make such sweeping pronouncements, perhaps you should learn to use the basic functions of the internet, such as search. Our conversation is still up for anyone who wants to to see, including my responses to the many lies you have republished here. https://substack.com/@jameswritesthings/note/c-174972575
Ouch, what a sick burn from the troll hiding behind a pseudonym. It's "frankly amazing" that you all are still obsessed with the same tired old lies while the administration you support is taking far worse censorship actions than the imaginary ones you ascribed to me.
Outstanding essay.
Very insightful - thank you!
BTW, love the quote from Lewis. It should be far better known.
Preaching and rewarding nontraditional values while privately living traditional values.
Excellent!!
"errant" nonsense should be "arrant" nonsense
Near the beginning of the essay, you describe the ruling class as "unbelievably cynical," yet in the rest of the piece you consistently take the absolute most cynical interpretation of everything they do. For example, you claim that all their actions on climate and DEI are intended to preserve the power of their own class, ignoring the possibility that they actually believe at least some of what they say they do.
You also claim that the ruling class lacks virtue, but I would note that their enemies, the post-liberals (who are actually the ones currently ruling the government) are also extremely vicious - in some cases hypocritically espousing virtue while failing to embody it themselves, in others openly denigrating virtue and elevating vice. I say this not to defend the ruling class, which I somewhat agree with your criticisms of, but to point out that if anything is going to improve, someone is going to have to present a better alternative.
Cards on the table here: I think that alternative has a better chance of coming from a splinter faction of the upper middle class left (your "ruling class") than from either the intellectual or populist right. As much as some members of this class like to bash bourgeois virtues like personal responsibility, hard work, honesty, and traditional marriage, you're more likely to find them actually practiced by this group than by any other class in America today. I think you're more likely to be able to get those people to change their rhetoric around the values they already practice, than you are to get, say, the populist right embrace an ethic of personal responsibility instead of blaming elites and immigrants for all their problems. I take it you disagree with me there, but in that case I encourage you to apply some introspection toward whatever side you pick and encourage it to be the best version of itself. The poison of political tribalism is that it lets us condemn the failings of the other side while ignoring the same or worse among our allies.
1. A cynical interpretation of the elites' behavior does not invalidate the observation that the elites themselves are cynical. For readers like myself, the author's accusation checks out because it lines up with what many of us have seen in public and in private from people of that class. Also, wouldn't the old adage "it takes one to know one" apply here?
2. We agree there needs to be a better alternative. I strongly disagree on your assessment of where it would come from.
3. You've chalked up all of the opponents of globalist leftism to, essentially, unproductive unintellectual right-wing radicals whose only societal and political understanding is informed by resentment. This is a tremendous category error that would be akin to chalking up all opponents of post-liberals to violent indoctrinated left-wing anarchists all under the age of 25. Many right-leaning people opposed to the globalist project are also typical productive members of society who care about their families. Most of the time, the difference is they don't try to convince people traditional values are unfashionable or backward or oppressive while hypocritically observing them in their own lives.
Call me crazy, but I think the alternative we're talking about is going to come from people animated by the feeling that the espoused elite worldview is destructive odious bullshit, rather than those who find that worldview palatable enough to wear it as a fashionable mask - or, if you prefer we be less cynical, those who genuinely want that world for larger society even if they view it as impractical for themselves. Neither possibility presents a rosy picture for a change in messaging: the former group are clearly willing to sell their values for clout, and the latter see their way of life as some sort of necessary evil acting as a placeholder for the Great Society that is to come.
The ruling class have lost the room. They are clones like a collective, political version of the Stepford Wives.
wow. brilliant.
Yup, we are in the "good times produce weak men (in this case women)" portion of the cycle.
"...we increasingly have arrogant (it feels the same as decisive and confident, to them) and yet fearful women"
And if this doesn't describe these people (including the men, tbh) to a T.
If you're going to make such sweeping pronouncements, perhaps you should learn to use the basic functions of the internet, such as search. Our conversation is still up for anyone who wants to to see, including my responses to the many lies you have republished here. https://substack.com/@jameswritesthings/note/c-174972575
It's frankly amazing that you actually have the temerity to show your face in public.
Ouch, what a sick burn from the troll hiding behind a pseudonym. It's "frankly amazing" that you all are still obsessed with the same tired old lies while the administration you support is taking far worse censorship actions than the imaginary ones you ascribed to me.
http://wiczipedia.substack.com/p/dont-call-it-a-comeback
Happy Thanksgiving.
Okay, sanpaku
“healthy, intact families?” Beg to differ. Were it true, the sixties would not have happened the way they did.