"Bugman" isn't about office workers or technical people or any of that. It's basically just a synonym for soyjak or consoomer or whatever. You're mixing up the concept of the Professional Managerial Class (PMC) with just general competence, and they're not the same thing at all.
What you're trying to say is that you wish our side had better optics, but like Academic Agent you turn it into this silly armchair psychology exercise where you bloviate about how dumb and low class and white trash people are. You're basically Richard Hanania and you're a step away from telling everyone to vote for Gavin Newsom, if you haven't already.
Totally agree. It’s also absolutely insane to complain about optics when the media who is instrumental in forming narratives and shaping optics is completely owned by our enemies. Optics come downstream from power so really this is just complaining that we aren’t winning which is both a waste of time and actively undermining your friends, both of which are “antisocial” behavior
Yeah. Ironically it's the bug man that can't see beauty and what's good. Conformity isn't discipline and lack of any values outside of "line goes up" isn't virtuous pragmatism.
I had to look up the definition of what's a chud while reading 🤣
Perhaps the prominence of chuds emerged because of or through the prominence of memes?
Listening to a podcast on music recently, a discussion ensued on high & low culture. The point made by the podcast was that classical music, and culture more broadly, upto the years in-between the world wars, prized high culture. So for instance, the point was made that back in the day, everyone attending classical music concerts knew how to play at least 1 musical instrument, because the mould of what it meant to be an accomplished adult back then included being able to play an instrument. The podcast then went into a deep dive rabbit hole of the origins of rock and roll and the effects of frequency. But I was reminded of this while reading your essay, especially the section of why creatives aren't comfortable among chuds, which I interpreted to mean low IQ people
Unfortunately our current Western culture doesn't promote high level aesthetics, traditions, knowledge, etc. And this is the result.
For the record, personally I think it's a shame the Librarian and Parvini got into a tiff. I follow both and have listened to AA for years.
I think that the piece does not spend enough time on what a chud is. It uses the background knowledge of the reader to come to it allowing many people to imagine many different people. It likely converges on aspects of the chud-meme, many you mention: “the west has fallen”, lives in poorest regions of the country, high antagonism, low openness, “always chimp”. The issue requires a deeper, yet simpler explanation.
The chud are “the true believer” of the right. Not in the sense of morality, but in being unconvincible. They are the type of believer that no matter how crazy things get they will consistently show up. They are the rights’ equivalent of the transtrender, their only position is doubling down. This makes them despicable, but it also makes them your problem. You can’t walk out of coalition with them without abandoning your beliefs, because they will always slug up to match.
This is why I thought your previous idea on trying to look for ideas whose cascade results in minimal health loss between creator and populace.
I think hating the chud is a waste of time compared with finding ideas that result in positive results in the afformentioned cascade.
(P.S. I am not sure how you square being pro-William Morris and the bugmen comments regarding anti-specialization.)
I like you. You're one of the few Substackers I consider to be on my level. Maybe higher.
---
I did not define the chud. I refrained deliberately. I know that if I do, then midwit wordcels would begin playing pedantic logic-chopping games with the definition. They always do.
To avoid this, I relied on Wittgenstein's family resemblance to indicate my meaning. I allude to chud behaviors to clarify what the term chud means.
---
I do not think the chuds are true believers of anything. I think they just react to the Left. If they had true belief, then they would be harder to manipulate because they would have a consistent vision that tethered them to a certain spot.
It is also the reason why chuds do not show up to things. Their failure to show up is and has been a consistent problem for the small number of right-wing activities in this space.
---
Hating the chud is almost a waste of time. His presence repels desirable people. So expulsion creates room for them.
---
I reconcile William Morris and the bugmen in this way: specialization is gradational. It is required to produce quality work. But the bugman takes it too far. The problem is one of degree.
I am a big fan of Dave Greene’s magical word series. I consider it some of his best philosophically. The family resemblance of Wittgenstein + negative connotation tends towards magic. The test is that if we replaced the term chud with a synonym: “anti-social right winger” does it lose its power? The concept is a demon word, where its function becomes one less of operating aesthetics (being vague yet emotive) to operating political status (vague and power-gaining through usage).
To your point on true belief: there’re levels to the term. I said unconvincability. The chud is completely reactive, but in many ways is completely captive by ‘online’ right ideas. They always show up online. If the right shifts ideas or the left shifts posture, the chud will also shift to match. This is not to say that they are true believers in the sense of a consistent vision of the future;— they might be in the past. Again, the chud is the transtrender, they have committed themselves and there is little room for them elsewhere so they can’t be convinced into a different coalition or to be on their own. They are our problem.
Hating the chud is a waste of time, but expulsion online is damn hard. Substack does good enough. You have to submit a long-form 5,000 word paper. The chud is not doing that. You can’t get rid of them on our current social medias.
There is a bizarre sense in which the chud is a true believer.
He believes what the Left despises in any and all cases. But this is not ideological so much as it is physiological. For this reason, he helps the Left propagate its ideas. Both because he fuels the algorithm and because he adopts old Leftists views if doing so helps him denigrate new ones. If he were a true believer, then he would not adopt old Leftist views as a tool to use against them. Both the new and the old would conflict with the object of his belief, which would remain static throughout both.
This is one of the reasons why the Right continually adopts the Leftist's framing. Old Leftist frames are useful for combatting newer ones. The chud uses them because he lacks a principled core and is motivated solely by resentment. This is part of the reason why Cthulhu swims Left.
---
The chuds are ineradicable. But the influencers who cater to them are finite. I want them to trade away the chuds in favor of the white population that leans Left because of their intransigence.
Tbh, I don’t think those influencers you speak of are as good at appealing to urban white progressives as they are at appealing to chuds. If they could do so, they might be already. They’re fighting for a piece of the online entertainment pie, and their slice is the chuds.
Tbh, your dismissal of Chuds is the reason for their resentment, the rug was pulled out from under them before they even walked in the room. This “let’s dismiss these people and cater only to the credentialed urban winners crowd” is literally just the Democratic Party lol.
The chuds are the victims of their own malevolence. They are mostly working-class Celts and Germans who inherited a white trash culture that discourages aspiration and encourages low-brow notions of success.
They should renounce it. But they embrace it.
So they occupy inferior positions in American society because they actively pursue them. They call failure a success and strive for it.
They demonstrate this when they aspire to become plumbers and then wonder why they're not winning at life. Loss is their win condition.
So if he wins, then the chud is still a loser. And he looks for someone to blame.
This just sounds like neoliberalism. How are you even right wing? It sounds like you despise Celts and Germans. Flooding the country with mass migration does drive down their wages, for doing honest work, like plumbing. Not everyone is capable of genius, I have no idea why you think everyone should be aspiring for more than trades when that’s not realistic for them to accomplish. Jews facilitate mass migration via many NGOs, lawsuits, financial coercion etc.
You’re right about the chuds failure to show up irl. I think this is somewhat due to the feminization of virtually all public life, but it’s still defeatist and unproductive. I struggle to even get friend hangouts going with chuds irl.
The reality I think is every group needs its rank and file, most of which won’t think deeply. In the new rights case, that base is inevitably chuds.
I think this base is unreliable. The chuds cannot be the rank and file because they don't show up and direct their antagonism toward their own side more often than not.
Your article fails in what it sets out to do exactly because you do not rely on family resemblance to indicate meaning. The Chud you describe doesn't really ring as a coherent archetype of the type of person. Reading the article I do not grasp the resemblance of persons I encounter online or in real life who are the anti-social right wingers you set out to describe.
The bugman archetype could be more precisely characterized as an inability to compartmentalize the economic/productivity-oriented mindset. It produces a being that cannot appreciate what makes us human. Specialization is important and necessary for sustaining complex systems, (I’ve written on it) but turning everything into a cost-balance sheet is what differentiates a bugman.
I get what you’re saying, and it sounds nice to be without these people, who I see regularly. But I kept waiting on a good definition of who they are to come up, and all I got was “unsuccessful, insecure white male.”
You aren’t talking about one group here, you’re talking about two. One is the lost cause who has always lived at the fringes, and they have carried elections before. The other is made up of not-quite- men who could have done something to contribute, but they were raised without fathers so the impotent anger has become their personality. I believe they got screwed really badly and they have potential to be more. If that gives the middle finger to those who subscribe to the new genetic absolutism, so be it. There’s a reactivity to that frame that’s just as foolish as what you’re critiquing.
I can’t get with you on abandoning those guys in the tradition of right wing elites self-selecting themselves into a hated minority since time immemorial. Years ago, I saw the alt right go from an emerging philosophy with NRx and instead turn themselves into a voting block. If you wanted an aspirational cohort, this was the point where we needed to go the other way. At this point, dropping the UIWM would mean losing out on a shitload of votes and I still don’t think the creative class will touch you with a sniper’s bullet.
The left puts up with far, far worse in their ranks, and they want more of them, because votes don’t account for taste (or even legality) If the left can play the game like that, and the math of doing without your own losers looks like doom (and it does), then maybe the right should actually show some of the leadership ability they see in themselves and figure out a way to build an ugly lean-to out of plywood scraps instead of waiting on a truckload of mahogany that probably isn’t going to show up.
The women are going to select against the losers anyway, and then there will be another group at the bottom, and you’ll see them just as negatively. In the end, you might only be able to halfway fill a football stadium with your magnificently pure base, and you’ll wonder why you keep losing.
You don’t have to love your base, but you don’t have the option not to be a realist, or to take the easy way out and give up on people who could be something. It’s fucking lazy. Act like men and lead.
The problem isn't that Parvini hates the chuds and slop. It's that he's become a hollow contrarian slop merchant himself. His X account is a nonstop cringe fest of nonsense.
You make some salient points, especially the role of culture and how chuds appear to its creators and custodians. This is the best depiction of the corrosive influence of chud-types I have ever seen. Thank you.
Having said that, I think you fail to understand and appreciate chuds’ virtues, or in more elevated terms: your analysis isolates pathology without sufficiently accounting for function. Case in point: “His ancestors provided labor and, in war, bodies.” To disparage warriors as mere meat before you is ignoble. The warrior spirit (which at his best the chud exemplifies purely) is one of the most admirable things about mankind. Countless poets and wisemen have shown us this, not to mention the material benefits of having such men around (especially in a pinch at a bar or a stand at the gates). No—you must weigh evenly or don’t weigh at all. But it got me thinking . . . Maybe it’s been the failure of a third type, one exemplified in Bowden’s phrase ‘cultured-thug,’ who, without oversimplifying, synergizes the virtues of both the chud and the bugman/artfag. Maybe it has been the failure of both the bugman/artfag-like chuds and the chud-like bugman/artfags to become and take the reins. After all, the chud is what he is, in all his animal-like retardation and his Hero-like virtus; he’s not supposed to be in charge, and in his heart of hearts he understands and accepts that fact. And if he’s put in an unnatural position, maladaptive things will follow, naturally.
Also, your prognosis of the irrelevance of labour and soldiery is premature and overly assumptive.
I could go on, but I think that’s sufficient. I’ll sum with a saying the Québécois love to say: Il faut de tout pour faire un monde. To which I would add: And each type needs to be in its proper place for that world to be made.
Without citing specific examples it’s hard to understand the points you’re trying to make, and the whole thing devolves into “people I don’t like are chuds”. It would be helpful to see examples in each section to illustrate the abstract point with a concrete example.
“He mocks refinement because he cannot understand it.”
I don't need to provide specific instances of this occurring for the same reason I don't need to provide specific instances of rain to support the assertion that it sometimes rains.
My comment was intended as constructive criticism to help bolster your argument, without examples you’re just being “old man yells at cloud”. Anything you don’t like is just written off as being chud behavior. It seems you can’t handle the advice so I guess continue on writing substandard articles.
Speaking of bad aesthetics and counterproductive behaviour, the Australian government recently banned the group run by Tom Sewell. Their whole modus operandi was to march down the street, dressed in black like stormtroopers, giving roman salutes for the media and shouting "whites will not be replaced ".
This was a deeply unchristian message assigning value to people based solely on how good they are at coding. Sad to see you become this. Yes chuds shouldn’t just sit on twitter and complain all day because they have a duty to listen to their leaders but elites have duties too. Hating on the lower class is the same as hating on women or children, if you’re a man who claims to be a leader you should be using your superiority to lead and love them not write histrionic screeds against them. Really an unserious argument and I second those calling it the vary slop you decry
“Some people are more elite than you” is the very reality these people are joining movements to avoid facing. I think we need to start confronting people with their stupidity from a young age, so that people like this start realising their failure was an inevitable outcome whatever system they were a part of…
Embarrassing article. AA is a babbling fool that doesn’t like chuds because they call him out on his blatant bullshit. Letting your enemy frame your identity is for limp-dicked faggots
If this framing was true then the people who crashed out of the dissident right would go onto bigger and better things but that's clearly not their trajectory. Instead it just has this "you can't fire me I quit" vibe about it. The respectable conservatives are just natural born losers and if you doubt that just ask yourself what moved the needle more, Parvini's entire career or his main antagonist's tweet about Haitians eating pets?
Ridiculous and poorly written.
"Bugman" isn't about office workers or technical people or any of that. It's basically just a synonym for soyjak or consoomer or whatever. You're mixing up the concept of the Professional Managerial Class (PMC) with just general competence, and they're not the same thing at all.
What you're trying to say is that you wish our side had better optics, but like Academic Agent you turn it into this silly armchair psychology exercise where you bloviate about how dumb and low class and white trash people are. You're basically Richard Hanania and you're a step away from telling everyone to vote for Gavin Newsom, if you haven't already.
Totally agree. It’s also absolutely insane to complain about optics when the media who is instrumental in forming narratives and shaping optics is completely owned by our enemies. Optics come downstream from power so really this is just complaining that we aren’t winning which is both a waste of time and actively undermining your friends, both of which are “antisocial” behavior
Yeah. Ironically it's the bug man that can't see beauty and what's good. Conformity isn't discipline and lack of any values outside of "line goes up" isn't virtuous pragmatism.
I had to look up the definition of what's a chud while reading 🤣
Perhaps the prominence of chuds emerged because of or through the prominence of memes?
Listening to a podcast on music recently, a discussion ensued on high & low culture. The point made by the podcast was that classical music, and culture more broadly, upto the years in-between the world wars, prized high culture. So for instance, the point was made that back in the day, everyone attending classical music concerts knew how to play at least 1 musical instrument, because the mould of what it meant to be an accomplished adult back then included being able to play an instrument. The podcast then went into a deep dive rabbit hole of the origins of rock and roll and the effects of frequency. But I was reminded of this while reading your essay, especially the section of why creatives aren't comfortable among chuds, which I interpreted to mean low IQ people
Unfortunately our current Western culture doesn't promote high level aesthetics, traditions, knowledge, etc. And this is the result.
For the record, personally I think it's a shame the Librarian and Parvini got into a tiff. I follow both and have listened to AA for years.
By chud, I mean antisocial right-wing men.
How is this term funtionally different than "a loser who is right-wing coded"?
Bro, YOU are a chud.
Gene, I feel like you missed the mark somewhat.
I think that the piece does not spend enough time on what a chud is. It uses the background knowledge of the reader to come to it allowing many people to imagine many different people. It likely converges on aspects of the chud-meme, many you mention: “the west has fallen”, lives in poorest regions of the country, high antagonism, low openness, “always chimp”. The issue requires a deeper, yet simpler explanation.
The chud are “the true believer” of the right. Not in the sense of morality, but in being unconvincible. They are the type of believer that no matter how crazy things get they will consistently show up. They are the rights’ equivalent of the transtrender, their only position is doubling down. This makes them despicable, but it also makes them your problem. You can’t walk out of coalition with them without abandoning your beliefs, because they will always slug up to match.
This is why I thought your previous idea on trying to look for ideas whose cascade results in minimal health loss between creator and populace.
I think hating the chud is a waste of time compared with finding ideas that result in positive results in the afformentioned cascade.
(P.S. I am not sure how you square being pro-William Morris and the bugmen comments regarding anti-specialization.)
I like you. You're one of the few Substackers I consider to be on my level. Maybe higher.
---
I did not define the chud. I refrained deliberately. I know that if I do, then midwit wordcels would begin playing pedantic logic-chopping games with the definition. They always do.
To avoid this, I relied on Wittgenstein's family resemblance to indicate my meaning. I allude to chud behaviors to clarify what the term chud means.
---
I do not think the chuds are true believers of anything. I think they just react to the Left. If they had true belief, then they would be harder to manipulate because they would have a consistent vision that tethered them to a certain spot.
It is also the reason why chuds do not show up to things. Their failure to show up is and has been a consistent problem for the small number of right-wing activities in this space.
---
Hating the chud is almost a waste of time. His presence repels desirable people. So expulsion creates room for them.
---
I reconcile William Morris and the bugmen in this way: specialization is gradational. It is required to produce quality work. But the bugman takes it too far. The problem is one of degree.
All fair points.
I am a big fan of Dave Greene’s magical word series. I consider it some of his best philosophically. The family resemblance of Wittgenstein + negative connotation tends towards magic. The test is that if we replaced the term chud with a synonym: “anti-social right winger” does it lose its power? The concept is a demon word, where its function becomes one less of operating aesthetics (being vague yet emotive) to operating political status (vague and power-gaining through usage).
To your point on true belief: there’re levels to the term. I said unconvincability. The chud is completely reactive, but in many ways is completely captive by ‘online’ right ideas. They always show up online. If the right shifts ideas or the left shifts posture, the chud will also shift to match. This is not to say that they are true believers in the sense of a consistent vision of the future;— they might be in the past. Again, the chud is the transtrender, they have committed themselves and there is little room for them elsewhere so they can’t be convinced into a different coalition or to be on their own. They are our problem.
Hating the chud is a waste of time, but expulsion online is damn hard. Substack does good enough. You have to submit a long-form 5,000 word paper. The chud is not doing that. You can’t get rid of them on our current social medias.
There is a bizarre sense in which the chud is a true believer.
He believes what the Left despises in any and all cases. But this is not ideological so much as it is physiological. For this reason, he helps the Left propagate its ideas. Both because he fuels the algorithm and because he adopts old Leftists views if doing so helps him denigrate new ones. If he were a true believer, then he would not adopt old Leftist views as a tool to use against them. Both the new and the old would conflict with the object of his belief, which would remain static throughout both.
This is one of the reasons why the Right continually adopts the Leftist's framing. Old Leftist frames are useful for combatting newer ones. The chud uses them because he lacks a principled core and is motivated solely by resentment. This is part of the reason why Cthulhu swims Left.
---
The chuds are ineradicable. But the influencers who cater to them are finite. I want them to trade away the chuds in favor of the white population that leans Left because of their intransigence.
Tbh, I don’t think those influencers you speak of are as good at appealing to urban white progressives as they are at appealing to chuds. If they could do so, they might be already. They’re fighting for a piece of the online entertainment pie, and their slice is the chuds.
Tbh, your dismissal of Chuds is the reason for their resentment, the rug was pulled out from under them before they even walked in the room. This “let’s dismiss these people and cater only to the credentialed urban winners crowd” is literally just the Democratic Party lol.
The chuds are the victims of their own malevolence. They are mostly working-class Celts and Germans who inherited a white trash culture that discourages aspiration and encourages low-brow notions of success.
They should renounce it. But they embrace it.
So they occupy inferior positions in American society because they actively pursue them. They call failure a success and strive for it.
They demonstrate this when they aspire to become plumbers and then wonder why they're not winning at life. Loss is their win condition.
So if he wins, then the chud is still a loser. And he looks for someone to blame.
Usually, it's immigrants and Jews.
This just sounds like neoliberalism. How are you even right wing? It sounds like you despise Celts and Germans. Flooding the country with mass migration does drive down their wages, for doing honest work, like plumbing. Not everyone is capable of genius, I have no idea why you think everyone should be aspiring for more than trades when that’s not realistic for them to accomplish. Jews facilitate mass migration via many NGOs, lawsuits, financial coercion etc.
So how are the chuds wrong exactly?
Cthulhu always swims to the left;
Hastur performs jaundice to the right.
The left gets left behind.
The right is the “but” to their kind.
To swap is naught but a problem wrought
by dialectic thought,
caught, taut, in telic mind aglow.
So advised be heed what copybook headings lead:
“Stick to the devil you know.”
You’re right about the chuds failure to show up irl. I think this is somewhat due to the feminization of virtually all public life, but it’s still defeatist and unproductive. I struggle to even get friend hangouts going with chuds irl.
The reality I think is every group needs its rank and file, most of which won’t think deeply. In the new rights case, that base is inevitably chuds.
I think this base is unreliable. The chuds cannot be the rank and file because they don't show up and direct their antagonism toward their own side more often than not.
I agree with you about the “not showing up” problem.” I’m really not seeing the “antagonism toward their own side” part.
The constant demoralization and infighting.
I’m not seeing this anywhere on the right . Are you sure you’re right wing?
Your article fails in what it sets out to do exactly because you do not rely on family resemblance to indicate meaning. The Chud you describe doesn't really ring as a coherent archetype of the type of person. Reading the article I do not grasp the resemblance of persons I encounter online or in real life who are the anti-social right wingers you set out to describe.
Get a mirror
The bugman archetype could be more precisely characterized as an inability to compartmentalize the economic/productivity-oriented mindset. It produces a being that cannot appreciate what makes us human. Specialization is important and necessary for sustaining complex systems, (I’ve written on it) but turning everything into a cost-balance sheet is what differentiates a bugman.
More autism is not the answer.
It’s a difference in mindset, not a logical conclusion of developing competence in one area.
Alex Karp is a bugman. Palmer Luckey is not.
Tell yourself that. But keep it to yourself. I don’t care about the opinions of random internet autist #2332533454.
No.
I get what you’re saying, and it sounds nice to be without these people, who I see regularly. But I kept waiting on a good definition of who they are to come up, and all I got was “unsuccessful, insecure white male.”
You aren’t talking about one group here, you’re talking about two. One is the lost cause who has always lived at the fringes, and they have carried elections before. The other is made up of not-quite- men who could have done something to contribute, but they were raised without fathers so the impotent anger has become their personality. I believe they got screwed really badly and they have potential to be more. If that gives the middle finger to those who subscribe to the new genetic absolutism, so be it. There’s a reactivity to that frame that’s just as foolish as what you’re critiquing.
I can’t get with you on abandoning those guys in the tradition of right wing elites self-selecting themselves into a hated minority since time immemorial. Years ago, I saw the alt right go from an emerging philosophy with NRx and instead turn themselves into a voting block. If you wanted an aspirational cohort, this was the point where we needed to go the other way. At this point, dropping the UIWM would mean losing out on a shitload of votes and I still don’t think the creative class will touch you with a sniper’s bullet.
The left puts up with far, far worse in their ranks, and they want more of them, because votes don’t account for taste (or even legality) If the left can play the game like that, and the math of doing without your own losers looks like doom (and it does), then maybe the right should actually show some of the leadership ability they see in themselves and figure out a way to build an ugly lean-to out of plywood scraps instead of waiting on a truckload of mahogany that probably isn’t going to show up.
The women are going to select against the losers anyway, and then there will be another group at the bottom, and you’ll see them just as negatively. In the end, you might only be able to halfway fill a football stadium with your magnificently pure base, and you’ll wonder why you keep losing.
You don’t have to love your base, but you don’t have the option not to be a realist, or to take the easy way out and give up on people who could be something. It’s fucking lazy. Act like men and lead.
The problem isn't that Parvini hates the chuds and slop. It's that he's become a hollow contrarian slop merchant himself. His X account is a nonstop cringe fest of nonsense.
?
At any rate, I don’t look at X. It did not shape my opinion on the issue.
Not just his x account, he was the genius who thought Starmer would be good for Britain. Total pretender.
Yeah, he's also been simping for Starmer to ban X recently.
You make some salient points, especially the role of culture and how chuds appear to its creators and custodians. This is the best depiction of the corrosive influence of chud-types I have ever seen. Thank you.
Having said that, I think you fail to understand and appreciate chuds’ virtues, or in more elevated terms: your analysis isolates pathology without sufficiently accounting for function. Case in point: “His ancestors provided labor and, in war, bodies.” To disparage warriors as mere meat before you is ignoble. The warrior spirit (which at his best the chud exemplifies purely) is one of the most admirable things about mankind. Countless poets and wisemen have shown us this, not to mention the material benefits of having such men around (especially in a pinch at a bar or a stand at the gates). No—you must weigh evenly or don’t weigh at all. But it got me thinking . . . Maybe it’s been the failure of a third type, one exemplified in Bowden’s phrase ‘cultured-thug,’ who, without oversimplifying, synergizes the virtues of both the chud and the bugman/artfag. Maybe it has been the failure of both the bugman/artfag-like chuds and the chud-like bugman/artfags to become and take the reins. After all, the chud is what he is, in all his animal-like retardation and his Hero-like virtus; he’s not supposed to be in charge, and in his heart of hearts he understands and accepts that fact. And if he’s put in an unnatural position, maladaptive things will follow, naturally.
Also, your prognosis of the irrelevance of labour and soldiery is premature and overly assumptive.
I could go on, but I think that’s sufficient. I’ll sum with a saying the Québécois love to say: Il faut de tout pour faire un monde. To which I would add: And each type needs to be in its proper place for that world to be made.
My dismissal is premature. But its grounds are inevitable.
Nothing is inevitable except death.
Two things are inevitable.
Ah yes I forgot about taxes.
Without citing specific examples it’s hard to understand the points you’re trying to make, and the whole thing devolves into “people I don’t like are chuds”. It would be helpful to see examples in each section to illustrate the abstract point with a concrete example.
I give many examples of chud behavior.
“He mocks refinement because he cannot understand it.”
I don't need to provide specific instances of this occurring for the same reason I don't need to provide specific instances of rain to support the assertion that it sometimes rains.
My comment was intended as constructive criticism to help bolster your argument, without examples you’re just being “old man yells at cloud”. Anything you don’t like is just written off as being chud behavior. It seems you can’t handle the advice so I guess continue on writing substandard articles.
Gene: The sun rises.
Arcadia Rising: Oh yeah? Give one example of the sun rising!
Gene: No. That's stupid.
AR: Hey, it's just constructive criticism, man! But I guess you can't handle that!
Good piece.
Thanks
"Build a movement capable of governing a country. Expel men who cannot govern themselves."
Excellent final thoughts!
Speaking of bad aesthetics and counterproductive behaviour, the Australian government recently banned the group run by Tom Sewell. Their whole modus operandi was to march down the street, dressed in black like stormtroopers, giving roman salutes for the media and shouting "whites will not be replaced ".
This was a deeply unchristian message assigning value to people based solely on how good they are at coding. Sad to see you become this. Yes chuds shouldn’t just sit on twitter and complain all day because they have a duty to listen to their leaders but elites have duties too. Hating on the lower class is the same as hating on women or children, if you’re a man who claims to be a leader you should be using your superiority to lead and love them not write histrionic screeds against them. Really an unserious argument and I second those calling it the vary slop you decry
Short companion piece
https://cliftonduncan.substack.com/p/stop-fcking-complaining?selection=8f6bf6e0-f15a-4205-8799-3046e431c84f
“Some people are more elite than you” is the very reality these people are joining movements to avoid facing. I think we need to start confronting people with their stupidity from a young age, so that people like this start realising their failure was an inevitable outcome whatever system they were a part of…
“Populism is bad.”
Yeah, no shit. But for now it’s the only thing we have.
It is worse than nothing.
Obviously incorrect
People “on the right” saying it’s better to have no right than a populist right are usually just grifters who finally had enough of the lie.
Embarrassing article. AA is a babbling fool that doesn’t like chuds because they call him out on his blatant bullshit. Letting your enemy frame your identity is for limp-dicked faggots
100%
Neema is a simply a islamocommie behind enemy lines.
If this framing was true then the people who crashed out of the dissident right would go onto bigger and better things but that's clearly not their trajectory. Instead it just has this "you can't fire me I quit" vibe about it. The respectable conservatives are just natural born losers and if you doubt that just ask yourself what moved the needle more, Parvini's entire career or his main antagonist's tweet about Haitians eating pets?
Respectable conservatives don’t like the chuds either.