Why the libertarian right is changing the rules of the cultural game

The current status quo has been established by the left and their set of rules. If you want to teach tango or play music you have to follow the rules of this leftist power elite. Whatever space they control you must submit to their ideas. They are the gatekeepers. They particularly have focused on controlling all spheres of cultural production. Join some sort of forum dealing with art, architecture or music and if you show a negative attitude to modernism and a preference to traditionalism in the sphere of cultural production you will quickly be mobbed and anyone there who might want to support you express themselves in a weak way thereby only to reinforce the power of those who tolerate no criticism. Because of their numbers for the most parts it’s going to be aggressive feminists. The modern liberated woman gains so many social and economic advantages in the current social order that it’s fair to say that women have long become a new privileged aristocratic class that’s parasitic on men and their labour in the developed world.

Given that the conservative libertarian right has developed an analysis of this situation over the last couple of decades, and in some cases even longer, we are now in the process of developing strategies to circumvent and undermine this oppressive system. There’s a quiet revolution underway where spaces that are controlled and dominated by the left are essentially being abandoned and alternative spaces are being developed that are explicitly exclusive of the left and resistant to their encroachment. The left is identified and excluded and abandoned. It’s basically down to being a power game and the objective is to convince those who are still on the left-dominated spaces on and offline—Facebook groups, forums, music and dancing events, art galleries, etc.—to abandon those spaces as alternative right libertarian spaces are demonstrably viable and liberating.

The rules used to be that if you want to play music or organise tango you had to get a space and do marketing on social media. Both in terms of the physical space for the event and the online social media you’re required to pander to the whims of the leftist aristocracy comprised predominantly of entitled feminist women who positioned themselves as forum moderators, as well as their beta-male, white knight minions. The fundamental weakness they suffer is that the leftist project depends entirely on destroying the old and building a “brave new world”. It’s not that difficult to destroy, the problem is to build something that’s of any value in it’s place. What they’re trying to do is to destroy a culture that has evolved over centuries and has stood the test of time in the belief that what they can build will be vastly superior. However, they only succeed in degrading all of culture and produce a culture of transient, fake, kitsch experiences that leaves everyone hungry for substance. They can destroy but they can’t build. They devalue the old but the new that they present fails to prove of even equal worth.

So they control the rules but they can’t then substantiate their position of power by way of a product of any value. By stark contrast, the conservative libertarian, while excluded from the dominant sphere of cultural production, has now complete monopoly on the vast resources of traditional Western culture. All of the great works of Western art are accessible to us and now we are in full possession of it. As they have been busy dispensing with this stuff and attempting to reinvent the wheel, we have been acquiring and curating the old that actually provides real spiritual liberation. As they waste countless words on forums and FB pages trying to justify getting rid of the old and doing everything “nuevo”, we’ve been busy acquiring antique knowledge and skills that we can provide to the spiritually starved masses. The masses will resist but ultimately will have to yield because their spiritual starvation is unbearable.

The consequence of this is that the libertarian right actually has the real “soft power” which the left claimed for themselves on the grounds that left liberal culture protects the rights of women and minorities, and is thereby “virtuous”. Our soft power is based on our a monopoly on spiritual fulfilment in the form of Western culture. Our art, music and architecture is the real thing that provides real fulfilment, and all we have to do is to convince those who are as yet undecided of the value of that. And to do that the libertarian right is changing the rules, abandoning the so-called mainstream channels, rendering them an echo-chamber of vapid gesturing with nothing of substance to offer. They still do their progressive dancing events and flash mobs but there’s no energy in any of this. It’s falling flat and people are leaving. The whole things has descended into kitsch consumerism. All the energy is with the libertarian right who have the cultural goods and all new technological advances are actually liberating us from the confines of progressivist Facebook gulags and wall-to-wall mirror dancing studios filled with brain-dead narcissists.

Jolly Scholar: gender fluidity ideology is part of a university mediated eugenics program to break down social cohesion

I think it’s very interesting how the whole transgender ideology is moving unabated, and is taking over Argentine tango along with everything else. I predicted this because I saw how it was clearly a program being developed in the universities. What is less clear is why. Standard progressive ideas can’t explain it because it’s so clearly contradicts the basic tenets of feminism and undermines women’s rights. If you told me twenty years ago that women would have to compete with men in sports, including sports in which they basically beaten up by these men, that they would have to share their showers with these men, who still have male genitalia, and that basically being a women is a matter of dress and preference, I’d have thought that the feminists wouldn’t allow it.

However, I did see homosexuals et al in the universities becoming even more aggressive than the feminists and it eventually became clear that feminism would be left behind as part of the old world, to the point where feminists are viewed as conservative bigots. So clearly the standard explanation that this is “progress” can’t stand up to scrutiny. The universities are part of a wider agenda to abolish society as a whole, ie., to abolish any social structure that might stand in the way of total power of those at the top, by abolishing all meaningful distinctions.

The Jolly Scholar thinks that religious experience is central in human life, which I totally agree with, and his analysis of what the agenda is and how it’s being carried out by the university system seems very illuminating. One of it’s consequences seems to be that anyone who’s a product of the Western university system needs to be treated with suspicion, and probably needs to undergo deprogramming, perhaps by way of reading my blog daily for an extended period of time.

The contrarian cognitive strategy: whatever you think I think the opposite

Over the years I have found that in my relationship with certain sorts of people I’m either (a) in agreement with them but constantly losing out as a result, or (b) in a constant disagreement with them. I’d go along these people, accept what they’re saying, but find myself worse off as a result of this. I might not understand why I’m suffering certain negative consequences initially, but eventually I come to the conclusion that it’s the beliefs that they espouse that I accepted that are the root of the problem. A good example is the food pyramid and the whole idea that if you eat a lot of meat and animal fats you will die from heart disease and you need to eat a lot of grains and vegetables. I followed what was according to these “authorities” the perfect diet yet I suffered all sorts of allergies and digestive issues, and was constantly tired and underweight. I eventually went in the opposite direction, eating the upside-down food pyramid of a lot of meat and butter, and few carbs or vegetables. My health exploded, I feel great, have no allergies or digestive issues, I put on a lot of muscle relatively easily and am full of energy.

What happened however is that when I started to doubt the mainstream views of things like the food pyramid I was in constant disagreement with people who continue to follow the accepted narratives. Because I started to doubt all of these truisms, eg., about exercise, music, education, or dancing. In fact, what I’ve found is that if these people say or believe something I’m usually better off to think or do the opposite of that. This was actually a strategy that I first heard from Sir Roger Scruton in an interview on Uncommon Knowledge (if I remember correctly). When asked about how he evolved to become a conservative he said that he started out as a leftist. But when he was in Paris during the 1960s protests he saw that these privileged students who were protesting didn’t care about working class people, that it was really all about them and their feelings as they were burning working people’s cars. It was all an emotional outburst. Then, when reading the socialist intellectuals who were behind the indoctrination of these protesters, he adopted the strategy of believing the opposite of that. If these intellectuals said that bourgeois culture is evil and must be destroyed, it was probably because this culture is really good and needs to be preserved.

I’ve been having conversations with some musicians about jazz, pop and dancing music. I tried to argue with them for my point of view, but I realised that once they express certain mainstream attitudes, the best strategy is to believe the opposite of what they believe. If they say things like “people prefer pop” and “classical music is dead”, then instead of getting dispirited and giving up on trying to play jazz you instead can cheerfully assume that the opposite of that is true. It’s the same with the tango crowd. What I’ve consistently found is that by far the best strategy is to take what they do or say and assume that the opposite is true or the best way of doing things. Following that assumption I’ve found that I come across most of the good ideas that you find on my blog. If they say that a flexible “in-out” embrace is a good idea, I found that the opposite is the case. If they say that music selection is more important than sound quality you can bet, right there and then, that it’s probably the opposite.

This relates to my previous discussion of John Schumann’s idea of “stimulus appraisal” which is quite central to learning. We evaluate the “stimulus” for its cost/benefit aspects. At some point, you decide that a certain stimulus or signal, such as a source of “information”, is actually what in finance markets is called a “contrary indicator”. In that case, as the dumb money is buying the smart money is selling.

A contrary indicator is one that tells you it may be a good time to invest in the opposite way from the herd.

Wall Street Journal

The reason this sort of thing exists is that there is a lot of what in bodybuilding is referred to as “bro science”. The muscled bros freely dispense advice on how to get ripped. Somehow, the bro’s advice rarely generates the results among their mass of followers or else we’d be seeing ripped dudes everywhere. In fact, the bros tell you what they think you want to hear, or tell you what they themselves do but forget to mention such factors as genetics and their regular steroid injections. Same with making money in the markets, or learning to dance and organise tango. The reason certain truisms take hold is not that they are actually true, but that they satisfy the interests of those who promote them.

In general, the best policy is to simply stop consuming that sort of content. There’s really no point arguing or interacting with them unless, like me, you want to see what it is that they believe so that you can try the opposite of what they think you should be doing. Like me, you can try it as a sort of intellectual exercise, talking to them, seeing what they say, and then assuming that the opposite is true. You’re much more likely to come up with a better way of doing things, solving problems, etc. In the end, however, there is a cost attached to this sort of thing, and in the long run you want to cut these people out of your life, because they’re a waste time.