with Caleb Brown. I think it covers well a lot of issues in the book.
4 thoughts on “Podcast on The Three Languages of Politics”
I couldn’t help thinking about this in the context of yesterday’s election in Montana. If conservatism is about civilization vs barbarism, that makes it very hard to conceive of Greg Gianforte’s voters as conservative. “Don’t physically assault people for asking you questions” seems like a pretty important norm of civilization, and is precisely about the restraint of base human impulses that one would think is traditionally central to conservatism.
Perhaps the norm is not “Don’t physically assault people for asking you questions”. Maybe it is: “Don’t physically assault people who are behaving in a civilised manner”. A phyiscal response to barbarous behaviour is generally acceptable to conservatives, to restore order.
So then, the question becomes “Did the reporter behave in a civilised manner?”. I think a lot of conservatives don’t believe the was reporter being civil, but rather behaving badly.
So on a civilisation vs barbarism axis, the candidate is framed as the civil one, and the reporter is framed as the barbaric one.
If that’s true, it is remarkable how much such conservatives have in common with the leftists who think it justified to assault the likes of Charles Murray. Heaven save us from all such defenders of “order”.
Cucks haven’t been able to defend Murray or anyone like him for twenty years, nor to they have any realistic plan win the war against SJWs.
Murray criticized Singapore for silencing a communist radical, meanwhile Singapore has no SJWs and used his insights into HBD to craft wildly effective government policies that America isn’t even close to implementing.
It seems the Singapore method of silencing leftists and playing to win is way more effective then Murray’s method of importing a hostile electorate and then complaining when the inevitable results occur.
I couldn’t help thinking about this in the context of yesterday’s election in Montana. If conservatism is about civilization vs barbarism, that makes it very hard to conceive of Greg Gianforte’s voters as conservative. “Don’t physically assault people for asking you questions” seems like a pretty important norm of civilization, and is precisely about the restraint of base human impulses that one would think is traditionally central to conservatism.
Perhaps the norm is not “Don’t physically assault people for asking you questions”. Maybe it is: “Don’t physically assault people who are behaving in a civilised manner”. A phyiscal response to barbarous behaviour is generally acceptable to conservatives, to restore order.
So then, the question becomes “Did the reporter behave in a civilised manner?”. I think a lot of conservatives don’t believe the was reporter being civil, but rather behaving badly.
So on a civilisation vs barbarism axis, the candidate is framed as the civil one, and the reporter is framed as the barbaric one.
If that’s true, it is remarkable how much such conservatives have in common with the leftists who think it justified to assault the likes of Charles Murray. Heaven save us from all such defenders of “order”.
Cucks haven’t been able to defend Murray or anyone like him for twenty years, nor to they have any realistic plan win the war against SJWs.
Murray criticized Singapore for silencing a communist radical, meanwhile Singapore has no SJWs and used his insights into HBD to craft wildly effective government policies that America isn’t even close to implementing.
It seems the Singapore method of silencing leftists and playing to win is way more effective then Murray’s method of importing a hostile electorate and then complaining when the inevitable results occur.