The Costco SNAP thing is like a perfect encapsulation of the Democratic Party.
The membership fee was purposely implemented in order to keep the SNAP set out of the store because they steal everything. It also allowed Costco to become a bank, medical provider, and travel agent based on the fact that the bottom feeders that cause all the problems had been subtracted from the risk pool.
Costco is such a middle class suburban rule follower thing. A Democratic donor class would never get caught there, they have much more expensive ways to segregate then $120 annually and the conscientiousness to go through the sign up process.
I was in high school when Michelle Obama's "public school lunch" initiative launched and they brought in "healthy, organic food" at an "affordable price". Just kidding - everything cost twice as much as it had the year prior and it was even less edible. I'd hesitate to even call it zogslop. I did research into it as part of a school project and I am not exaggerating when I say that federal prisons served higher quality food to convicted felons than what the state was selling to kids at highway robbery prices.
Also, I remember she visited an Olive Garden in my town as part of her whole promotional tour. Because nothing says healthy eating like endless glyphosate breadsticks covered in canola oil grease and high-fructose corn syrup tomato paste dip.
"Richard Hanania has a few uncharitable words for RFK Jr. fans."
Much like Alex Jones, Gribble was far more often right than the MSM. The reason "conspiracy" theorists are converging on the Right is that the Right is reality-based, and most conspiracy theories have far more grounding in reality than the mainstream theory of what happened at any particular event.
I wouldn't say he's "very far," and we don't agree w/ him on a lot of things, but this newsletter is about stuff by and about right-wing culture. He's got interesting ideas.
He's a sensationalist troll that is good at provoking maximum outrage and writes well enough to confuse people about whether he's sincere. Pretty sweet grift if you can pull it off.
I view immigration as the real “right wing litmus test”. You never meet a white person that is anti-immigrant but otherwise in the left (maybe this was true in the 90s, but times change). Because immigration so obviously means permanent left wing majorities such that no other issue matters in the end.
Hence a guy like Hanania inevitably had to abandon nearly all of his right wing positions. He went from vaguely pro-life if uncertain about its legal status to rabid abortion supporter. He went from getting a degree in international relations to oppose the war on terror to supporting forever wars and aggressive foreign policy. One could go on and on.
No matter what right wing position you support, if you’re weak on immigration you don’t ultimately support it.
Abortion isn’t like that. Abortion basically eliminates Democratic voters on net. I still find it wrong and I think the message it sends is part of why we aren’t having enough kids, but if remains legal for the next 100 years it really won’t impact any other right wing issue. One could not prioritize abortion as a political issue or even think its legality isn’t a big issue and still be on the right on everything else. The same isn’t true with immigration.
He’s so supremely annoying in part because he’s so smarmy and insincere. He affects a “you’re not smart enough to understand my subtlety” schtick, challenging you to doubt his BS so he can call you dumb. I have him muted or blocked everywhere possible but people keep quoting him. Ugh.
That's why he is allowed to say them, and is boosted by the "mainstream". Having a clown speak the truth is a good way to smear the truth as clownish. This goes back at least to Archie Bunker.
I think there is a class of right winger that wants to support right wing positions but doesn't want to admit it. I think especially of church women here. Abortion was kind of their excuse. I'm not voting right to lock the criminals up or because I think the state shouldn't give unlimited welfare to ghetto mamas, that would be "mean". I'm just pro-life.
Before Roe they didn't even have to be "mean" to their liberal friends in order to be pro-life, it could be all pose.
Not sure if I was prepared for an image of a Trump fetus about to be aborted.
For me, the pro-life debate is part of a broader conflict between social conservatism and... well, I can't think of a charitable label, so I'll just say not-social-conservatism. If I thought Trump was an overall really solid traditional guy who is definitely in lockstep with me on everything else, but just happens to be weak on abortion, that would be more excusable. The problem is that abortion basically always correlates with general worldview. People that are weak on abortion are always also weak on LGBT, on marriage and kids, on the value of faith, etc., and vice versa. It's a single high-visibility element of the general secular vs trad divide.
I’ll be frank, honestly I considered not reading because of it. I decided to go ahead and read it anyway. It was good, though fwiw I wouldn’t put an off putting illustration at the forefront of an article I actually wanted people to read.
I'm "weak on abortion" in that I consider it a political dead end with no obvious path to concrete change that is a pointless sink of political capital. I don't compromise on my feeling it is a moral wrong and telling people so.
But I don't feel like I'm week on the other things. I'm vehemently anti-LGBT. I believe we should be spending our political capital on massive subsidies for families. I want school vouchers desperately so that people can raise thier own children according to their values.
I'm just not big on "taking a stance". Unless you've got some concrete program that is realistic and going to lead to a positive feedback loop, you're just being a poser. It's one thing to take a leap of faith and another to beat ones head into a brick wall when you know better.
Even Christ advised people to stop rebelling against the Roman Empire despite Rome obviously not being "on earth as it is in heaven."
I agree with you 99%, the lost 1% is from realizing it doesn't matter because politics is fixed. In the ideal nation, abortion should only be available for a very limited number of situations, LBJBBQ+-*~ people should be thrown from buildings, women should be discouraged from anti-marriage pursuits like careers, etc. etc.
But none of that will happen because those who made our society the way it is, still want it to be the way it is, and so it will remain so for as long as they are in power. And voting isn't going to remove them from power; most people don't even know who is in power.
A Trump loss will be at least partially attributed to Dobbs. The pro-life movement, and social conservatism at large, will be much worse off if he loses. If you live in a non-contested state and can't bring yourself to vote for him, that's totally understandable. But to pretend that anything good on the pro-life side will come from a Trump loss is delusional.
You should advocate for it. But politics is the realm of the possible, and a Presidential candidate who holds your moral views publicly has no chance of getting elected. Even JD Vance's tepid trad Cathness is viewed negatively by the median voter. It sucks, but it's where we are. By all means push for abortion maximalism in the Southern states, but nationally it's a death sentence and will result in abortion being more enshrined.
I don't think that a candidate needs to come out and push for a national abortion ban right now. My standard is that at the bare minimum, do not move us backwards. If a candidate moves the needle closer to liberalism on these issues, I won't support them.
Yes, so to go back to my original comment, if I felt that Trump was on the same page as me generally but was just weak on abortion, I could probably accept that. Likewise, if he had simply maintained the same positions from his first term, that would be acceptable. But it is clear that he is not on the same page as social conservatives, and he has actively backtracked on the abortion issue.
only on RW twitter would you see a hot chick using language like “doesn’t practice temperance” to call other women (and I paraphrase slightly here) “ugly fat*sses”
The “Obsession with Carbon” may likely result as a New Currency…. that’s a lot of money..didn’t Yellen just ask for 81 trillion to fight climate change?. Let’s think about all cbdc and the electrical grids it needs to “come to life”. A valuation has to start from something…let’s say it’s Carbon..but it is organic money?
Calorie hating is a cope for fatties who don't want to engage in the discipline of weight management. Its much easier to say, "I'm not a slob, it's the government's fault." There plenty of room for improvement in the food system, but the food system is just giving you what people are willing to buy. It's not poison food, its the fact that you sit for 10 hours a day, eat half your meals from restaurants, have no physical hobbies, and use a car to get everywhere.
I think the evangelicals are taking a payout from ActBlue, to be ridiculous and over the top— pushing the issue back to the states was a good move forward; and it could continue to be better without their screeching.
I have peered into the mind of the Fat Brained/Pro-lifers-no-Trumpers because they are congregated on this FB group I gawk at.
They are to put it nicely, dumb as a sack of hammers.
A lot of them are 'trad' (or larping as such) but not in a way that any man would fantasize about. They glorify their own dumpiness as a way to signal how morally pure they are.
Hot girls are up to something.
The female Olympic diving team's swimsuits are 'porn' and getting to the Olympics was all a ploy to show off their butts and give your Indiana 40k a year husband a boner and steal him from you. (Brittany Martinez was spot on in her assessment.)
They adore that Allie Beth Stuckey and see her as an intellectual leader no one could possibly argue with.
They think their political leaders should be moral, and if they aren't, oh well, at least they are and they can continue to wag their fingers as more babies are killed.
They don't want to win cause losing makes them pious martyrs. Being poor, being doughy, being uneducated, unglamorous, all feathers in their straw hats of being righteous in an evil world.
They also very paradoxically worship TPUSA's Alex Clark, who despite having Sanpuko eyes, is very pretty and well put together.
They also think eyeglasses are a scam and a conspiracy.
I have enough screenshots of this type of woman's hot takes that I could make my whole substack brand about them.
Luckily, they mostly live in states so red that their vote or lack thereof don't even matter. They are fools and if you're looking for a group that's willing to fork over their money for snake oil, look no further.
Nate Fischer’s argument is much better than St. Clair’s. After decades of Republicans shifting to the left, the “but Dems are worse” rhetoric does not phase me anymore. I also instinctually trust Fischer more.
Like any political faction, there is always another set of gibs to demand. Minimum wage will always need to be increased, Medicare will always need to be expanded, the farm bill will always need to have a bigger budget, the IRS will always want another form to file, the intelligence aparadus will always need another sub-agency, the military brass will always want another intervention, the libertarians will always have another freedom to cry about. Why should it be a surprise that the Pro-Life Faction would not want to stop at Roe?
The Costco SNAP thing is like a perfect encapsulation of the Democratic Party.
The membership fee was purposely implemented in order to keep the SNAP set out of the store because they steal everything. It also allowed Costco to become a bank, medical provider, and travel agent based on the fact that the bottom feeders that cause all the problems had been subtracted from the risk pool.
Costco is such a middle class suburban rule follower thing. A Democratic donor class would never get caught there, they have much more expensive ways to segregate then $120 annually and the conscientiousness to go through the sign up process.
I was in high school when Michelle Obama's "public school lunch" initiative launched and they brought in "healthy, organic food" at an "affordable price". Just kidding - everything cost twice as much as it had the year prior and it was even less edible. I'd hesitate to even call it zogslop. I did research into it as part of a school project and I am not exaggerating when I say that federal prisons served higher quality food to convicted felons than what the state was selling to kids at highway robbery prices.
Also, I remember she visited an Olive Garden in my town as part of her whole promotional tour. Because nothing says healthy eating like endless glyphosate breadsticks covered in canola oil grease and high-fructose corn syrup tomato paste dip.
Free school lunch? We ought to triple prices to get kids to stop eating that slop.
"Richard Hanania has a few uncharitable words for RFK Jr. fans."
Much like Alex Jones, Gribble was far more often right than the MSM. The reason "conspiracy" theorists are converging on the Right is that the Right is reality-based, and most conspiracy theories have far more grounding in reality than the mainstream theory of what happened at any particular event.
Hannania is very far from being right wing —not sure why he’s featured here
I wouldn't say he's "very far," and we don't agree w/ him on a lot of things, but this newsletter is about stuff by and about right-wing culture. He's got interesting ideas.
He's a sensationalist troll that is good at provoking maximum outrage and writes well enough to confuse people about whether he's sincere. Pretty sweet grift if you can pull it off.
I view immigration as the real “right wing litmus test”. You never meet a white person that is anti-immigrant but otherwise in the left (maybe this was true in the 90s, but times change). Because immigration so obviously means permanent left wing majorities such that no other issue matters in the end.
Hence a guy like Hanania inevitably had to abandon nearly all of his right wing positions. He went from vaguely pro-life if uncertain about its legal status to rabid abortion supporter. He went from getting a degree in international relations to oppose the war on terror to supporting forever wars and aggressive foreign policy. One could go on and on.
No matter what right wing position you support, if you’re weak on immigration you don’t ultimately support it.
Abortion isn’t like that. Abortion basically eliminates Democratic voters on net. I still find it wrong and I think the message it sends is part of why we aren’t having enough kids, but if remains legal for the next 100 years it really won’t impact any other right wing issue. One could not prioritize abortion as a political issue or even think its legality isn’t a big issue and still be on the right on everything else. The same isn’t true with immigration.
He’s so supremely annoying in part because he’s so smarmy and insincere. He affects a “you’re not smart enough to understand my subtlety” schtick, challenging you to doubt his BS so he can call you dumb. I have him muted or blocked everywhere possible but people keep quoting him. Ugh.
Alex Jones is a net negative. Even the things he gets correct he frames in such ridiculous ways that people dismiss them.
That's why he is allowed to say them, and is boosted by the "mainstream". Having a clown speak the truth is a good way to smear the truth as clownish. This goes back at least to Archie Bunker.
I think there is a class of right winger that wants to support right wing positions but doesn't want to admit it. I think especially of church women here. Abortion was kind of their excuse. I'm not voting right to lock the criminals up or because I think the state shouldn't give unlimited welfare to ghetto mamas, that would be "mean". I'm just pro-life.
Before Roe they didn't even have to be "mean" to their liberal friends in order to be pro-life, it could be all pose.
I know a few church girls like this
Not sure if I was prepared for an image of a Trump fetus about to be aborted.
For me, the pro-life debate is part of a broader conflict between social conservatism and... well, I can't think of a charitable label, so I'll just say not-social-conservatism. If I thought Trump was an overall really solid traditional guy who is definitely in lockstep with me on everything else, but just happens to be weak on abortion, that would be more excusable. The problem is that abortion basically always correlates with general worldview. People that are weak on abortion are always also weak on LGBT, on marriage and kids, on the value of faith, etc., and vice versa. It's a single high-visibility element of the general secular vs trad divide.
I think that header image cost me six subs...
I’ll be frank, honestly I considered not reading because of it. I decided to go ahead and read it anyway. It was good, though fwiw I wouldn’t put an off putting illustration at the forefront of an article I actually wanted people to read.
I'm "weak on abortion" in that I consider it a political dead end with no obvious path to concrete change that is a pointless sink of political capital. I don't compromise on my feeling it is a moral wrong and telling people so.
But I don't feel like I'm week on the other things. I'm vehemently anti-LGBT. I believe we should be spending our political capital on massive subsidies for families. I want school vouchers desperately so that people can raise thier own children according to their values.
I'm just not big on "taking a stance". Unless you've got some concrete program that is realistic and going to lead to a positive feedback loop, you're just being a poser. It's one thing to take a leap of faith and another to beat ones head into a brick wall when you know better.
Even Christ advised people to stop rebelling against the Roman Empire despite Rome obviously not being "on earth as it is in heaven."
I agree with you 99%, the lost 1% is from realizing it doesn't matter because politics is fixed. In the ideal nation, abortion should only be available for a very limited number of situations, LBJBBQ+-*~ people should be thrown from buildings, women should be discouraged from anti-marriage pursuits like careers, etc. etc.
But none of that will happen because those who made our society the way it is, still want it to be the way it is, and so it will remain so for as long as they are in power. And voting isn't going to remove them from power; most people don't even know who is in power.
It don't be like it is, but it do.
A Trump loss will be at least partially attributed to Dobbs. The pro-life movement, and social conservatism at large, will be much worse off if he loses. If you live in a non-contested state and can't bring yourself to vote for him, that's totally understandable. But to pretend that anything good on the pro-life side will come from a Trump loss is delusional.
The only way that social conservatism will not be worse off is if its proponents actually advocate for it.
You should advocate for it. But politics is the realm of the possible, and a Presidential candidate who holds your moral views publicly has no chance of getting elected. Even JD Vance's tepid trad Cathness is viewed negatively by the median voter. It sucks, but it's where we are. By all means push for abortion maximalism in the Southern states, but nationally it's a death sentence and will result in abortion being more enshrined.
I don't think that a candidate needs to come out and push for a national abortion ban right now. My standard is that at the bare minimum, do not move us backwards. If a candidate moves the needle closer to liberalism on these issues, I won't support them.
We have Dobbs, and the issue is at the states. That's a major improvement from where it was a few years ago.
Yes, so to go back to my original comment, if I felt that Trump was on the same page as me generally but was just weak on abortion, I could probably accept that. Likewise, if he had simply maintained the same positions from his first term, that would be acceptable. But it is clear that he is not on the same page as social conservatives, and he has actively backtracked on the abortion issue.
Devon Erickson’s epic rant on “Trump is not a Republican” should be on the shortlist for Thread of the Year.
Shocking this still needs to be explained, but here we are.
only on RW twitter would you see a hot chick using language like “doesn’t practice temperance” to call other women (and I paraphrase slightly here) “ugly fat*sses”
lmaaooo
The “Obsession with Carbon” may likely result as a New Currency…. that’s a lot of money..didn’t Yellen just ask for 81 trillion to fight climate change?. Let’s think about all cbdc and the electrical grids it needs to “come to life”. A valuation has to start from something…let’s say it’s Carbon..but it is organic money?
Great article, Dudley.
"Matt Yglesias woke from a night of troubled dreams to find himself transformed into a monstrous vermin."
My one criticism is that Yglesias has always been a bug man, and there was never a transformation.
"had to stop myself from telling him that Aurelius was an opium addicted cuck"
god you just can't fucking win with some people
Calorie hating is a cope for fatties who don't want to engage in the discipline of weight management. Its much easier to say, "I'm not a slob, it's the government's fault." There plenty of room for improvement in the food system, but the food system is just giving you what people are willing to buy. It's not poison food, its the fact that you sit for 10 hours a day, eat half your meals from restaurants, have no physical hobbies, and use a car to get everywhere.
I wrote an article about this: https://mordestack.substack.com/p/overcoming-obesity
Been a long while since I was last on here. Feels good!
I think the evangelicals are taking a payout from ActBlue, to be ridiculous and over the top— pushing the issue back to the states was a good move forward; and it could continue to be better without their screeching.
I think they're either grifters or can't adjust their mindframe from thinking the moral majority still exists.
Probably a bit of both 🤷🤷
I have peered into the mind of the Fat Brained/Pro-lifers-no-Trumpers because they are congregated on this FB group I gawk at.
They are to put it nicely, dumb as a sack of hammers.
A lot of them are 'trad' (or larping as such) but not in a way that any man would fantasize about. They glorify their own dumpiness as a way to signal how morally pure they are.
Hot girls are up to something.
The female Olympic diving team's swimsuits are 'porn' and getting to the Olympics was all a ploy to show off their butts and give your Indiana 40k a year husband a boner and steal him from you. (Brittany Martinez was spot on in her assessment.)
They adore that Allie Beth Stuckey and see her as an intellectual leader no one could possibly argue with.
They think their political leaders should be moral, and if they aren't, oh well, at least they are and they can continue to wag their fingers as more babies are killed.
They don't want to win cause losing makes them pious martyrs. Being poor, being doughy, being uneducated, unglamorous, all feathers in their straw hats of being righteous in an evil world.
They also very paradoxically worship TPUSA's Alex Clark, who despite having Sanpuko eyes, is very pretty and well put together.
They also think eyeglasses are a scam and a conspiracy.
I have enough screenshots of this type of woman's hot takes that I could make my whole substack brand about them.
Luckily, they mostly live in states so red that their vote or lack thereof don't even matter. They are fools and if you're looking for a group that's willing to fork over their money for snake oil, look no further.
learning that there's this whole massive ecosystem of preppie girl con inc influencers that i have no exposure to.
I’ve never seen someone post a Hanania comment that I thought was worth reading. Maybe someday it will be worth my time.
Nate Fischer’s argument is much better than St. Clair’s. After decades of Republicans shifting to the left, the “but Dems are worse” rhetoric does not phase me anymore. I also instinctually trust Fischer more.
Check out the read from Social Matter for more on this.
Like any political faction, there is always another set of gibs to demand. Minimum wage will always need to be increased, Medicare will always need to be expanded, the farm bill will always need to have a bigger budget, the IRS will always want another form to file, the intelligence aparadus will always need another sub-agency, the military brass will always want another intervention, the libertarians will always have another freedom to cry about. Why should it be a surprise that the Pro-Life Faction would not want to stop at Roe?