A year later and I’m still not sure where ideologically this site falls under. It’s not quite libertarianism, it’s not really mainstream-conservatism, and it’s not fully neo reaction (NRx)…it some amalgamation. I find myself agreeing with NRx on anti-egalitarianism, anti-democracy, anti-SWJ, and biological realism, but I am pro-modernity. And I tend to agree with the GOP on economic and defense issues, but the GOP, like the left, tends to reject/ignore biological reality and biology/HBD-based solutions to socioeconomic problems. I agree with classical liberals and libtertarians on market issues and being pro-technology, but disagree on some civil-libertarian topics.
For example, the left is pro choice, but not to make the world better but because of a lack of self-control. The mainstream & Christian right believes every unborn life is sacred and equal (blank slate), but empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Not all life is sacred. So both sides get this issue wrong. In straying from the mainstream-right, I support HBD/biology-based programs to help improve society – from a utilitarian/pragmatist perspective – even if many, understandably so, find these ideas an affront to their sensibilities. Sometimes the best policy is the least popular policy. Look at TARP, for example, which has a huge success and produced a high ROI, but no one liked it, and contrast it with social security, which everyone likes, but is a big fiscal drain and will probably eventually become insolvent.
A major theme of this site is bearing witness to reality by debunking FUD, wishful thinking, and nonsense. That’s why I write these articles about economics, HBD, finance, web 2.0, and stocks…because there is just so much stuff out there in those specific topics that is wrong. You have experts – people who are paid a lot of money and have a large following – whose egos and personal biases make them blind to the glaring holes in their arguments. These flawed arguments are popular because many people want them to be true (like people want to believe the economy is weak, that the world is doomed, that IQ is meaningless, that capitalism is dead, that web 2.0 is bubble, or that rich people are the root of society’s problems), but these arguments crumple under empirical scrutiny.
I’m tired of the sensationalism that you find on these political and news outlets. For example, predictions last year that Ebola would cause a pandemic. What ever happened to the WHO’s predictions of ‘millions dead’? So much for that. It’s done to scare you so they, the media, can collect advertising dollars from the page views, and there’s nothing technically wrong with that in a capitalist system, but paying heed is a waste of time. That’s why after many years I stopped listening to right-wing talk radio, because all the host’s predictions of doom and gloom – as convincing as they sounded – never came true, including most recently Ebola, so I realized that reality and truth, wherever it may lie or whatever form it may take, could not be found there. Most importantly, we cannot lie to ourselves. And I think, whether it’s spreading fear about debt or doom and gloom about bubbles, we do ourselves a disservice when we have to create alternate realities because we don’t like our existing one.
Alt-right bloggers write a lot about preserving tradition. This site doesn’t have much of that because those those topics are done much better by other bloggers and because it’s almost become a lost cause. The right has had much more success at economic, gun, and defense issues than cultural ones. The GOP/right has tended to be pro-technology and pro-markets, in contrast to the Luddite leftist movements – but a combination of the 2008 financial problem and polarization of politics, especially following the election of Obama, has made the right more apprehensive about modernity…And there is the whole schism between the traditional/Christian/paleo right and the techno-libertarian/neo/pragmatic right, the later which embraces modernity and free markets. The Paleo right is more popular today than a decade ago, and you see evidence of this shift on mainstream sites like National Review, but I think history and present trends still favors the pragmatic right. That’s part of the problem with political labels – the definitions keep changing. Positions that the right supported as recently as 10 years ago, they want nothing to do with anymore. And you see the same shift on the left, with pro-trade, pro-technology liberals of the Clinton era ceding to the isolationist welfare liberals. The events of 2008 and the fallout of the Bush administration brought the palo cons and the welfare left closer on many issues.
Why am I optimistic about America, technology, and the economy when so many on the ‘alt-right’ are not? Because I believe my view is the one that is most aligned with the empirical evidence and secondly, from an HBD framework, when the American economy succeeds, so to do the best and the brightest that comprise it. I see America as something of an HBD success story – a place that through its institutions, it’s infrastructure, and its free market rewards high-IQ and productive people more so than anywhere else in the world, in spite of all of America’s flaws.
Ultimately, this site is about trying to find middle-ground between differing ideologies and beliefs, an À la carte approach, to not only understand the world better, but help devise solutions through incrementalism – small changes to modify existing policy to create socioeconomic conditions optimal to the creation of wealth and technological innovation, rather than completely overhauling the system we present have. But it’s also about not trying to fight the currents of reality – to accept the world as it is and make the most of it. That’s why for years I have been recommending buying stocks (stocks like Facebook, which is up 200% in the past 2 years) on the dips as a way to profit from the inevitable transition to a type 1 civilization. I would rather make money from these economic trends than sit on the sidelines and complain like a sore loser. Complaining is useless…it doesn’t get you anywhere in life. According to the economic data and other factors (that I explain my posts), the argument for doom and gloom is unconvincing. So until the collapse comes – assuming it ever does – I will continue to ride the currents of prosperity.
Related:
Neo Reaction & Techno-Libertarianism
WHY GREY ENLIGHTENMENT?
So, What Are You?