`I also agree that opposition to immigration is more than racial prejudice. In Meloni’s Italy (or south Texas) it’s about immigrants on every street corner and maybe pooping in your front yard.'
No prejudice here, seriously?
Spent a pleasant week in El Paso recently and somehow I didn't notice shit anywhere outside of bathrooms or really anyone besides teenagers on the street corners.
`I don’t see immigration as a plot to lower wages.'
How much more are you willing to pay for food? Because if we don't have immigrants from Mexico, legal and illegal, Americans are going to demand quite a bit more money for that type of labor.
Capitalist hyper-individualism. Everything is custom-tailored. You ARE your preferences. The human desire to not see anything inconvenient is now a creed. Compromise? With THOSE infidels/heretics/deplorables/libtards? THEY should be the ones coming to YOU.
I think this is one time where Freddie's take is correct, bit actually a little behind the curve. The "tradfem" influencer who happily lives in the woods and raises goats under the patriarchy has been a meme for a minute, and various Tumblr users for years have been warning about the ecofacist pipeline where people who claim to love nature and granola are suddenly talking about reducing the global population.
> It is not possible that God promised the whole garden to everyone.
The particular meme Freddie mocks in this line is weirdly fascinating to me, because it can be read as a very typically Christian thing ("you pray for a miracle, but God has already given you the miracle of eternal salvation"), and of course, the Prosperity Gospel reading that Freddie skewers. In the former reading, a Christian would say, "no, God actually *can* offer His garden to everyone, that's sort of the point. A fraction of the infinite is still infinite." In the latter, of course, Freddie's point stands. Still, I wonder if the ambiguity is intentional, a sort of sleight-of-hand?
(Not that Freddie gives a whit about this off-topic ramble. As a materialist, his concern is caring for the finite, weed-ridden, and ever-so-fragile gardens of this world, because in his view, they're all we have.)
There are masculine parallels to this in the Manosphere, but the artifacts and practices are coded differently. It's a mix of pseudoscience, self-help, martial discipline, and dormroom Stoicism. It's like, a military officer claims that taping their mouth shut before they fall asleep results in deeper rest, which allows more jiu-jitsu practice, push-ups, combat meditation, and getting ahead of the 99% of the people who don't do this one simple thing. Then you slam plant shakes and ingest nootropics that are just saw dust.
i think a lot of that is branding/novelty value. I've read some of that stuff, and the core is just generic "get enough sleep, eat healthy, hit the gym," but that isn't sexy enough, so you add some gimmicks, some DEEP quotes, and some quasi-religious implications, and now you have a brand.
The difference is that Jiu-Jitsu, push-ups, and even dorm room stoicism are likely to have a very real positive effect on your mental and physical well being. And the gains attained through those absolutely will help you be successful in areas of life that aren’t related to physical combat, in both tangible (more energy) and intangible (more confidence) ways. Of course the “hustle bro” at its worst takes things too far and is in it for a wrong reasons, but generally speaking the radical accountability and disciplined mindset preached by the manosphere is way better for you in pretty much every conceivable way than this is.
Honestly, the manosphere isn’t even a thing. You’ll see people group Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, and Andrew Huberman together as all part of the “manosphere” as if these people have anything at all in common outside of being men and having a male audience. If Manosphere was a neutral term I wouldn’t mind using it to describe anything online that has a male audience, but it’s used pretty much exclusively as a pejorative.
This is such a cynical strawman. Who is this person you’re referring to here that is promoting fitness and jiu jitsu solely as a means of bs selling supplements and equipment? Of course scammers like liver king exist out there, but scammers is exist in virtually every domain of human existence!
Also there’s nothing wrong with supplements. Many supplements are good, even! Taking a multivitamin, creatine, protein etc are great for your health. Just because a person who promotes fitness, also has sponsorships from a supplement company does not mean they’re spiritually corrupted and the whole thing is a grift. The vast majority of the advice given by people like Huberman is free or low cost- that’s the whole point of the show. Early morning sunlight, cold exposure, resistance training. What you’re conveying is just pure cynicism.
So if a person is obese, then loses all of the weight through hard work and discipline, is that a personal success a result of privilege within the system? Because people do in fact lose weight- all the time. Poor people included.
Look I’m not going to deny that there’s systemic issues that make our society more susceptible to obesity at the population level. And we should 100% try to fix those issues! Joe Rogan and Andrew Huberman would 100% agree with that, they’ve both spoken out about these issues numerous times.
But while there’s maybe 10 people who have the power to really make a difference in agricultural policy, every single person has control over the choices they make (children aside). If someone is struggling and continually making poor choices, the absolute worst thing to tell them is that everything they’re experiencing is societies fault, not their own. Any steps toward losing weight, conquering anxiety, or increasing your confidence starts with a radical accountability for your actions and the choices you make, and only then does it even become possible to see improvements.
There’s a reason one of the biggest predictors of depression is locus of control.
`There's nothing wrong with supplements (fish oil, garlic, and b12 is my jam)'
There definitely is! See post above about adverse effects.
As someone with about 15 lbs. of raw garlic in storage right now, I applaud your use of garlic but the benefits---beyond making almost any dish better---are limited:
Rogan has had numerous people on to talk about social issues, and definitely not just wackos who are against the COVID vax, which is a new thing. He’s had Harvard law school professors who expose the pharma industry, he’s had experts on environmental science and conservation, so many people on his show have talked about these issues... in the end though his podcast isn’t a politics show or even a health one at all. I think you’re expecting Joe Rogan and Andrew Huberman to be something they’re not. We have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. People want advice on living healthier and Huberman gives that, along with Rogan saying to a much lesser extent. There’s room for personal growth while there’s room for political reform. Any healthy society is going to have conversations about both.
I think we’d probably disagree on certain things though. Like I don’t buy for a second that obesity is more common in poor areas because fast food and unhealthy options are cheap. Some of the cheapest foods you can buy- rice, beans, eggs, veggies etc- are some of the healthiest. A lot of it truly does come down to the choices people are making. We can debate whether there should be laws limiting options, though, which I definitely think about.
I mean it really depends, this was my original point that the Manosphere isn’t really a thing. It’s so broad that it encompasses people with nothing in common. Joe Rogan tried carnivore for a bit, but I think the general consensus is to just eat healthy.
The thing that makes the pose Freddie skewers here so unbearable is the public performance associated with it. If people just had these thoughts in their heads it might be healthy. Like the manosphere stuff. Nothing wrong with having a personal ethic of physicality, virality, as part of your routine etc. It is when you group up with other people to celebrate it as an identity/ideology that it becomes creepy and reductive.
Reminding yourself privately in your head that you’re a good person who deserves things is probably good-even essential for combating anxiety and low self esteem. Telling yourself you’re evolving into an ever badder bitch is obnoxious insufferable. Making a public performance out of either is annoying.
I think making a public performance of your physicality, and vitality is OK because those things are generally very difficult to achieve. I don’t have an issue with people sharing their actual accomplishments, because this is often inspiring to others. There’s also nothing wrong with grouping with others who make these a big part of their identity as well, in fact these groups of people generally accomplish more this way. So long as there’s no dishonesty (such as the liver king fiasco) or empty vanity.
Therapeutic narcissism can have a positive effect on mental well-being. It's based in therapy.
My point is that this type of pseudo-philosophy can be easily grafted on an ideology of "border security, disdain for the poor, and submission to the god of finance." You provide two excellent examples, Peterson and Tate.
Agree! Are Gwyneth Paltrow and Joe Rogan really that different? Seems like just gendered versions of self-help health and wellness that’s trying to compete with corporate medicine.
Yea, they’re extremely different. Joe Rogan doesn’t have an entire line of weird products he sells. He has ads by AG-1 which is a multivitamin. But he mostly just advocates exercise. His podcast is mostly BSing with comedians, MMA, and a variety of other silly topics. He’s not some kind of health and wellness guru, even if he’s an advocate for physical fitness for mental/physical health... which is a no brainer.
Lol I don’t like a lot of the shit he says on his podcast. He has dumb boomer political takes all the time. If you listen to him for his politics you’re an idiot. Even still I think the criticism that he isn’t “responsible with his platform” because there’s a lot of idiots is fair.
But he’s not a scammer, and overall I do believe he’s an unquestionably positive role model for young men.
Seems like he has a broadly skeptical view of modern (corporate) medicine. This includes vaccines (bad) but also includes critics of traditional pharmaceutical companies and greedy practices (good imo). But the through line is a manly individualistic way to avoid prescriptions and such.
Yeah I mean there’s plenty to be skeptical about in big pharma. But he’s not, and never has been anti vaccine. He’s just anti COVID vax, which imo is dumb but the idea that if you’re young and healthy then it’s not important to get the COVID vax is more or less true.
He had RFK on his podcast, but I didn’t listen to the episode, and he hasn’t brought up anything they said once since then from what I’ve heard. He’s def not anti prescription or anti doctor either.
The manly individualism is true, but he’s not a selfish guy by any means.
`But he’s not, and never has been anti vaccine. He’s just anti COVID vax,'
So he's not anti-vax except for this one vaccine, which has had an absolutely low adverse outcome rate after being distributed to a billion or so people(?), and he promotes obviously disproven treatments for COVID.
He also didn't believe humanity visited the moon for many, many years (Just asking questions!).
Not someone who should be trusted on medical/scientific issues.
To be fair, at the time it definitely was not “obviously disproven” that ivermectin was effective for COVID, and the way CNN portrayed the whole thing was gross and dishonest- including changing the color shade of the video to make him look more sickly.
I disagree with his position on the vaccine, but the idea that young healthy people don’t need to get the vaccine because the threat COVID poses is minuscule is more or less true.
Joe Rogan loves discussing conspiracy theories for fun, as do a lot of people,it doesn’t mean he believes them. He’s not an authority on anything medical or scientific, never in a million years claimed to be. The only things he’s an authority on are stand up comedy, combat sports, and billiards. Everything else he discusses for fun.
Vitamins and supplements are big profitable businesses. I haven't listened to right-wing radio for years but that was the money spinner for a lot of them, long, long ago.
Joe Rogan isn’t a supplement salesman, he’s a comedian and mma commentator with a podcast. There’s nothing inherently wrong with supplements- and certainly nothing “right wing”. Many people could benefit from more supplementation to make up for the vitamins and nutrients their missing in their subpar diet. Sure, some supplements are bullshit, or evidence is limited. This doesn’t mean supplements are bad. Giving something with limited evidence a try yourself is perfectly reasonable.
Basically you can't use supplements to offset or compensate for a terrible diet. If you have specific conditions that lead to vitamin deficiency, sure, but those cases are not quite so common (listed in one of the links above). I've heard that vegans may require some supplements (B12, iron?) but as a +20 year vegetarian I've not needed any supplements (as confirmed by blood panels ,etc.).
Finally, the uptake of vitamins, minerals, etc. in pill/powder form is extremely low for most supplements so you're literally flushing most of the product down the toilet!
What even is the argument here?? Do you think anybody is advocating for supplements as a replacement for a terrible diet? This is a clear strawman. An actual Health podcast like Huberman stresses the importance of a healthy diet and sleep above all else. “Supplements” is a catch all term for a shitload of different things with various alleged uses and degrees of evidence supporting it, so a handful of cherry picked studies about multi vitamins dont show that supplements are bad as a whole. Like the one study there is about ER visits, where 38% of them are from choking on a pill. Things like protein powder and creatine are important to supplement with if you’re working out, things like magnesium have a number of healthy benefits. I’ve never heard huberman or anyone like that claim supplements are the key to health, he just goes over the evidence and gives you things to try that may help you out on the margins.
"The term “fascist” is criminally overused these days, but the Brothers of Italy, the party Meloni helped found and currently leads, has legitimate, no-bullshit fascist associations."
Yes, Benito Mussolini (founder of the Fascist Party) was first the editor of the Socialist Party's Daily paper Avanti! Mussolini abandoned the International Marxist cause for the Nationalist Marxist cause, Mussolini didn't want Italians fighting wars of colonialism which would be required under the Internationalist Marxist cause.
So basically, if you're an internationalist, you're by definition a colonialist.
I’m not sure if I would accept Mussolini’s interpretation of Marxism at face value, or that the particular permutations of leftism in 1910’s Italy are meant to be taken as universal.
I'd make the case that the causality runs in the reverse. This self-help girlboss ideology is so prevalent because its useful. This is a vaguely Marxist take, sort of German Ideology type stuff, that basically the conditions create the ideology and not the other way around. Trying to add up all the pieces of an ideology ends up being like reading tea leaves, because it was never really designed to be rationally thought though. Telling people, women in particular, that they can indeed have everything if they just want it and work hard enough is 100% in tune with our current "meritocratic" neoliberal economic system.
The same goes with Christianity. Donald Trump, in as close to an objective fashion as one is able to reach, was the least Christian president of my lifetime. Everything about him was offensive to Christian values, but Evangelical Christians were among his strongest supporters. The pieces don't fit, none of it adds up, and it was never supposed to. It's useful to the status quo to let them think that Trump will somehow get them their way, that if they're just mean and aggressive enough, they'll finally get to show those snooty liberals in coastal cities what's what. Those same rural Republicans get to believe that the system is working for them, no matter how much they say they hate the US government, they get a little less rowdy, and it's back to business as usual.
I'd go even further and say everyone wants to think our beliefs and ideas matter, that our conception of society, politics, art, the world in general are of great consequence, but I'm here to tell you they are not. The system cares way, way less about what you think than getting you to act in a certain direction. No one really cares what you think, what you do and don't believe you've figured out as long as it doesn't conflict with power.
It's easy to pick apart Marx and criticize the details, but his base/superstructure metaphor has stood the test of time. Politics, culture and social structures are determined by the needs of the dominant economic system, while "mainstream" propaganda channels keep us all thinking the same way. "Underground" social/cultural movements do arise from time to time, but the power structure quickly commoditizes and absorbs them. All that is solid melts into air.
As in nature, so in the memesphere; dominant groups adapt from challengers. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on whether or not you pray for the revolution.
A former evangelical friend of mine told me their discourse framed him as a "baby Christian" who would make mistakes on his long journey. In the long run, he would implement their agenda as he got closer to Christ, I guess. You gotta tie yourself into knots, I guess.
But Trump *did* get them their way. Roe v Wade is dead and SCOTUS will have a conservative majority for decades (or until the USA collapses). I don't agree with their goals at all, but evangelicals were playing the correct game by picking someone they don't personally like who could get the job done. Compare that with everyone who wants the president to be some kind of National Father Figure and then turns a blind eye to bad policy because they like the guy personally.
Any republican president would have appointed conservative judges to the supreme court. Trump was exceptionally popular with evangelical christians during the republican primary, not just after—this was not a matter of pragmatism.
Actually, no. Most Republican presidents appoint rather moderate (for conservatives) to the Supreme Court. David Souter was a typical not atypical Republican appointment.
There is no reason to believe a Jeb would have appointed any of the 3 appointed by Trump.
David Souter was appointed in 1990 and he's viewed as a turncoat by nearly every Republican! Reliably sided with the liberals.
Samuel Alito, appointed 2005, is much more in line with what conservatives and Republicans actually desire, while Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, and Roberts are considered moderates.
I would go a step further than Pete P, and say there is a very high chance that Jeb would have re-nominated Merrick Garland, as the uniparty centrist thing to do, and then two other justices who appear conservative, but may turn liberal once appointed.
Just like the establishment Democratic pols take Black and progressive voters for granted, using them to get elected, then telling them: "Where else are you going to go?"
And giving them nothing - until Obama on a few issues, and now Biden. Simillarly with the establishment Republicans and their right Libertarian & Christian base: "Where else are you going to go?" And for disgruntled conservative Christians, right Libertarians - along with anti immigration, anti globalist voters: The answer to that question, is Trump.
It adds up if you view secular politics as a substitute for religion. The ideological goals are aligned in a neoliberal economic system, because the ones who are being exploited don’t perceive the economic class relationships at play, and those same folks are comfortable to rely on sociocultural attachments that promote blood and soil type nationalism.
"And yet I find it a deft little symbol of a plausible future that I’m seeing more and more hints of: rather than conservatives continuing to fight culture wars they can’t seem to win, regardless of political victories, some conservatives will simply embrace a lot of the cultural artifacts and identity bric a brac the conservative movement writ large has long derided."
This is exactly right and I was hoping that you would tie this into the recent desire for right-wing safetyism on campus - right on cue, you did.
I don't blame RWers for taking our wins where we can, to an extent, but on safetyism and censorship in particular it's a losing game, to adopt the frame of the Left, because the Left simply cares more about discourse, is better at it, and will ultimately win. But seeing the chance to wield equity-speak for their own ends - because some Jews feel unsafe on campus, real DEI and censorship have never been tried - a lot of them can't resist.
It will be darkly funny to see RWers - most of whom I'll probably vote for - running on safetyism when it comes to border security, and running on the manifestation of a based trad future due to some primal national will within us. A Neoromanticism with a therapist.
I think Ukraine-mania was also a symptom of this, by the way. A Marvelized conflict where a lot of people got to live out armchair fantasies of fighting off an ogrish horde of invaders (while conveniently sending other people to actually fight.)
It took a while, but safetyism is back at it's birthplace: the rich pseudo-religious. Decades ago the right used to wield it fairly effectively. Now it's just Bill Ackman having a John Wick moment.
I don't think it'll translate well to American border politics though. Hedge fund managers aren't the main funders of national security.
You can't shame someone into being consistent when their worldview rejects the whole idea of rules that apply equally to everyone. It's called *social* justice because just outcomes for the individual are not important. If your life is ruined by a false rape accusation, or you lose your job for saying true but inconvenient things, then that's too bad for you but it serves the greater political goal. Of course this has been the attitude of authoritarians forever. There's a great deal of obfuscation around its application in contemporary left spaces, but I've seen the mask slip enough times to know this is essentially how it works. When the ideas of social justice are translated into the language of individual rights ("everyone should feel safe on campus") one must understand that they are contingent.
I've always worried that putting therapeutic safetyism in the hands of people with real, structural power is a recipe for disaster - possibly the kind of tyranny the founding fathers of the U.S. tried so hard to avoid.
For a simple example, imagine a state banning a book in schools where a character has two dads because a kid was found somewhere who said it made them feel uncomfortable. Then we don't even need the "but porn" excuse anymore!
Or white kids being able to opt out of the class where they learn about the history of slavery because it makes them feel unsafe. Indeed any kind of DEI training would have to be completely optional too.
I'm not arguing whether this is right or wrong (though f.w.i.w. I think it's wrong personally) but I am claiming these scenarios are nightmares for the progressive left, and the tradcon right gets a superweapon if they're ever allowed to use these concepts to mean what they want them to mean.
“Therapeutic Nationalism” is an awesome way to put it. Scary when you think about it.
Although I completely agree with the ideas of the piece I do get thrown off by all the labels, conservative, liberal, left and right. I feel they can be left out entirely and the point of the piece could be argued just the same. I realize you need a shorthand, but since their meanings are all jumbled now that shorthand no longer seems to work. I get that is sort of the point so maybe it’s just me.
1. Of course humans are stupidly reflexive, believing whatever ludicrous shit it is that they want to believe. I think it has something to do with their standing on the food chain because if even stray dogs were to be so self-deluded, they'd end up as medical experiments or bear bait.
2. American conservatives conveniently forget that Meloni is not married to her partner, the father of her kids. Both like to talk "family values" but only when convenient.
3. For her part, Meloni could feed migrant toddlers alive to piranhas and nobody in the PMC goodthink class in the US or Europe would raise so much as a peep in protest, as long as the likely alternative on offer questioned American hegemony in general and America's wars in particular.
Thanks so much for subscribing. Your support makes this project possible.
Therapeutic Nationalism and Other Opportunistic Decouplings
get ready
FREDDIE DEBOER
DEC 13
READ IN APP
"For years now, I’ve written once or twice annually about a phenomenon that I’ve struggled to name but which everyone understands. It’s a particular kind of social and aesthetic culture, not exclusive to Instagram but very heavily associated with it, that merges girlboss feminism with the contemporary therapeutic imperative, a strange syncretic mysticism involving horoscopes and “manifesting,” and a blanket excuse for narcissism and selfishness dressed up in quasi-political and self-help terms. You know what I mean." Freddy, you're such a card !!
`I also agree that opposition to immigration is more than racial prejudice. In Meloni’s Italy (or south Texas) it’s about immigrants on every street corner and maybe pooping in your front yard.'
No prejudice here, seriously?
Spent a pleasant week in El Paso recently and somehow I didn't notice shit anywhere outside of bathrooms or really anyone besides teenagers on the street corners.
`I don’t see immigration as a plot to lower wages.'
How much more are you willing to pay for food? Because if we don't have immigrants from Mexico, legal and illegal, Americans are going to demand quite a bit more money for that type of labor.
Here in the practical realities of planet Earth, if there's a sandwich, and God promised it to both of us, one or both of us is going to end up upset.
What if we’re on a desert island, and then I start seeing you as the sandwich?
When your home is being burglarized you should try defending your family with a penis. A manly man like you? That's all you need I bet.
Capitalist hyper-individualism. Everything is custom-tailored. You ARE your preferences. The human desire to not see anything inconvenient is now a creed. Compromise? With THOSE infidels/heretics/deplorables/libtards? THEY should be the ones coming to YOU.
Hyper-individualism is the domain of the so-called Marxists now too, somehow. The self as praxis.
I tried to enter my Bad Bitch Era by manifesting Shohei Ohtani to the Cubs and it didn't work so I'm on board with your take now Freddie.
I think this is one time where Freddie's take is correct, bit actually a little behind the curve. The "tradfem" influencer who happily lives in the woods and raises goats under the patriarchy has been a meme for a minute, and various Tumblr users for years have been warning about the ecofacist pipeline where people who claim to love nature and granola are suddenly talking about reducing the global population.
> It is not possible that God promised the whole garden to everyone.
The particular meme Freddie mocks in this line is weirdly fascinating to me, because it can be read as a very typically Christian thing ("you pray for a miracle, but God has already given you the miracle of eternal salvation"), and of course, the Prosperity Gospel reading that Freddie skewers. In the former reading, a Christian would say, "no, God actually *can* offer His garden to everyone, that's sort of the point. A fraction of the infinite is still infinite." In the latter, of course, Freddie's point stands. Still, I wonder if the ambiguity is intentional, a sort of sleight-of-hand?
(Not that Freddie gives a whit about this off-topic ramble. As a materialist, his concern is caring for the finite, weed-ridden, and ever-so-fragile gardens of this world, because in his view, they're all we have.)
I considered the theological reading but I found the post on one of those manifesting/you can have it all feeds.
God *could* give the entire garden to everyone, but He is just giving your self-obsessed ass* the entire garden because you just are that special.
Excuse me whilst I vomit.
* not referring to you, TheOtherKC, whom I have no particular beef with at this time.
There are masculine parallels to this in the Manosphere, but the artifacts and practices are coded differently. It's a mix of pseudoscience, self-help, martial discipline, and dormroom Stoicism. It's like, a military officer claims that taping their mouth shut before they fall asleep results in deeper rest, which allows more jiu-jitsu practice, push-ups, combat meditation, and getting ahead of the 99% of the people who don't do this one simple thing. Then you slam plant shakes and ingest nootropics that are just saw dust.
`dormroom Stoicism'
Thought that was a euphemism for getting high.
No, I meant it as superficial, narrow readings turning into serious worldviews.
Stoicism isn't all that appealing to stoners, I think.
i think a lot of that is branding/novelty value. I've read some of that stuff, and the core is just generic "get enough sleep, eat healthy, hit the gym," but that isn't sexy enough, so you add some gimmicks, some DEEP quotes, and some quasi-religious implications, and now you have a brand.
The difference is that Jiu-Jitsu, push-ups, and even dorm room stoicism are likely to have a very real positive effect on your mental and physical well being. And the gains attained through those absolutely will help you be successful in areas of life that aren’t related to physical combat, in both tangible (more energy) and intangible (more confidence) ways. Of course the “hustle bro” at its worst takes things too far and is in it for a wrong reasons, but generally speaking the radical accountability and disciplined mindset preached by the manosphere is way better for you in pretty much every conceivable way than this is.
Honestly, the manosphere isn’t even a thing. You’ll see people group Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, and Andrew Huberman together as all part of the “manosphere” as if these people have anything at all in common outside of being men and having a male audience. If Manosphere was a neutral term I wouldn’t mind using it to describe anything online that has a male audience, but it’s used pretty much exclusively as a pejorative.
This is such a cynical strawman. Who is this person you’re referring to here that is promoting fitness and jiu jitsu solely as a means of bs selling supplements and equipment? Of course scammers like liver king exist out there, but scammers is exist in virtually every domain of human existence!
Also there’s nothing wrong with supplements. Many supplements are good, even! Taking a multivitamin, creatine, protein etc are great for your health. Just because a person who promotes fitness, also has sponsorships from a supplement company does not mean they’re spiritually corrupted and the whole thing is a grift. The vast majority of the advice given by people like Huberman is free or low cost- that’s the whole point of the show. Early morning sunlight, cold exposure, resistance training. What you’re conveying is just pure cynicism.
So if a person is obese, then loses all of the weight through hard work and discipline, is that a personal success a result of privilege within the system? Because people do in fact lose weight- all the time. Poor people included.
Look I’m not going to deny that there’s systemic issues that make our society more susceptible to obesity at the population level. And we should 100% try to fix those issues! Joe Rogan and Andrew Huberman would 100% agree with that, they’ve both spoken out about these issues numerous times.
But while there’s maybe 10 people who have the power to really make a difference in agricultural policy, every single person has control over the choices they make (children aside). If someone is struggling and continually making poor choices, the absolute worst thing to tell them is that everything they’re experiencing is societies fault, not their own. Any steps toward losing weight, conquering anxiety, or increasing your confidence starts with a radical accountability for your actions and the choices you make, and only then does it even become possible to see improvements.
There’s a reason one of the biggest predictors of depression is locus of control.
`There's nothing wrong with supplements (fish oil, garlic, and b12 is my jam)'
There definitely is! See post above about adverse effects.
As someone with about 15 lbs. of raw garlic in storage right now, I applaud your use of garlic but the benefits---beyond making almost any dish better---are limited:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/garlic-the-fragrant-panacea/
Rogan has had numerous people on to talk about social issues, and definitely not just wackos who are against the COVID vax, which is a new thing. He’s had Harvard law school professors who expose the pharma industry, he’s had experts on environmental science and conservation, so many people on his show have talked about these issues... in the end though his podcast isn’t a politics show or even a health one at all. I think you’re expecting Joe Rogan and Andrew Huberman to be something they’re not. We have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. People want advice on living healthier and Huberman gives that, along with Rogan saying to a much lesser extent. There’s room for personal growth while there’s room for political reform. Any healthy society is going to have conversations about both.
I think we’d probably disagree on certain things though. Like I don’t buy for a second that obesity is more common in poor areas because fast food and unhealthy options are cheap. Some of the cheapest foods you can buy- rice, beans, eggs, veggies etc- are some of the healthiest. A lot of it truly does come down to the choices people are making. We can debate whether there should be laws limiting options, though, which I definitely think about.
I mean it really depends, this was my original point that the Manosphere isn’t really a thing. It’s so broad that it encompasses people with nothing in common. Joe Rogan tried carnivore for a bit, but I think the general consensus is to just eat healthy.
`Some of the cheapest foods you can buy- rice, beans, eggs, veggies etc- are some of the healthiest.'
Absolutely true. But they also take a bit of time to prepare and even more time to make tasty.
- vegetarian
The thing that makes the pose Freddie skewers here so unbearable is the public performance associated with it. If people just had these thoughts in their heads it might be healthy. Like the manosphere stuff. Nothing wrong with having a personal ethic of physicality, virality, as part of your routine etc. It is when you group up with other people to celebrate it as an identity/ideology that it becomes creepy and reductive.
Reminding yourself privately in your head that you’re a good person who deserves things is probably good-even essential for combating anxiety and low self esteem. Telling yourself you’re evolving into an ever badder bitch is obnoxious insufferable. Making a public performance out of either is annoying.
I think making a public performance of your physicality, and vitality is OK because those things are generally very difficult to achieve. I don’t have an issue with people sharing their actual accomplishments, because this is often inspiring to others. There’s also nothing wrong with grouping with others who make these a big part of their identity as well, in fact these groups of people generally accomplish more this way. So long as there’s no dishonesty (such as the liver king fiasco) or empty vanity.
There’s honestly a very thin comparison here.
Ok buddy
Therapeutic narcissism can have a positive effect on mental well-being. It's based in therapy.
My point is that this type of pseudo-philosophy can be easily grafted on an ideology of "border security, disdain for the poor, and submission to the god of finance." You provide two excellent examples, Peterson and Tate.
Agree! Are Gwyneth Paltrow and Joe Rogan really that different? Seems like just gendered versions of self-help health and wellness that’s trying to compete with corporate medicine.
Yea, they’re extremely different. Joe Rogan doesn’t have an entire line of weird products he sells. He has ads by AG-1 which is a multivitamin. But he mostly just advocates exercise. His podcast is mostly BSing with comedians, MMA, and a variety of other silly topics. He’s not some kind of health and wellness guru, even if he’s an advocate for physical fitness for mental/physical health... which is a no brainer.
Lol I don’t like a lot of the shit he says on his podcast. He has dumb boomer political takes all the time. If you listen to him for his politics you’re an idiot. Even still I think the criticism that he isn’t “responsible with his platform” because there’s a lot of idiots is fair.
But he’s not a scammer, and overall I do believe he’s an unquestionably positive role model for young men.
Seems like he has a broadly skeptical view of modern (corporate) medicine. This includes vaccines (bad) but also includes critics of traditional pharmaceutical companies and greedy practices (good imo). But the through line is a manly individualistic way to avoid prescriptions and such.
Yeah I mean there’s plenty to be skeptical about in big pharma. But he’s not, and never has been anti vaccine. He’s just anti COVID vax, which imo is dumb but the idea that if you’re young and healthy then it’s not important to get the COVID vax is more or less true.
He had RFK on his podcast, but I didn’t listen to the episode, and he hasn’t brought up anything they said once since then from what I’ve heard. He’s def not anti prescription or anti doctor either.
The manly individualism is true, but he’s not a selfish guy by any means.
`But he’s not, and never has been anti vaccine. He’s just anti COVID vax,'
So he's not anti-vax except for this one vaccine, which has had an absolutely low adverse outcome rate after being distributed to a billion or so people(?), and he promotes obviously disproven treatments for COVID.
He also didn't believe humanity visited the moon for many, many years (Just asking questions!).
Not someone who should be trusted on medical/scientific issues.
”Not someone who should be trusted on medical/scientific issues."
Which Rogan himself has said umpteen times.
To be fair, at the time it definitely was not “obviously disproven” that ivermectin was effective for COVID, and the way CNN portrayed the whole thing was gross and dishonest- including changing the color shade of the video to make him look more sickly.
I disagree with his position on the vaccine, but the idea that young healthy people don’t need to get the vaccine because the threat COVID poses is minuscule is more or less true.
Joe Rogan loves discussing conspiracy theories for fun, as do a lot of people,it doesn’t mean he believes them. He’s not an authority on anything medical or scientific, never in a million years claimed to be. The only things he’s an authority on are stand up comedy, combat sports, and billiards. Everything else he discusses for fun.
Vitamins and supplements are big profitable businesses. I haven't listened to right-wing radio for years but that was the money spinner for a lot of them, long, long ago.
Joe Rogan isn’t a supplement salesman, he’s a comedian and mma commentator with a podcast. There’s nothing inherently wrong with supplements- and certainly nothing “right wing”. Many people could benefit from more supplementation to make up for the vitamins and nutrients their missing in their subpar diet. Sure, some supplements are bullshit, or evidence is limited. This doesn’t mean supplements are bad. Giving something with limited evidence a try yourself is perfectly reasonable.
` Giving something with limited evidence a try yourself is perfectly reasonable.'
The evidence that supplements are worthless at best and detrimental to health at worst is quite compelling.
Adverse Effects from Dietary Supplements: A survey of the US Military
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/adverse-effects-from-dietary-supplements-a-survey-of-the-us-military/
US Preventive Services Task Force Recommends Against Multivitamins
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/us-preventive-services-task-force-recommends-against-multivitamins/
More evidence that routine multivitamin use should be avoided
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/more-evidence-that-routine-multivitamin-use-should-be-avoided/
Emergency Department Visits for Adverse Events Related to Dietary Supplements
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1504267
(grabbed from one of the articles above)
Basically you can't use supplements to offset or compensate for a terrible diet. If you have specific conditions that lead to vitamin deficiency, sure, but those cases are not quite so common (listed in one of the links above). I've heard that vegans may require some supplements (B12, iron?) but as a +20 year vegetarian I've not needed any supplements (as confirmed by blood panels ,etc.).
Finally, the uptake of vitamins, minerals, etc. in pill/powder form is extremely low for most supplements so you're literally flushing most of the product down the toilet!
What even is the argument here?? Do you think anybody is advocating for supplements as a replacement for a terrible diet? This is a clear strawman. An actual Health podcast like Huberman stresses the importance of a healthy diet and sleep above all else. “Supplements” is a catch all term for a shitload of different things with various alleged uses and degrees of evidence supporting it, so a handful of cherry picked studies about multi vitamins dont show that supplements are bad as a whole. Like the one study there is about ER visits, where 38% of them are from choking on a pill. Things like protein powder and creatine are important to supplement with if you’re working out, things like magnesium have a number of healthy benefits. I’ve never heard huberman or anyone like that claim supplements are the key to health, he just goes over the evidence and gives you things to try that may help you out on the margins.
"The term “fascist” is criminally overused these days, but the Brothers of Italy, the party Meloni helped found and currently leads, has legitimate, no-bullshit fascist associations."
Yes, Benito Mussolini (founder of the Fascist Party) was first the editor of the Socialist Party's Daily paper Avanti! Mussolini abandoned the International Marxist cause for the Nationalist Marxist cause, Mussolini didn't want Italians fighting wars of colonialism which would be required under the Internationalist Marxist cause.
So basically, if you're an internationalist, you're by definition a colonialist.
I’m not sure if I would accept Mussolini’s interpretation of Marxism at face value, or that the particular permutations of leftism in 1910’s Italy are meant to be taken as universal.
I'd make the case that the causality runs in the reverse. This self-help girlboss ideology is so prevalent because its useful. This is a vaguely Marxist take, sort of German Ideology type stuff, that basically the conditions create the ideology and not the other way around. Trying to add up all the pieces of an ideology ends up being like reading tea leaves, because it was never really designed to be rationally thought though. Telling people, women in particular, that they can indeed have everything if they just want it and work hard enough is 100% in tune with our current "meritocratic" neoliberal economic system.
The same goes with Christianity. Donald Trump, in as close to an objective fashion as one is able to reach, was the least Christian president of my lifetime. Everything about him was offensive to Christian values, but Evangelical Christians were among his strongest supporters. The pieces don't fit, none of it adds up, and it was never supposed to. It's useful to the status quo to let them think that Trump will somehow get them their way, that if they're just mean and aggressive enough, they'll finally get to show those snooty liberals in coastal cities what's what. Those same rural Republicans get to believe that the system is working for them, no matter how much they say they hate the US government, they get a little less rowdy, and it's back to business as usual.
I'd go even further and say everyone wants to think our beliefs and ideas matter, that our conception of society, politics, art, the world in general are of great consequence, but I'm here to tell you they are not. The system cares way, way less about what you think than getting you to act in a certain direction. No one really cares what you think, what you do and don't believe you've figured out as long as it doesn't conflict with power.
It's easy to pick apart Marx and criticize the details, but his base/superstructure metaphor has stood the test of time. Politics, culture and social structures are determined by the needs of the dominant economic system, while "mainstream" propaganda channels keep us all thinking the same way. "Underground" social/cultural movements do arise from time to time, but the power structure quickly commoditizes and absorbs them. All that is solid melts into air.
As in nature, so in the memesphere; dominant groups adapt from challengers. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on whether or not you pray for the revolution.
A former evangelical friend of mine told me their discourse framed him as a "baby Christian" who would make mistakes on his long journey. In the long run, he would implement their agenda as he got closer to Christ, I guess. You gotta tie yourself into knots, I guess.
But Trump *did* get them their way. Roe v Wade is dead and SCOTUS will have a conservative majority for decades (or until the USA collapses). I don't agree with their goals at all, but evangelicals were playing the correct game by picking someone they don't personally like who could get the job done. Compare that with everyone who wants the president to be some kind of National Father Figure and then turns a blind eye to bad policy because they like the guy personally.
Any republican president would have appointed conservative judges to the supreme court. Trump was exceptionally popular with evangelical christians during the republican primary, not just after—this was not a matter of pragmatism.
Actually, no. Most Republican presidents appoint rather moderate (for conservatives) to the Supreme Court. David Souter was a typical not atypical Republican appointment.
There is no reason to believe a Jeb would have appointed any of the 3 appointed by Trump.
David Souter was appointed in 1990 and he's viewed as a turncoat by nearly every Republican! Reliably sided with the liberals.
Samuel Alito, appointed 2005, is much more in line with what conservatives and Republicans actually desire, while Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, and Roberts are considered moderates.
I would go a step further than Pete P, and say there is a very high chance that Jeb would have re-nominated Merrick Garland, as the uniparty centrist thing to do, and then two other justices who appear conservative, but may turn liberal once appointed.
Just like the establishment Democratic pols take Black and progressive voters for granted, using them to get elected, then telling them: "Where else are you going to go?"
And giving them nothing - until Obama on a few issues, and now Biden. Simillarly with the establishment Republicans and their right Libertarian & Christian base: "Where else are you going to go?" And for disgruntled conservative Christians, right Libertarians - along with anti immigration, anti globalist voters: The answer to that question, is Trump.
Exactly. They voted for the enemy of their enemy. Simply that.
It adds up if you view secular politics as a substitute for religion. The ideological goals are aligned in a neoliberal economic system, because the ones who are being exploited don’t perceive the economic class relationships at play, and those same folks are comfortable to rely on sociocultural attachments that promote blood and soil type nationalism.
"And yet I find it a deft little symbol of a plausible future that I’m seeing more and more hints of: rather than conservatives continuing to fight culture wars they can’t seem to win, regardless of political victories, some conservatives will simply embrace a lot of the cultural artifacts and identity bric a brac the conservative movement writ large has long derided."
This is exactly right and I was hoping that you would tie this into the recent desire for right-wing safetyism on campus - right on cue, you did.
I don't blame RWers for taking our wins where we can, to an extent, but on safetyism and censorship in particular it's a losing game, to adopt the frame of the Left, because the Left simply cares more about discourse, is better at it, and will ultimately win. But seeing the chance to wield equity-speak for their own ends - because some Jews feel unsafe on campus, real DEI and censorship have never been tried - a lot of them can't resist.
It will be darkly funny to see RWers - most of whom I'll probably vote for - running on safetyism when it comes to border security, and running on the manifestation of a based trad future due to some primal national will within us. A Neoromanticism with a therapist.
I think Ukraine-mania was also a symptom of this, by the way. A Marvelized conflict where a lot of people got to live out armchair fantasies of fighting off an ogrish horde of invaders (while conveniently sending other people to actually fight.)
It took a while, but safetyism is back at it's birthplace: the rich pseudo-religious. Decades ago the right used to wield it fairly effectively. Now it's just Bill Ackman having a John Wick moment.
I don't think it'll translate well to American border politics though. Hedge fund managers aren't the main funders of national security.
You can't shame someone into being consistent when their worldview rejects the whole idea of rules that apply equally to everyone. It's called *social* justice because just outcomes for the individual are not important. If your life is ruined by a false rape accusation, or you lose your job for saying true but inconvenient things, then that's too bad for you but it serves the greater political goal. Of course this has been the attitude of authoritarians forever. There's a great deal of obfuscation around its application in contemporary left spaces, but I've seen the mask slip enough times to know this is essentially how it works. When the ideas of social justice are translated into the language of individual rights ("everyone should feel safe on campus") one must understand that they are contingent.
Ezra Klein *wrote* in an article that Affirmative Consent would railroad some young men, but that was an acceptable price to pay
I've always worried that putting therapeutic safetyism in the hands of people with real, structural power is a recipe for disaster - possibly the kind of tyranny the founding fathers of the U.S. tried so hard to avoid.
For a simple example, imagine a state banning a book in schools where a character has two dads because a kid was found somewhere who said it made them feel uncomfortable. Then we don't even need the "but porn" excuse anymore!
Or white kids being able to opt out of the class where they learn about the history of slavery because it makes them feel unsafe. Indeed any kind of DEI training would have to be completely optional too.
I'm not arguing whether this is right or wrong (though f.w.i.w. I think it's wrong personally) but I am claiming these scenarios are nightmares for the progressive left, and the tradcon right gets a superweapon if they're ever allowed to use these concepts to mean what they want them to mean.
“Therapeutic Nationalism” is an awesome way to put it. Scary when you think about it.
Although I completely agree with the ideas of the piece I do get thrown off by all the labels, conservative, liberal, left and right. I feel they can be left out entirely and the point of the piece could be argued just the same. I realize you need a shorthand, but since their meanings are all jumbled now that shorthand no longer seems to work. I get that is sort of the point so maybe it’s just me.
It all comes down to tribalism and status games.
1. Of course humans are stupidly reflexive, believing whatever ludicrous shit it is that they want to believe. I think it has something to do with their standing on the food chain because if even stray dogs were to be so self-deluded, they'd end up as medical experiments or bear bait.
2. American conservatives conveniently forget that Meloni is not married to her partner, the father of her kids. Both like to talk "family values" but only when convenient.
3. For her part, Meloni could feed migrant toddlers alive to piranhas and nobody in the PMC goodthink class in the US or Europe would raise so much as a peep in protest, as long as the likely alternative on offer questioned American hegemony in general and America's wars in particular.
I did not see the (strong) finish from where this essay started. Excellent.
To quote Milan Kundera "kitsch is a folding screen set up to curtain off death" - this is just a new manifestation of fascist kitsch.
View in browser
Thanks so much for subscribing. Your support makes this project possible.
Therapeutic Nationalism and Other Opportunistic Decouplings
get ready
FREDDIE DEBOER
DEC 13
READ IN APP
"For years now, I’ve written once or twice annually about a phenomenon that I’ve struggled to name but which everyone understands. It’s a particular kind of social and aesthetic culture, not exclusive to Instagram but very heavily associated with it, that merges girlboss feminism with the contemporary therapeutic imperative, a strange syncretic mysticism involving horoscopes and “manifesting,” and a blanket excuse for narcissism and selfishness dressed up in quasi-political and self-help terms. You know what I mean." Freddy, you're such a card !!