This is How to Take Back the Woke Skeptical Movement | Moral Libertarian Talk

We can still repel the Populist Right's ideological invasion

Over the past two years, I have talked quite a lot about my disappointment with how the 'woke skeptical movement' turned out, the wasted potential, and so on, but it's something I have to talk about again, because I think the situation is actually still salvageable.

Earlier this year, when former President Trump attended the US Libertarian Party conference, and received a hostile reception there, it brought attention to the takeover of the Libertarian Party by the populist right-aligned Mises Caucus over the past few years, and the frustrations of true libertarians towards this development. The Libertarian Party is vulnerable to this because it is a small party supported by a small movement, and it is situated adjacent to a much larger and more well-funded right-wing propaganda machine that has largely moved towards authoritarianism in the Trump era. A lesser discussed fact is that, around the same time, the woke skeptical movement experienced a similar hostile takeover too, even though it is not a formal political party. It seems that the populist-authoritarian New Right is hell bent on taking over and remaking everything it can, which is unsurprising given its ideological commitment towards 'dismantling the Cathedral' and 'regime change' in America and the West.

These days, the unfortunate reality is that many people simply equate woke skepticism with the populist right. You know, for taking a strong stance against wokeness, I have been called right-wing by countless numbers of people. Those of you who know me, who have truly read and understood what I have said, would know that I am not right-wing. Indeed, I have a very negative view of the populist 'New Right', and their hijacking of the woke skeptical movement is among my biggest political frustrations of all time. I'm all about freedom, and the New Right is all about controlling people's lives in an authoritarian way. We're literally incompatible opposites, like fire and water. Of course, with populist right propaganda dominating the woke skeptical brand out there, some people are bound to think that woke skeptical equals right-wing. I mean, some people now think libertarianism equals Trumpism too, for similar reasons. Ridiculous, yes, but the political landscape is, on the whole, ridiculous right now. And it's all because of some dishonest actors.

But firstly, how would the woke skeptical movement have turned out, in my ideal world? My hope was that it would have been the beginning of a culture where people actually looked at issues in a thoroughly rational way, where independent thinking and good faith discussion were encouraged, and where skepticism to established narratives were the norm. The worst aspects of wokeism were slavery to unsound philosophical theory, irrationality, a lack of free speech, conformity with the in-group, tribalism, and seeing everything as a power struggle, which justifies bad faith arguments. The reaction against wokeism would have been the catalyst for the coming together of people who rejected these things, thus forming a community with the opposite kind of culture. Or so I hoped. If this was successful, then the new community wouldn't just be critiquing wokeism, which would be quite limiting anyway. We would critique all sorts of bad ideas in the same way, whether they came from the left or the right. This would also fit nicely with my philosophical commitments as a Moral Libertarian: allowing free speech without the fear of cancellation would be an important part of upholding equal moral agency for every individual, and a truly free and fair marketplace of ideas would allow the best, and most moral, ideas to win out.

My vision was ultimately made impossible by the reactionary-populist New Right, which saw frustration with wokeness as something they could exploit politically. The New Right is basically a reactionary program that wishes to supplant establishment conservative politics, which it sees as 'weak' and useless. It wants to remake society and turn the clock back by decades at least, using highly authoritarian means, inspired by everything from Catholic integralism to Viktor Orban's illiberal democracy model. The New Right saw that frustration with wokeness could be weaponized to make the case for their kind of radical authoritarian program. Thus well-funded right-wing propaganda began coming at the woke skeptical discourse like a hurricane, a force so powerful that we were unprepared to counter it.

The New Right's strategically biased reporting and use of emotionally charged rhetoric distorted the woke skeptical discourse to serve the New Right's own political interests, to promote and justify its worldview, and to build it into a dominant force on the Right. In doing so, they turned woke skepticism from being about rationally critiquing the unsound ideas of postmodern critical theory, to being about moral panics around things like woke corporations, certain LGBT issues and liberal education policies. Failed presidential candidate Ron DeSantis was perhaps the most important figure in this campaign, which is why I've long said that he represents an even bigger problem than Trump. This unprecedented aggressive campaign has actually been very effective, in redefining the content and tone of the woke skeptical discourse. It is why, even in moderate center-left circles that pride themselves on rejecting wokeness but still being liberal, hysteria about drag queens occasionally comes up nowadays, even though it wasn't a thing in most woke skeptical circles prior to 2019. My point is, the right-wing moral panic discourse is so loud, so persistent, and so aggressive that it has reached basically every corner of the woke skeptical landscape. The replacement of rational critique with moral panic has turned woke skepticism into a tribalist, conformist and sometimes irrational movement, ironically the opposite of what it started out as. I certainly wouldn't have supported a movement that looks like this.

The question we need to ask here is, can we still fight back, spit the New Right out, and salvage our original vision? I actually think yes, but we have to be dedicated, brave and strategic. Dedicated because it will be hard work. Brave because we will need to stand up to the new cultural hegemony being forced upon us by the New Right. Strategically, we have to recognize that the New Right are not allies, but intruders with weird beliefs. I think the key here is to encourage even more skepticism. While the woke skeptical movement has been thoroughly skeptical towards wokeism and its various claims, it has failed to be equally skeptical towards the New Right, perhaps because it tried to befriend us and convince us that we're on the same team in the beginning. But subsequent events have shown that we're actually not on the same team. We might both be opposed to wokeness, but it's clearly not for the same reasons. Indeed, we just need to ask the same questions of the New Right as we did towards the woke left. We would then be able to expose the fact that they are just as full of unsound philosophical obsessions, irrationality, hostility towards free speech, conformity with the in-group, tribalism, and bad faith arguments. Literally, just critically examine the very weird ideas of the New Right, and the even weirder phenomenon where previously respectable influencers just accept all of it uncritically. I'm not naming names, but we all know who they are.

Indeed, going forward, I think the key is just to be consistently skeptical. We need to be especially skeptical towards ideas that appear to be too popular, especially in the online context. What I mean by too popular is that too many people uncritically accept it, parrot it, even go crazy over it, despite it clearly not being very sound. Be especially skeptical if all the big name influencers are pushing the same thing at the same time. Wokeness started out exactly like this, and we saw right through the Emperor's New Clothes situation, which we sought to expose. Now it's time to do the same to the baseless rhetoric about woke corporations, the idea that the West should emulate Hungary, the supposed dangers of drag queens, the supposed immorality of IVF, the idea that mixing religion with politics supposedly serves the common good, and the like. Push back, and push back with a lot of skepticism. We won the debate against wokeness because we pushed back with skepticism, and we should do the same to the New Right. And maybe, just maybe, we will get the truly pro-liberty woke skeptical movement of 2018 back.

The Limitations of Nihilistic Tribalist Politics

'Owning' your opponents is empty and boring after a while

I noticed that many people seem to have checked out of the political discourse in the past two years or so. This has been happening especially in the more extreme parts of both the left and the right. What were once popular online hangouts are now virtually dead. Anecdotally, I've heard that many people who used to be passionate leftists or Trumpists just a few years ago seem to have stopped talking about politics altogether. I guess this just shows how extremist, tribalist, 'own' your enemy type politics gets very tired after a while. This is especially true when life isn't very great in general for a lot of people, which is what has been the case in recent years. Especially in tough times like this, only a positive politics will get people hopeful again. The kind of negative politics that peaked around 2020 or so deserves to be in the dustbin of history, and I hope it stays there for good.

Freedom Does Not Exist in a Vacuum

Towards a Broader Moral Libertarian Project

I have always been a great supporter of freedom, and I have long been concerned that the West is losing its freedom. My concerns began in the aftermath of 9/11, when the Bush administration severely curtailed civil liberties in the name of stopping terrorism, violating long-standing guarantees of freedom and privacy in the process, and other governments around the Western world also followed suit. Soon after, the 2003 Iraq War was also justified as part of a wider 'war on terror', and opponents of the war were decried as unpatriotic or worse. The infamous Dixie Chicks incident proved how cancel culture was in full force back then, even though we didn't have that term yet. The next year saw a big moral panic wave over gay marriage driven by the religious right. In the 2004 US Elections, the victory of President Bush and the passage of anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments in many states were explained by the media as due to the rise of 'values voters', which further emboldened the religious right. By 2005, there were attempts to make schools teach 'intelligent design' in biology classes, and this campaign even spread outside America. Meanwhile, while libertarian ideas also gained popularity as a reaction to these instances of authoritarian overreach, they weren't gaining ground quickly enough to push back against the much larger wave of authoritarianism. A big reason was that libertarianism itself was often not very practical. The strict application of the 'non-aggression principle' (NAP) in real life was a tall order indeed. It just couldn't compete with the simple messaging of the authoritarians, which was rooted in the primal emotion of fear.

It was in this context that I first developed the foundational idea for Moral Libertarianism: that every individual should have equal and maximum moral agency. In practice, it would mean every individual having the right to their own moral decisions, as long as it does not compromise another individual's right to the same. Every individual would be guaranteed their own free speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, because these rights do not affect others' expression of the same rights. Every individual would also have freedom of action as long as it did not impinge on the same right for another individual, i.e. your right to swing your fist stops at my face. I think this is very fair, and much better than the religious right trying to shove their beliefs down people's throats, or politicians trying to get people to vote for them by fearmongering and scapegoating minorities and promising to impose authoritarian measures targeting those minorities.

Later on, I would also apply Moral Libertarian thinking to argue against the postmodern-critical theory left, which sees society and culture as an oppressor vs. oppressed landscape defined by groups based on immutable characteristics. I was in fact surprised that the left was equally able to curtail free speech and other individual liberties at first, but that is exactly what started to happen in the mid-2010s. For some time the threat to freedom was coming much more from the left than the right, which was why my writing in that era mainly targeted the left. More recently, the illiberal right has been making a strong comeback, which means that the fight for freedom has effectively become a war on both sides for the first time in my lifetime. All throughout these developments, the Moral Libertarian idea of championing Equal Moral Agency for every individual, and associated ideas developed from this core idea, have been immensely helpful in anchoring my own thinking to a commitment to freedom, even as many others I once respected have strayed to either the authoritarian left or the authoritarian right along the way.

What I also learned in these two decades is that freedom does not exist in a vacuum. As I said before, I have observed many previously pro-freedom individuals stray towards authoritarianism, of both the left-wing and right-wing variety. Some progressives who fought for free speech on the Iraq War in 2003 and against the religious right's anti-gay marriage push in 2004 somehow managed to support de-platforming and cancel culture in the late 2010s. Some self-identified classical liberals who opposed cancel culture and the illiberal left in the 2010s somehow flipped to support the populist reactionary culture warriors in the present, rationalizing Don't Say Gay, drag bans, draconian abortion bans and potential IVF restrictions as somehow necessary to 'fight wokeness'. In each case, I was deeply disappointed, but was also driven to find out what went wrong. What I learned was that freedom does not exist in a vacuum. As those who have been following me for some time would have heard me argue over the past two years, certain things are very bad for freedom, including tribalism, echo chambers, a lack of compassion, moral panics, all-or-none thinking, and an over-commitment to abstract philosophy and theory. Freedom cannot exist in a vacuum, because it needs the opposite of these things to thrive, i.e. true diversity of opinion, an open and fair marketplace of ideas, a culture that encourages compassion, rationality and compromise, and prioritizing the practical resolution of problems over philosophical concerns. Absent a strong commitment to these things, any talk of freedom would soon turn into its opposite.

While I have talked a lot about the necessary conditions for freedom, up until now I have not yet re-integrated them with my Moral Libertarian model. For a long time, I have identified being overly abstract and impractical as the major weakness of classical libertarianism, and in developing Moral Libertarnism, I wished to develop a more practical model of libertarianism. However, in the early years, I was still narrowly focused on how to apply the principle of Equal Moral Agency. While this would be much more practical than trying to apply the NAP, what I have realized is that it still narrowed the scope of freedom too much to be a strong enough practical safeguard for freedom. This is why, going forward, I believe Moral Libertarianism should be broadened to encompass the conditions that appear to be required for freedom to thrive. In this Moral Libertarianism 2.0, the principle of Equal Moral Agency will still be an important reference point to help us decide on moral questions and solutions, but more attention needs to be paid to the overall context too, to ensure that the conditions for freedom are truly met, and maintained in a ongoing sense. This would be well justified, because if the conditions for freedom aren't there, abstract talk about the principle of Equal Moral Agency would be effectively useless too.

The Fault in the Right: Why Worthy Ideals Lead to Bad Politics

The devil is in the detail, or more accurately, in the incentive structure

Welcome to The Fault in the Right, a new series where I will examine where I think the faults lie within the contemporary Western political right, from the perspective of someone who agrees with the arguments of the right, or at least the premise of some of those arguments, at least some of the time. I think this kind of perspective is sorely needed in the media: while there is plenty of criticism of the left from people who are themselves liberals or leftists, most of the criticism of the right out there is from people who vehemently disagree with the worldview of the right, in a fundamental way. A lot of it is therefore either ideological disagreement, or bad faith attacks. Also, while there are some 'Never Trump conservatives' who critique Trump and the MAGA movement, their focus is on the particular differences between Trumpism and the previous iteration of the Republican Party, and they never seem to critique long-standing problems within the right that have also plagued the old establishment. In summary, the left critiques the right as a whole, but in a 'burn it all down' way, while Never Trumpers critique only Trumpism, but avoid talking about problems that plague the rest of the right too. There is a clear gap here that needs to be filled, with something akin to liberal anti-wokeism, but for the right.

On the surface, different iterations of the right have championed different ideals, that I could get on board with on the surface. The right of the 1990s and the 2000s, when I was growing up, championed family values, a healthier media and culture, and a culture of personal responsibility. I could certainly get behind these ideals. However, in practice, it was all about government control and authoritarian measures, which I just couldn't accept. By the time I was in college, the right had descended into championing the Iraq War, the wider 'War on Terror', restricting civil liberties, and banning gay marriage everywhere. Their authoritarian tendencies were on full display. Later on, during the Tea Party era, libertarian ideas became more popular, which I found very encouraging, but then, they had to share a platform with conspiracy theories, which I found very frustrating. Still later on, Trump, for all his faults, did appear to move the right away from both religious authoritarianism and the forever wars, thus resolving the two biggest issues I had with the right a decade earlier. However, the religious right came back with a vengeance soon after, and nowadays Trump himself is saying that we need a religious revival, while all the LGBT outreach that characterized his previous two campaigns seem to have disappeared quietly. It appears that the religious right has won out again under Trump's leadership, and they are even openly demanding that he embrace a national abortion ban. Even in the UK, where under the leadership of former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron it looked like there was a chance that a new, forward-looking conservatism could take hold, things rapidly turned reactionary after Brexit, and now there are concerns that Nigel Farage and his far-right Reform Party could outperform the Tories and effectively become the biggest opposition to the new Labour government. In short, the right has championed many worthy ideals that the left just won't talk about, but it all seems to end with reactionism and authoritarianism.

Not only is right-wing politics like this, right-wing influencers and public figures also bring this kind of disappointment about in the cultural sphere, because politics is downstream from culture, and they desperately want to influence the culture. I have previously talked a lot about the hijacking of the anti-woke discourse by a small number of well organized and very well-paid influencers. (Judging by their employment in right-wing think tanks and media organizations and/or their Patreon earnings, all of them are definitely much richer than myself). Their coordinated promotion of one-sided, biased narratives have taken anti-wokeism from a very libertarian initial position (most anti-wokeists were free speech activists and/or atheists in the beginning) to a much more reactionary and authoritarian place, over the short space of a few years. This was basically the reason why the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW), which showed so much promise initially, ultimately fell apart within less than three years.

The point is, I don't disagree with what the right is saying, overall, on a broad ideals basis. I do believe that society needs more individual freedom, that a free market economy is the best model for the West, that families are the fundamental building blocks of society, that radical change based on abstract ideas is not a good idea, and that an ordered liberty is the best guarantee of freedom, because when order breaks down, nobody actually has any freedom. However, the devil is in the detail, and in the execution, many right-wing policies are unfair, ineffective, or even downright harmful, in that they make people less happy unnecessarily, or that they lead to deleterious consequences down the road (particularly in the case of climate change). This is not caused by incompetence, but rather by the structural incentives built into the right's composition. For example, with the religious right accounting for such a big part of the right, in terms of voters, politicians and money alike, there is very little room to treat LGBT issues fairly, or to respect the pro-choice argument from a genuine pro-freedom point of view. Also, with the fossil fuel lobby being such a vested interest within the right, there is no room for pro-climate policies. The disconnect between the right's stated ideals and its actual policies give rise to the need for bad faith arguments, like how most LGBT people are 'woke activists' and thus the right's enemy (clearly untrue and unfair), or how climate change is a hoax or at least scientifically unproven (even more untrue). This is why there is a whole industry of right-aligned spin doctors out there. It is also why Millennials, my generation, have grown up with a strong distrust of the right generally, and are not moving right at the same rate as previous generations in our 30s and 40s. Those who want to believe it's only about home ownership are just not willing to face the truth.

I believe the aforementioned problem can only be exposed by someone who is sort of sympathetic to the right's stated aims in many areas, but see through the mismatch between those stated aims and the actual policies embraced by the right. In particular, we need to pick apart the words of the spin doctors who attempt to paper over this mismatch, in the service of vested interests. Just like the anti-woke movement exposed the left's unsound ideological obsessions, we need to expose the right's distorted incentive structure, and the distorted results it produces. And just like with wokeness, only those who actually share some common ground with the right in the first place would be well positioned to expose its faults.

Why Allowing More Freedom is Generally the Morally Better Choice

Individual liberty is justified because morality can be improved

Over the years, I have illustrated why values like free speech, free expression and freedom of conscience are important in multiple ways. However, what I call the 'competitive morality' case for freedom might yet be the most important reason why freedom is important to maintain. Given both the left and the right have become increasingly disrespectful towards long-standing norms that safeguard freedom in recent years, I think this is a message people across the Western world really need to hear right now.

Basically, history has shown us that things can be done better. The way we do things today is much improved compared with back in the middle ages, or even during the industrial revolution, for example. While improvements in material conditions, methods of production and technology are most often celebrated, morality has also been improving over the generations. While things are still far from perfect, morality has overall been objectively improving over the centuries. We don't allow slavery, the torture of prisoners, and duels to the death anymore, for example. Given this history, there is every reason to believe that morality can continue to improve into the future.

The main drivers of improvement are innovation and competition. This is clear to see when we are talking about technology. However, it also applies to matters of morality. If everyone just accepted slavery as part of life, it would never have been abolished. This demonstrates the importance of allowing enough freedom for innovation. On the other hand, if the anti-slavery message wasn't able to compete with those arguing for the then-status quo on an equal footing, it might not have won out, despite being objectively more sound. This demonstrates the importance of maintaining a fair playing field in the marketplace of ideas. Both of the aforementioned objectives would require free speech, free expression and freedom of conscience. It is freedom that both allows innovation, and allows fair competition in the marketplace of ideas. Therefore, ultimately it is freedom that allows morality to improve over time.

Looking at history would confirm this theory. Societies that were more free and open generated more improvements in morality. Even though the freedom to experiment might sometimes lead to errors too, overall speaking, allowing this freedom is worthwhile in the end, especially in light of the resulting improvements being able to benefit many generations to come. This is why, looking at it from a broad picture scale, allowing more freedom is objectively more moral. It is proven by both history and logic. I think we should take this into account when assessing political options, for example when voting. I believe that, generally speaking, supporting choices that are overall orientated towards more freedom, as well as punishing politicians that actively advocate for less freedom, is generally correct as a principle.

We Need to Talk About the Red Pill Fallacy

It is driving political extremism in both directions

If you have been paying attention to the political discourse in the past ten years, chances are that you would have heard of the 'red pill' metaphor at some point. This metaphor came from the 1990s movie The Matrix, where the main character Neo is given the choice of swallowing a red pill or a blue pill. Take the red pill, and he would find out the truth about the world he was living in. Take the blue pill, and he would remain blissfully ignorant. Of course, Neo took the red pill, as you would expect. Simply speaking, being 'red pilled' has become a metaphor for learning about 'truths' about society and politics that most people are blissfully unaware of. While this metaphor has been particularly prevalent in men's rights circles, it has also been used in other, unrelated contexts too.

The problem with the 'red pill' metaphor is that it is designed to shut down critical thinking, because the 'choice' has been put in a way that makes it basically unrejectable. If the red pill, or whatever is presented as the 'red pill' as a metaphor, represents the truth, and rejecting it represents choosing to be blissfully ignorant, then it becomes very difficult to reject the red pill, or whatever it represents. This is because nobody would choose to remain ignorant when they can know the truth. However, if we put our critical thinking back on, we would question what exactly is in the red pill being presented to us. Does it really lead us to the truth or not? What if, instead, it contains a mind virus that would infect us if we take it? After all, being deceptive is a large part of how viruses and other malware can spread on the internet. If somebody wanted to spread a mind virus among the population, we would expect them to use deceptive means to get as many minds infected as possible, just like people who design computer viruses. Real life observations do point to the 'red pill' meme being used to spread what I would consider to be mind viruses. The concept of red pilling has been a gateway towards conspiracy theories, and even far-right politics in some cases.

While explicit use of the 'red pill' meme is mostly restricted to the political right, the left also does something very similar, even if they do not use the same language. I would argue that the basic premise of postmodernism and critical theory is very similar to red pill thinking. Just like the red pill, postmodern critical theory presents its model of intersecting and interlocking systems of oppression as unfalsifiable and unrejectable. It is unfalsifiable because it rejects challenge by objective evidence, justified on the postmodern view that discourse is about power struggles rather than about the truth. It is unrejectable because those who reject this model are painted as anti-social justice supporters of oppression. This allows those who believe in the model to reject, with a broad brush, any criticisms of the model. They, and they alone, are always right about the way society is, and what is required for social justice, even if objective evidence can be presented to demonstrate otherwise.

As many people have pointed out, theories that are basically unfalsifiable should be met with skepticism. This is more so the case if the theory is also presented in a way that makes it difficult to reject. Faced with such a theory, we are well justified to be wary of an agenda behind the push. We need to seriously ask, who is pushing these 'red pills', and what their ultimate agenda is. In most cases, what we uncover isn't going to be pretty. I can only hope that more people begin to realize this.

The Role of Compassion in a Politics of Meaning and Hope

It is the starting point of the comeback of positivity politics

Today, I'm going to talk about why compassion is important in a positive, constructive politics of meaning and hope. As you might have noticed, negative politics that is about destroying or deconstructing things generally don't have much compassion in them. This alone is a hint that, just perhaps, compassion is key to avoiding falling into the negativity spiral.

In my previous talk on building a politics of meaning and hope, I said that, for myself at least, the meaning of life is that one could potentially make life consist of less suffering, both for people in the here and now, and even for generations yet to come. Life is inherently going to be suffering to some extent, but we can make it less suffering, as evidenced by the fact that life is generally less suffering today than in ancient times. If we are to build a politics of meaning and hope based on this idea, then compassion would be, by definition, right at the center of it.

Therefore, compassion is what could give politics the meaning and hope it is missing. The meaning would be to relieve people's suffering as much as possible, and the hope would be that things would get better over time, i.e. that there would be less suffering over time. Of course, different people are going to disagree on how we are going to get there, but having this common ground in the first place allows the debate to be grounded in something concrete and measurable, and prevents it from degenerating into nihilistic, tribalist fighting. This is why it's important that we aim to place compassion at the center of politics. It really is the key to ending the dominance of negativity-driven politics.

Compassion is also the key to maintaining a focus on practical progress and justice, and avoiding falling into the rabbit hole of an in-theory-only version of social justice. In recent years, postmodern critical theory has been holding the notion of social justice hostage, redefining justice as whatever the theory demands, rather than whatever would improve people's lives in the real world. In particular, the oppressor vs oppressed worldview only leads to division, polarization, and more difficulty in actually improving things. Putting compassion back at the center of our notion of social justice will put an end to this. After all, you can't be truly compassionate and go around labelling people as privileged oppressors based on theory alone.

The Classical Liberal Case for a Normie Politics

Why I won't 'take the red pill', nor go 'woke'.

Today, I'm going to try to reclaim the word 'normie', and make the case for embracing a 'normie politics'. Firstly, what does 'normie' mean? It is a term frequently used in online discourse, it is usually used pejoratively, and its origin is disputed. But basically, it means somebody that has not been exposed to the ideas of a certain sub-culture. In political circles, it generally means so-called 'normal' people who know nothing much about the politics of either the far-left or the far-right, and would be expected to outrightly reject those unusual ideas. For the normie, the flavors of politics range from the regular liberal to the regular conservative, and anything else would just be seen as whacky or even dangerous.

Therefore, to embrace a 'normie' orientation would just mean bringing the common sense of common people to the table, to help us make a judgement on what is real, what is sound, and what is a good solution. While this common sense is not always perfect, it is at least better than being enmeshed within a certain political subculture and its echo chambers, and getting a distorted picture of the reality as a result. In a society where the extremes are increasingly getting their way, normie-ism is perhaps the best tool to stop them in their tracks.

Contrary to popular opinion within elite progressive circles, normie politics doesn't mean we have to just assume that people are prejudiced, and pander to their biases. It also doesn't mean being close-minded and refusing to listen to new facts about life. Indeed, being sincere, truthful and reasonably open-minded are common sense values held by most people. Most people don't like people who second guess what others think and make a calculated move in taking a stance. This is why most people distrust politicians in general. A truly normie stance would be to not act like a politician. Instead, you should just speak your mind, while being open-minded about what others have to say too. But you should speak your mind without taking in prior distortions of reality, especially those that come from propaganda spreading within political echo chambers. Think of it this way: a normie is somebody who is not susceptible to political tribalism. The normie decides what is right or wrong based on their own values and instincts, rather than take tribalist political stances.

I'll give you a good example of a truly normie take on politics. In 2003, when I was 16 and in my first year of college, there were two hot button issues out there: the Iraq War and gay marriage. I decided to oppose the Iraq War and support gay marriage, just because I felt like it was the right thing to do. To put it simply, war is bad, and making people happy is good. I was new to politics back then, and didn't have any distorted preconceptions. I wasn't brainwashed to believe that perpetual war in the Middle East was somehow required to keep the West safe, or that gay marriage would threaten family values, simply because I had not been watching much news media before that point. Now, people who were brainwashed by certain echo chambers genuinely believed in those things back then. It wasn't their fault either: they had been deliberately guided into those views by propaganda, designed by those with an agenda, and lots of power, money, or both. The real normie, without prior exposure to this propaganda and forming certain preconceptions because of it, would not have seen things the same way.

Fast forward 21 years, and ideological propagada campaigns, fake news, and deliberately distorted narratives are literally everywhere. We're on a totally new level of un-reality, and frankly I'm worried for our future. A real normie would see through the problems with wokeness, but many on the left keep insisting that wokeness equals social justice. A real normie would also see through the scary authoritarianism of the populist right, but some people still insist that it is 'justified' as a push-back against the woke. The un-reality of each side is being weaponized to make the other side more extreme all the time, and too many people still can't see through all the madness. I'm particularly worried about those who push an oppressor vs oppressed narrative, those who pit free speech against social justice, those who ideologically deny scientifically valid views, and those who deliberately whip up fear and animosity towards certain minority groups.

Classical liberalism, and indeed the Western Enlightenment as a whole, is in danger of being drowned out by aggressive actors from both political extremes, and I believe embracing a normie politics helps us fight back. A normie is pro-fact, pro-science, and skeptical of narratives that don't line up with what they see in real life. A normie also has no time for elaborate theories designed to disarm our common decency and goad us into accepting inhumane extremism, and this is exactly what we need right now. Moreover, the desire for freedom itself, and a healthy skepticism towards moves to reduce individual freedom, are pretty normie too. What we need to remember is that, embracing normie politics doesn't mean you can't be guided by certain values. For example, I have strong libertarian sympathies. There is nothing un-normie about loving freedom, as long as you don't begin to think that driver's licenses are against freedom, or something totally against common sense like that.

Embracing a normie politics would also help us stay grounded in a practical, reformist path forward. Both the classical liberal belief in the power of rationality, and the Burkean conservative belief that change should be practical, gradual, and not rooted in abstract ideas alone, are totally consistent with normie values. Other essential ingredients of reformism, like compassion, willingness to compromise, and aversion to cruelty, are also part of normie values. This is why a reformist politics is basically a normie politics, and vice versa. This is why, while reformism functions on the philosophical level, and normie politics functions on a gut-instinct level, the two often arrive at very similar answers.

The Problem with... the Cultural Right

The illiberal right is obsessed with literalism, as in the literal reading of statements and rules, and the rigid obedience to such rules. We all know that conservative Christianity often insists on a literal reading of the Bible. However, this worldview is not limited to religion. Conservative legal academics and judges approach the law with the same literalism, for example. I think some conservatives' attitudes on LGBT issues also stem from their worldview that everything should function according to rigid rules, and their discomfort about LGBT rights could stem from their discomfort about what are clearly exceptions to the rule. For the authoritarian right, liberalism is bad because it allows people the freedom of conscience to interpret the rules of life, and to potentially break the rules some regard as sacred. When they speak of the 'common good', it is really the society-wide obedience to the sacred rules that they have in mind. Which, of course, is not what many of us would consider to be the common good.

Also, the increasing negativity among conservative circles has led some on the Right to believe that some kind of reset, or 'counter-revolution', is needed, because the West is in such a bad state right now. Even those who might not go this far might nonetheless be on board with suspending some norms of civility, respect and free speech because we're supposedly in some kind of 'state of emergency'. However, the use of the perception of emergency to justify radical measures that destroy long-standing norms has long been a favorite tactic of radicals, and it generally leads to the destruction of important values and institutions that is not going to be reversible. Radicals, of course, don't have a problem with this, but if you're coming from a conservative philosophical point of view, I really can't see how this kind of outcome can be justified. Moreover, a so-called reset or 'counter-revolution' is no different from wiping the slate clean and starting all over again, another favorite fantasy of radicals. The traditional conservative opposition to this is justified on the grounds that, even if what we currently have is not perfect, it is still the product of many generations of evolution and lessons learnt. If we were to re-build everything from scratch, there is practically no chance that we will end up with something better than what we have now. I can't see why this important insight should not apply to where we are currently at.

What a Truly Positive Politics Looks Like

The cultural hegemony of negative politics must be challenged and smashed

In response to an article I recently wrote about why the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) fell apart, someone raised the point that defining themselves as 'dark' was perhaps a big problem. After all, movements for truth have historically tried to seek the 'light' instead. This really got me thinking.

I think the problem here is that society has, over time, increasingly moved towards celebrating the negative, and this is a real problem, as I will explain. Looking historically, this was first started by some on the left, in order to tear down a stable status quo they didn't like. For example, back in the mid-20th century, when The Power of Positive Thinking was a best-seller, Herbert Marcuse tried to champion negative thinking instead. I think this negativity came from the well-known phenomenon of left melancholy, itself a product of the left's repeated defeats and inability to face up to objective reality. Later on, the right, as usual, copied this negative mode of politics, simply because it works to deliver supporters, at least in the short term. They first successfully turned 'liberal' into a negative word back in the 1980s, but their recent flaming of moral panics and populist outrage is really on another level. The antics of both sides means that, what was once bad is now cool, and what was traditionally good was now uncool.

As I've said before, I believe the negativity of anti-woke politics in general has been a major reason for its inability to stay rational and constructive. This, of course, also applies to the trajectory of the IDW. Although the IDW started out not as negative, I think it was infected by a particular strand of 'own the SJWs' online culture, and the idea that it was something 'dark' was instrumental in attracting this kind of negative energy. I think this just shows why a project dedicated to rational discussion and exploration of ideas should not think of itself as 'dark'. I get that IDW was meant to be tongue in cheek, but still, we should associate the pursuit of objective truth with the light rather than darkness, or rather, with positivity rather than negativity. The way we frame it is important, because it is important for us to be mindful of being constructive rather than destructive.

Being constructive vs destructive is an important difference in practice. In an age where the left wants to 'deconstruct' basically everything, and the right wants to 'destroy SJWs', we all know what destructive politics looks like. Its basic impluse is to destroy your opponent, or something you don't like, at all costs, usually without concern for any collateral damage. I would argue that, right now, negative politics has become such an overwhelming norm that many of us have forgotten that there could be a more positive way to approach things. Instead of setting out to destroy things, we can set out to improve things. We can put out ideas and participate in debates in good faith, with the aim of improving things rather than destroying things. This is not to say that we can't be critical of ideas we disagree with. In fact, one needs to be critical of negativity in order to uphold positivity. This is why I am so critical of both left-wing wokeness and right-wing reactionary populism. However, there is a very real difference between being rationally critical, and being destructively negative. Starting from a positive, constructive position would prevent us from falling into the kind of destructive negativity that is currently plaguing the left and right alike.

In summary, the positive approach to politics looks like this: think of something to improve people's lives, rather than to destroy or deconstruct. Participate in discourse with the aim of being constructive, of bringing something good to the table, rather than to 'own' or troll your opponents. Think of society as a series of puzzles to be solved, to improve things over time, rather than a zero-sum battle between tribalist political forces. Finally, don't forget to practice love and compassion while doing all this.

Reconciling Libertarianism and Reformism

Libertarianism needs practicality and credibility, which is what reformism is good at

Today, I am going to talk about my project to reconcile libertarianism and reformism.

On one hand, I have been sympathetic to libertarian thinking for more than 20 years, even though I have to acknowledge that libertarian immediatism is not realistic at all, and the dominance of immediatists have seriously harmed the popularity of libertarianism. I first became interested in libertarianism during the 2003 Iraq War, when the right was trying to silence anti-war and anti-Bush speech, including the infamous cancellation of the Dixie Chicks. Given that we live in a moment where the postmodern left practices cancel culture regularly, and the populist right thrives on banning books, drag queens, abortion and even masks, it is clear that society needs a big dose of libertarianism ASAP. We need to make libertarianism credible and popular again for this to happen.

On the other hand, over my observation and involvement in the Western political landscape of the past 21 years, I have gradually come to develop an appreciation of reformism. I believe the heart and soul of reformism is basically the classical liberal belief that society and people's lives can be made better via empiricism and rationality, tempered by the Burkean conservative view that any change should be based on practical needs rather than abstract ideas, and should be gradualist and consistent with a given society's traditions rather than revolutionary and abrupt. Note that genuine Burkean conservative philosophy, developed in response to the events of the French Revolution, is very different from what so-called conservative political parties represent today. I have stated this point many times in the past, but it bears repeating, because this is very important to understand. Anyway, over the years I have come to the firm conclusion that only a reformist politics can provided sustainable progress for society, by avoiding both misguided radicalism and reactionary backlash.

The first problem we have here is that most libertarian thinking that has been developed over the past few decades, especially the so-called libertarianism of the 2010s, is fundamentally faulty on some level, which makes it support the opposite of liberty some point down the line. In the 1980s-90s the beltway libertarians and their obsession with cutting government dominated. These people ended up doing nothing to advance individual liberty per se, and some even sided with the Bush administration's 2003 Iraq War, which was a total sellout of libertarian values. On the other side were the paleolibertarians, a faction that were steadfast in their anti-war beliefs but sided with far-right paleoconservatives on most other issues. This paleolibertarianism was the precursor to what became known as the 'libertarian to alt-right' pipeline in the 2010s, and was arguably the precursor to neoreaction thinking, which is clearly not libertarian at all. Later on, there was 'anarcho-capitalism', which is a very extreme form of libertarianism that opposes government in all its forms, and fantasizes about things like private police and fire departments. I think it is this kind of extremism that eventually gave rise to the conspiracy thinking that ultimately discredited libertarianism by around 2020.

The second problem we have is that most of the libertarian thinking that has been developed over the past few decades is simply incompatible with reformism. They all want government gone, and right now. This, I think, is the reason for both the unprincipledness and the tendency towards extremism. Therefore, to make libertarianism credible again, it needs to be realigned towards the reformist philosophy. And it's not as difficult as some might think. As I said before, reformism is basically liberal rationality plus conservative cautiousness and gradualism. Both the classical liberal emphasis of rationality, and the conservative emphasis that reform should be based on practical needs rather than abstract ideas, can modify libertarianism to make it more reformist and practical. This, in turn, would make it more credible, and hopefully more popular. By making libertarianism credible and popular again, we can build a strong bulwark to prevent both the illiberal left and the illiberal right from crushing individual freedom with their culture war agendas.

To reconcile libertarianism and reformism, I believe we need to further develop the philosophy of both traditions more fully. In particular, we need to separate the core strands of thinking of both traditions from what has been happening in the crazy politics of the past 10-15 years. From there, we need to identify the common ground between the two traditions, and the areas  where they might be able to supplement each other. Right now, I can think of attention to the complexities of reality, respect for different opinions, and compassion as a few areas of common ground between libertarians and reformists. I'm sure there are more to discover. This will be a major focus of my work going forward.

Towards a Politics of Meaning and Hope

We need to start by acknowledging the limitations and opportunities of life

Recently, I've been focusing on the fact that a lot of the politics out there, from both the left and the right, are deeply negative. On the left, it is mainly caused by postmodern critical theory and its oppressor vs oppressed, power is everywhere narrative. On the right, it is the endless moral panics, outrage-based populism and conspiracy theories. Both sides paint a bleak future, and radicalize their followers towards a destructive extremism using fear. I think the only thing that can save us from all this is a positive vision. what we need is a politics of meaning and hope.

So how can we have a politics of meaning and hope? First of all, we need to have meaningful, achievable goals. One of the biggest problems with the left right now is that it is basically living in fantasy land. It wants to build a utopia that simply can't exist, and wouldn't mind heightening conflict and deconstructing everything we have to get there. The repeated failures of this project has brought about a well-known phenomenon of left melancholy. The lesson is that setting unachievable goals based primarily on theoretical philosophy is not a constructive way to move forward.

Instead, we have to start with reality as it exists. And part of that reality is that life is suffering, at least to some degree. This has been true throughout history. Suffering is part of life, and it can't be extinguished by politics, as history has clearly shown. Trying to do so would only bring about more unnecessary suffering. This is the reason why utopian dreams are so scary. On the other hand, although life is suffering, we can lessen the suffering, both for people alive right now, and for generations of people to come. Objectively speaking, life consists of less suffering right now compared with back in the middle ages, and we have the hard work of many people across the generations to thank for this.

Therefore, to put it simply, the limitation of life is that we can't escape the fact that life is suffering, but the opportunity here is that we can lessen the suffering, both in the here and now, and for the future of humanity too. This, I think, provides us with the meaning of life. Even though we can't make things perfect, the fact that we can lessen the suffering of people, and the fact that this can benefit many generations still to come, provides us with more than enough meaning for this life. It is the hope that things can get better that provides meaning for life, and the will to think and act to make it happen. It is also the realization that things can't be perfect, but can be improved, that makes every incremental improvement a cause for celebration, and prevents the kind of utopia-dystopia bipolar thinking that is the root cause of left melancholy and paralysis. I believe that having a positive vision people can believe in also prevents them from falling into the perpetual panic, outrage and conspiracy thinking that characterizes the populist right.

When we start from a positive thinking mindset, rooted in a practical and realistic belief that things can get incrementally better, we can be truly constructive in both thought and action. There would be no more us-vs-them tribalism, no more need to 'own' the other side, and no more victim mentality. There will only be a rational desire to make things better, which logically leads to the rational thinking and discussion required to make it happen. This is the kind of positive politics that I want to help bring about, to replace the kind of negative politics we have right now.
 

Why The Left Keeps On Failing

It simply can't face the reality

Let's just say it out loud: the Western Left reeks of more than a century of failure. Their entirely theory-driven experiments have been repeatedly tried, and led to disappointment and failure every single time. And every single time, what followed was the rise of right-wing reactionary politics of some kind. This was true of the 1930s, the 1960s and 70s, and it looks more and more like history is repeating again right now.

The left knows its defeats well. There's even a very well described phenomenon of left melancholy. Yet, after every single defeat, it just digs in deeper. It takes no responsibility for leaving people disappointed, and making a mess of society in the process. It is able to do that by avoiding facing reality. Again, right now, it looks like history is repeating, with works coming out of the left, spinning the defeats of their recent past as somehow heroic, worthwhile, or at least not of their own fault. We're seeing in real time how the left avoids learning the lessons it should be learning.

The left is able to avoid reality via the use of philosophy, sophistry and echo chambers. It's sort of like the Emperor's New Clothes, played over and over again in slightly different forms, over the centuries. In fact, that's how postmodern critical theory started. It was a rationalization of the post-war Western left's inability to attract the support of the working class, which was basically fatal to its then-assumptions. But instead of learning how to make themselves relevant to the working class again, they rationalized the problem away, and began imagining a future revolution led by philosophers, student radicals and marginalized minorities. Who needs the workers when you could build this radical coalition instead? Of course, this overlooks the fact that workers are the majority, and the New Left have always been a small minority. But in the New Left echo chamber, this never seems to be a problem.

Today, the leftist echo chamber continues to ignore the fact that someone like Bernie Sanders simply can't win in a climate where we have an ongoing culture war, where the New Left is pit against the working class, not because of some kind of conspiracy, but because of a genuine incompatibility of values, caused by the rise of postmodern critical theory itself. In fact, to raise this fact in some left wing circles would get you banished. Instead, they continue to blame Bernie's 2020 defeat on various non-factors, like the campaign of Pete Buttigieg, who didn't even make the top three, or the fact that the Democrats were focused on defeating Trump, which was just the way political parties work, to be honest. A left that behaves this way is simply hopelessly out of touch. Its only impact on the political scene would be to make a mess of everything, and allow an opening for the reactionaries to gain power.
 

The Problem With... 'New Left' Theory

The key point is, much of the Western Left today takes a theory-based approach to everything, and base their so-called progressivism on achieving the goals of their theory. They decide what is a good course of action, or what counts as success, not based on objective reality, not based on if the lives of people have actually been made better, but on their theoretical concerns. This, I think, is essentially being a slave to theory. Hence theory has actually become slavery, in the context of the 21st century Western Left.

Besides being unable to improve people's lives, what I'm most concerned with the theory-Left is that it effectively discourages independent thinking, which I value very much as a Moral Libertarian. Through building a movement that is enslaved to a whole suite of critical theories, which explain every social issue and cultural conflict with its particular philosophy, New Left activism actually creates a mass of people who think in lockstep on every issue, because they are informed by theory rather than their own observation of reality and their own independent thinking. In turn, this actually divides society into two sides, one side which thinks in lockstep with theory on every issue, and another side which comes together simply to fight what they correctly see as an illogical and contradictory coalition. I think this is a major reason behind the polarization we are seeing in the West today.

What is Conservatism?

Now, we need to answer the question, 'what is conservatism'. Again, contrary to popular belief, conservatism isn't everything that is considered politically right-wing. It isn't everything supported by so-called 'conservative' political parties like the Republicans in America or the British Conservative Party. It is actually a political philosophy, a way to approach social and political issues.

British philosopher Edmund Burke is often considered the father of conservatism. His most famous thoughts pertained to the French Revolution, which he lived through. He was very skeptical of the radical, 'tear everything down' approach of the French revolutionaries, as well as their over-commitment to abstract ideas as the way to progress society. What we need to remember is that, Burke was not against all change and progress, he actually supported relatively progressive positions during his lifetime. He was just against radical change that was rooted in abstract ideas rather than practical reality, and a total rejection of a given nation's traditions.

Hence, conservatism, as properly understood, is a philosophy that opposes radical change that is rooted in abstract ideas, and alien to a given nation's traditions. Change that is rooted in practical needs, and especially change that is rooted in a society's long-standing values, is not inherently opposed by conservative philosophy. Conservatism is therefore not reactionary! Instead, it is a philosophy that seeks to ground progress in practical reality, and in the long-standing traditions of society.

At least in the English-speaking West, liberal values like free speech, freedom of conscience and 'live and let live' are indeed a long-standing part of our society. Therefore, conservatism, as properly understood, would aim to conserve these values too. Change and reform that arise out of liberal processes should also be favored over those that oppose liberal values and processes. Therefore, reactionary culture warriors, who oppose any and all change, and even resort to illiberal means to stop that change, are not really conservatives, properly understood.