The different roots and factions of the rightwing culture war make it difficult to fight libertine woke Big Tech surveillance and censorship

The rightwing factions participating in the American culture war are divided into two main camps: 1) libertarians, and 2) cultural conservatives who are mostly Christian. But these two factions actually have different roots, and the cultural ideas of 1) are in many ways not compatible with 2), and vice versa. That’s one of the reasons why it’s difficult to mobilize effective resistance to Big Tech, since the Right in America is fundamentally divided, on a root level. If effective resistance is unrealistic one might as well admit defeat and change paradigm in how one relates to Big Tech.

But no self-respecting rightwing individual will surrender without extremely good reasons that clearly justifies it. The military argument presented here is good enough, but it’s based on realism, and cultural conservaties are not that into realism when their core values are threatened: orthodox religion, traditional family life, and ethno-nationalism.

I doubt that real cultural conservatives will listen to the arguments I present in favor of the new paradigm on, especially since the old paradigm is still valid, in principle, but it’s worth trying to explain why resistance to Big Tech appears hopeless when the Right in America is so divided and partly corrupted on the deepest level of ideology and worldview.

Libertarianism doesn’t care about roots. It’s doesn’t give a damn about traditions or anything in the past. Libertarianism is only about using a very minimalistic state to defend the liberty of the individual in a nonviolent society. But this means that rightwing libertarianism is basically in the same ballpark as liberalism, as John Mearsheimer presents it here (0:08:35 – 0:11:27):

The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities | SOAS University of London

Moderate cultural conservatives, on the other hand, say that orthodox religion, traditional family life, and loyalty to your own ethnic group are core values that are as equally important as nonviolence and individualistic liberty. If you want to see how John Mearsheimer describes nationalism watch the linked video above at 0:12:28 – 0:15:20 min. By the way, this segment of the video shows that nationalists really don’t like it when anybody messes with the traditional family values of a nation.

There are two versions of moderate cultural conservatism. One has its roots in (the precursors to) the tradition of Romanticism. It’s a tradition which is all about authenticity and passion, free from the chains of reason and science, when living life to the full here on Earth. So many Romanticists live as hyper-individualists and outcasts, but many also feel that their true identity is to live as social beings in a tribe or nation.

The other version of cultural conservatism is more high-minded and very emotionally detached from all earthly concerns but only because it seeks to transcend animalistic desires, usually by recommending people to live as monks and nuns, an advice that St. Paul gave to Christians, if they are able to live like him (1 Cor 7:25). In other words, this second version of cultural conservatism is based on religious anti-natalism, retreating from all worldly concerns. Since it only focuses on God and Heaven it’s not earth-centric at all, which in many ways appears to be an attitude that’s very different from the emotional passion of Romanticism.

But other-worldly religious puritanism is so extreme and intense that Romanticists can respect it and easily relate to it, because it’s not lukewarm, not room temperature, not tame and domesticated, but on the edge of life, sometimes close to death if you live as a hermit or prophet in the wilderness. Romanticism did in fact emerge from Protestant pietism in Germany, as a reaction to the Enlightenment tradition of science and reason which began in civilized France and England/Scotland, cf The Roots of Romanticism by Isaiah Berlin.

Libertarianism belongs to the Enlightenment tradition, cf Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker (a book I enjoyed despite the criticism it has received from both conservatives and progressives). Romanticism, however, is the main enemy of the temperate and civilized Enlightenment tradition. These two traditions are always at war. Their most well-known clash was a tiny conflict you may have heard of: World War 2.

Culturally conservative Romanticism is therefore incompatible with rightwing libertarianism. So when Romanticists in the West today appear to fight on the same side as rightwing libertarians, against woke Big Tech surveillance and censorship, they are really not friends at all. Partly because libertarians accept libertinism, which is anathema from a Romanticist viewpoint. And mainly because libertarians just don’t care about cultural traditions.

If modern America prior to the rise of Big Tech had been primarily based on the moderate liberality of John Stuart Mill, then it would have been easy for moderate cultural conservatives to genuinely cooperate with moderate liberals in the US. America the last 150 years has unfortunately been mainly driven by highly energetic immigrants, with type A personalities, who only want money, power, fame and entertainment. So if woke Big Tech somehow loses the culture war it’s very likely that libertarians and other unrestrained free market capitalists will just continue to run America as a godless empire without any true loyalty to cultural traditions (unless they can earn money from it by showcasing it to tourists who visit museums and national monuments).

The rotten roots of modern America

Libertarians are not a large group, but almost all rightwing Americans today, even Christians, are so influenced by the individualistic freedom of classic liberalism that the number of real cultural conservatives in the US are maybe only 5% to 10% if judged by their behavior in everyday life.

In rightwing America you often see a fundamentalist version of classic liberalism: individualistic liberty alone, especially freedom of expression, is elevated to the highest principle. It’s more or less a holy cow in the eyes of many American “conservatives”. Genuine conservatives, however, are not primarily focused on letting a society be governed by an abstract system of rights and principles. They have a more organic view of society, based on cultural roots, which actually makes them more flexible, less rigid and not so bent on spreading their own (ethnic) values all over the world.

But fundamentalist individualism (egoism), materialistic hedonism and convenient technologies have the last 150 years become so ingrained in the modern American mind that even rightwing Christians feel that it’s very difficult to resist it.

For example, ask conservatives if they are willing to kill and die to protect the liberty of constitutional democracies. They will say yes. But not many today will answer affirmatively if asked whether they are willing to kill and die to defend orthodox religion, traditional family values and ethno-nationalism. If moderate cultural conservatives really existed in large numbers in America we would have already seen a major violent uprising against the woke libertine values spread by the entertainment industry and Big Tech.

Action speaks louder than words (on online platforms). If you give Republicans the choice between either having a Bible or the Internet with a smartphone, relatively many will choose the latter. Real cultural conservatives would never have accepted that the Internet was built in the first place. Conservatives in the 1950s or 1970s would have been shocked and suffered a heart attack if seeing how American “cultural conservatives” behave in their everyday lives in 2021.

Seeking refuge in stoic anti-natalism?

If real cultural conservatives in America don’t get their act together and start combatting libertine woke Big Tech one might as well “accept” the new reality of the fourth industrial revolution, and kind of “go along with it all”, in a detached stoic manner, just to avoid pointless emotional friction. Romanticism is then dead, basically, when adapting to the new AI cyborg mindset of “Zen” equanimity and indifference (toward the old earthly lifestyles of original humanity). Many are already doing this. The infrastructure of Big Tech has exposed people to so much bad news and tacky or toxic content that this depressive information overload in ugly modern cities has probably motivated relatively many to stop reproducing. The spread of anti-natalist attitudes today says a lot about the new sick and tasteless societies which Big Tech has created, but one can get out of this mental disease if changing attitude by either practicing mindfulness or living a Christian detached life of silent prayer.

A secular version of asubha meditation is only about psychology, not religion, so it can be practiced by everyone regardless of which metaphysical worldview they adhere to. Asubha meditation is very different from libertinism and wokeness (if you go just slightly deeper than both California hippie “Buddhism” and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in the West). This third way of serious meditation is totally incompatible with Romanticism, obviously, but if you stop being emotionally attached to Romanticism, you probably notice that the Brave New World of libertine woke Big Tech will stop being annoying too, despite all its superficial elegance, bad taste, lame expressions, faux rebellion and boring/infantile “transgressions”.

If you for some reason can’t meditate or can’t spend long time in silent prayer, the only remaining option in the West is to stoically view today’s life on Earth as a bus station where you have to wait until God shows up and drives you home to Heaven. Because Earth is now a place for machines and people who either think like machines or interact with machines in an addictive way. I’m an addict too, but at least I’m honest about it, not proud of it, and basically view it as a tragedy.

Rebellion and crowd control

Over 99% of human beings cannot live as detached hermits. Roughly 95% don’t have the mental discipline to meditate or pray several hours each day. Maybe 50-75% lack the emotional ability to realize a high degree of stoicism. Perhaps only 5-20% will be truly happy with a life based on anti-natalism. The new stoic anti-natalist paradigm here on will therefore not be a popular solution. It’s more of a solution for some reflective and well-informed defeatists and realists within the anti-tech elite.

Consequently one can expect that 1) a pro-active elite of militant cultural conservatives, who maybe act on behalf of a nation state, will try to protect original humanity by causing a cataclysmic event destroying libertine woke Big Tech in the West, or 2) tensions in the general rightwing population finally reaches a critical point where some kind of war erupts in America and Europe, partly because of climate changes, resource scarcity and global overpopulation that leads to increased mass immigration to the West.

But if libertine woke Big Tech survives until 2025 or 2030 (when the American military-industrial complex is AI-ready, cf the final NSCAI-report) one can predict that ultra-liberal NATO will have enough anti-WMD technologies plus drone and surveillance power to prevent hyper-terrorism and civil war, even if all Western countries experience unrest similar to The Troubles in Northern Ireland.

If massive civil unrest occurs, it will be possible for the elites in libertine woke NATO to keep the West together after 2030 because of (almost) omnipresent AI surveillance (in a cashless society). America and Europe may then look like a (“benign”) high-tech medieval society where the masses are irrelevant while the elites enjoy unprecedented power.


Some kind of scenario like the one described in the last paragraph above will probably be seen after 2030 or in the 2040s, unless a new revolutionary deus ex machina saves us all. Because of these circumstances, and people’s general inability to live as high-minded stoic anti-natalists, it’s probably just a fact that most citizens will eventually give up all high ideals and surrender to the new libertine woke lifestyle. The best you can do if no longer having the strength to resist it all is to mindfully observe your own behavior as you follow along the stream of mindless people who have succumbed to the libertine woke system of mass surveillance. Develop a somewhat ironic attitude where you observe it all from the perspective of absurdism. No wisdom there. We are all sinners here. Let’s hope that 1) scientists are able to one day create NZI cyborgs, thereby ending the absurdly nauseating transition period we are in today, or 2) that God quickly intervenes and saves us all from tacky and cheesy Big Tech in America.

Keep in mind however that the Internet and the entertainment industry are basically a reflection of Nature, a reflection of human nature and the bloody food chain on Earth. If Nature had not been partly rotten, or “fallen” as we Christians view it, then entertainment and online content the last two decades would not have been partly disgusting. On the deepest level we must therefore blame Nature, not Big Tech or individual human beings who are trapped in a biological system of animalistic desires and instincts that significantly reduce their free will. That’s why I naively hope that NZI cyborgs will perhaps be the final end result of initiatives such as Neuralink, a project that’s potentially very dangerous and irresponsible because of the disruptive impact that it (and Big Tech generally) can have on today’s relatively fragile societies.

Look to Russia

If or when conservative North Europeans and their Christian descendants on other continents reject the new anti-natalist paradigm I present as a third way beyond libertine wokeness and cultural conservatism there is always the option to learn Russian and seek (dual) citizenship in that country. TASS (21/04/21):

Putin vows Russia will always uphold its spiritual and moral values

“Spiritual and moral values, which some countries are beginning to forget about, only make the Russian people stronger, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday in his annual State of the Nation Address to the Federal Assembly.” (…)

“Putin added that the service of representatives of traditional religions had become “the spiritual backbone of society, as it always was in difficult times.” That said, the head of state addressed the clergy present in the hall, “I would like to take a deep bow before you all. Thank you very much.””

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s