Connect with us

Conservatism

No, technology does not simply bend Left

Published

on

No technology does not simply bend Left

On the Joe Rogan Experience featuring tech billionaire, Naval Ravikant, that circulated on Conservative media for the comments about the Left winning the culture war and shooting the survivors, the claim was made that technology bends to the Left. The video made a claim, that taken on its face contributes to the myth that society is constantly moving to the Left and Conservatives can’t stop, only slow down progress. This claim deserves pushback, because while Naval Ravakant is an expert in technology and entrepreneurship, his understanding of the political spectrum is wholly inaccurate. Watch the minute and a half long clip.

Political Spectrum

It’s important to note that the political spectrum runs from totalitarianism, on the left, to anarchy, on the right. This spectrum is universal and can be applied to all societies, while rightwing and leftwing are social constructs marking the Overton Window within each society. I firmly believe Naval Ravikant has a different conception of the political spectrum. But with this conception, let’s see how his argument holds water.

Industrialization

His big example of technology moving culture Left was industrialization. This example is correct. Industrialization paved the way for Progressivism, a universal ideology where the state intervenes in the free market on behalf of labor against management. So industrialization led to unionization and therefore progressivism. However correct this example is, it is widely broad. It’s hard to choose a specific example of industrialization. What comes to mind is the cotton gin, which furthered slavery. But a Left wing in American politics consisting of ideals such as social democracy (welfare) and progressive income did not emerge until after the American Civil War. And in the last hundred years, unionization has lost in the private sector, surviving only because of the public sector, in the United States.

Progressivism has morphed into Leftism and socialism, in the United States. Industrialization gave birth to all sorts of movements in what America would call far Left. Communism/Socialism rose in prominence as a result of industrialization. The Soviet Union sought to bring unity between industry and agriculture with the hammer and sickle. The Nationalist Socialist German Worker’s Party brought vast technological innovations. It was leftwing compared to the social democracy Wiemar Republic.

Communications

Television and radio are perhaps other good examples that show Naval Ravikant’s point as well. But it’s not so much that the country moved left because of the technology; rather, the country wrestled left because of who controlled the technology. However, Leftist control of TV and radio was hardly as influential as the Left’s takeover of higher academia. After all when barriers to entry relaxed, the veil of nonbias faded, Fox News emerged to take on Leftist outlets. Rush Limbaugh became a force on AM radio. The internet brought forth a myriad of publications, with Conservative sights.

Has the internet really moved people to the Left? I would argue that the internet accelerated the logical conclusion of what people already believed. On the abortion issue, the logical conclusion of the abortion beliefs of people has been exposed. The “safe, legal, and rare” trope was only really believed by the nominally Pro-Life side. Social media accelerated this debate and rendered a middle ground on abortion untenable and lonely. Now the Left has won marriage, or have they? Because it was never really about marriage if, years later, Jack Phillips is being harassed a third time and children are dancing sexually at pride parades.

They weren’t really after marriage, so we cannot conclude that they won yet. And society is starting to push back on it, because the logical conclusion is being reached. Note: Steven Crowder just decisively defeated Rainbow Jihad.

Smoking Gun

One of the biggest technological advancements of all time was the invention of the printing press. The printing press was, in Europe, invented by Johannes Gutenberg. Its early use was to mass produce the Bible. Its invention paved the way for vernacular translations of the Bible. This invention would accelerate the Protestant Reformation. Was this a societal shift to the right or left? Does the individual focusing on orthodoxy and a church structure where the power is localized move society to the right or left? Separation of church and state was a tenant of the Anabaptists. And while the remnants of the Anabaptists are more theologically progressive, separation of church and state up until the twentieth century was understood to mean that the government does not choose what religion you practice. Is this closer to totalitarianism or anarchy?

Final Thoughts

When we reinvent the political spectrum, we can make numerous arguments unfounded in history. Technology has impacts but its impacts are clearer the further away we get. After all, it’s hard to examine the legacy of the Trump administration, but the legacy of the Washington administration can be expounded upon, without overt dogma.

Technology, social media, will have a major impact on society, but Naval Ravikamp prematurely stated its impact in moving the country leftward. The culture war simply isn’t over yet.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Advertisement

0

Conservatism

A trillion dollar deficit is much more dangerous than the GOP acknowledges

Published

on

A trillion dollar deficit is much more dangerous than the GOP acknowledges

Spending. It’s the thing that helped me make my decision to leave the GOP a few years ago as there seemed to be very little difference between them and the Democrats when it came to fiscal responsibility. Where we spend the money is the only big deviation, but both sides of the political aisle have an addiction to spend more than the country has available. In the past, this was dangerous because of the crushing force of national debt that will eventually bring about an economic collapse. Today, the risk is much, much greater and within immediate striking distance.

What a trillion-dollar budget deficit represents today is an avenue through which Modern Monetary Theory could actually be realized in the United States. Those who are familiar with MMT may still be as complacent about it as I was a year ago; “It’ll never happen, not in America.” But as Democrats push Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal, open borders, state-funded education, reparations, and outright socialism, there’s only one conclusion that any economist or political pundit can come to: If the new thinking of the Democratic Party gets a foothold and initiates some of their plans, then MMT is the only possible way to make it happen.

They don’t even need to initiate all of them. Just one or two will be enough for catastrophe.

In other words, they’re policy proposals are already writing checks the U.S. can’t cash, so every scenario in which a partial implementation of these policies takes place can only happen through MMT. For those who don’t want to read up on it, MMT is essentially the practice of printing the cash to pay the bills. Proponents say it will be different this time from every other failed attempt at MMT because America is responsible enough and too crucial to the world economy for it to cause hyperinflation. Reading the delusional excuses for promoting MMT reveals an uncanny ability to deny reality while simultaneously suppressing common sense. It’s the type of thing that only progressive economic scholars can truly comprehend, and that should terrify you.

By moving the budget deficit into the ten-digit arena, we’ve broken a threshold that gives MMT legs. Whether it’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez saying, “You just pay for it,” or Elizabeth Warren constantly saying the rich will be taxed until it’s paid for despite the basic arithmetic that demonstrates this is impossible, they’ll all latch onto the notion that if we can spend a trillion dollars in one year that we don’t have, why can’t we spend two? Ten? Fifty?

On one hand, I want to do whatever it takes to convince Republicans they need to do what they campaign to do: cut spending. It’s not as easy as just pulling the plug on frivolous programs, services, agencies, and whole departments… except that it truly is that easy. It’s not popular. Some say it’s political suicide. But considering it’s never been tried in the modern era (no real cuts have been made to spending in decades), now is the time to be bold and do what’s right for the nation. The rise of the internet in general and social media in particular gives conservatives an outlet through which they can educate the masses about the need to make cuts. It’s something we plan on doing as part of the American Conservative Movement.

But on the other hand, one thing that can’t happen in trying to convince Republicans they’re doing it wrong by allowing them to lose. The Democrats are now more than the lesser of two evils. They’re dangerous. The plans they will implement are existential threats to America. Sadly, many of them know this. The Justice Democrats, who are driving the leftward lurch within the Democratic Party, are shockingly aware of what they’re trying to accomplish. Destroying and rebuilding America in their image is the end goal. That image is not a pretty one, even to the Justice Democrats, but things are rarely pretty when radicals get their hands on it.

Modern Monetary Theory will be implemented if the Democrats get full control. Unfortunately, Republicans aren’t helping fight it as long as they’re pushing such untenable budget deficits. It’s time for a heavy dose of fiscal conservatism.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Why conservatives shouldn’t support ‘Ag-Gag’ laws

Published

on

Why conservatives shouldnt support Ag-Gag laws

For the most part, conservatism is black and white, especially when compared to progressive ideologies that dwell in contradictions and allow activists to make a living telling lies. But there are circumstances that demand a deeper examination and possibly a little soul-searching to help decide which conservative stance should prevail. One example of this is with “Ag-Gag” laws that attempt to prevent undercover filming of animal mistreatment on farms.

There have been so many undercover investigations at farms that it’s becoming hard to be shocked by what goes on at some of them. The mistreatment of animals at some farms is unambiguous; we’re not talking about poor facilities or crowded cages. We’re talking about physically harming animals while they’re alive and feeling pain. In some cases, the pain is clearly intense as some farm workers seem to get a thrill out of it.

Ag-Gag laws make it illegal for people to sneak onto farms with the intention of filming animal cruelty. Many Republicans support these laws because they help the agricultural and livestock industries that have had rough times over recent decades. Some justify it by claiming it’s easy to find abuses in any industry, and piecing together weeks or even months of footage of abuse to make ten minute videos intended to shut a farm down is unfair.

This is a case in which a conservative-backed industry has appealed to conservative lawmakers for protection against a generally progressive activism topic, fighting animal cruelty. It would seem on the surface that Ag-Gag laws are, therefore, conservative. They’re not. They’re an attack on the 1st Amendment, not to mention a preventative measure designed to stop crimes from being exposed.

Should we support American farms, their owners, and their employees? Yes. But that support does not give conservatives license to suppress a part of the 1st Amendment or to ignore crimes like animal cruelty. We must take the high road whenever it’s presented, and in this case that high road means siding with progressive activists to prevent farms and their workers from committing these crimes.

This video from John Stossel shows both sides of the Ag-Gag debate. In the end, he rightly concludes that subverting part of the 1st Amendment and enabling animal cruelty is inexcusable, even in support of the farming industry.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Quick note to #NeverTrump conservatives: Check the policy proposals

Published

on

Quick note to NeverTrump conservatives Check the policy proposals

I was a #NeverTrump conservative. I’ve come to terms with the reality that President Trump, with all his flaws, is promoting a mostly conservative agenda. I also acknowledge that any damage done by carrying over the divisiveness that began in the Obama administration has already been done. I still believe I was right to oppose the President’s nomination, and I’m still extremely happy Hillary Clinton isn’t President.

News today that Mark Sanford is considering joining Bill Weld to run against President Trump in the GOP primaries has drawn some praise from many that I follow on Twitter. I understand their emotional response; many of them are still condemning the President and even wishing Clinton had beaten him in 2016. But there comes a time when we have to take the best that we can get, and today that’s President Trump.

And guess what, folks… it isn’t even close. The country under President Trump is better than it would have been under Hillary Clinton and the future of the country is exponentially better off with him than any of the Democrats running for office.

Look at Joe Biden’s proposal for healthcare. It takes the worst parts of Obamacare, elements that couldn’t be included in the original legislation because it was just too radical, and inserts them to form the Affordable Care Act 2.0. This is a disastrous proposal, one that would insert a cost-driving public option into the mix. If you want to make health insurance companies happy, have the government “compete” against them. They’ll be able to raise costs based on the government’s inefficiency and won’t have to deal with the higher-risk, lower-paying patients who will be forced on the government solution.

Or, consider the push towards open borders. Elizabeth Warren’s plan is de facto open borders, and all of the Democratic candidates will embrace it, just as they embraced her plans for free education, reparations, and anything else they’re calling “free.”

I often hear NeverTrumpers say the President’s foreign policy actions are embarrassing. They chide him for stepping into North Korea. They laugh when a British ambassador calls him an imbecile. But the alternative is a return to the Iran nuclear deal, failures over China policy, and the infamous “flexibility” President Obama had with Russia.

You’re angry because Trump is President. You’re angry because things haven’t imploded as you predicted. But you’re siding with socialists who truly want to destroy America. It’s time to grow up and pick the right side again.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending