The difference between righty and lefty extremism

Extremism on the right tends to lead to formation of a nuclear family doing something unusual and outlier-y, which fairly frequently goes nuclear. On the left, extremism tends to strip the extremist of family attachments and not always gain them political or social power, but the right believes that all left extremism works and is effective politically and socially including for the extremists.

This was never all that true, even among the Boomer-aged cohorts and with the Gen X and younger age cohorts it’s fallen apart rapidly. It’s the unseen and the seen from our man Bastiat. With the left, the right tends to believe in political WYSIWYG (the seen), while the left conversely imagines up endless waves of right wing conspiracies behind every door (the unseen).

The right looks at what it sees with the left being occasionally successful with screaming and hysterics and assumes lefties get everything they want via screaming and hysterics all the time, constantly.  The left interprets its successes over the right as failures proving there’s endless right wing conspiracies to prevent them from total and complete dominance.

Supporting the support: Junior Classics reprint indiegogo project

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-junior-classics#/

Redacted Press is reprinting the first, 1918 edition of the Junior Classics.  The collection is mostly original, with some small additions from the 1958 edition.

The project can only be accessed via direct links like the one above.  If you’re interested in supporting beautiful, quality republications of excellent old texts, then this is a good project to back.  Any level of support is allowed, as far as I can tell.  It’s not required to pick a perk, although the perks are pretty sweet ones.  The project is 772% funded as of this posting.

ETA 10/31/2019: I’m stickying this post until the campaign ends in a fortnight because it’s truly an astonishing response.  It is 1040%  1148% (11/4) 1372% (11/11) 1437% (11/12) 1513% (11/13) 1809% (11/14 with eight hours left) funded.

Final ETA: The campaign ended at $566,247 with over 1900 backers and at 2055% of the original goal.  I’ll leave it stickied today and then move forward.  This was really a joy to watch the progress of.  There were even donations (backing multiple times or in multiple formats to give these books to others who couldn’t afford to support even at the digital level).

When having children in wedlock is antisocial, antisocial people are married parents.

It’s counterintuitive, it sounds a little mad, but it’s true.  Children born in the last 25 years or so have been and are raised to a large degree by people who don’t care for and/or understand social norms, because otherwise they wouldn’t have violated them by having kids.  These people are mostly married parents, but some are unmarried parents (except that a big chunk of them eventually marry, which is why we haven’t really budged from the single-parent percentages we rose to as a society in the wake of the Pill).

It’s antisocial to have kids after you get married.  It’s antisocial to have more than one kid.  Yes, that includes twins.  It’s not completely antisocial to be a single mother, but it’s kind of antisocial to be a single father.

Now this is the part where married parents point out that since they live in a bubble consisting almost entirely of other married parents that they aren’t antisocial and that since having kids is biologically natural, how are they antisocial doing the natural biological thing?

Welcome to modern, technology-driven life.  Or as some wags put it, Clown World.  The unnatural is more socially accepted than the natural-biological.  That’s where we really are.  Pretending otherwise is deepening the divide and worsening the difficulty of transitioning back to an environment where having children, plural after marriage is socially harmonious and accepted.

But wait, it gets worse.  “The unnatural is more socially accepted” doesn’t mean people actually approve of or like the unnatural.  It just means they know that they’d better say it’s tolerable if they want to have any social contact with other people beyond the immediate family at all.  Including the work-for-a-paycheck kind.  Anti-natal society isn’t very socially harmonious or cohesive.  And this leads to viewing natural-biological socialization (marrying and then having kids together) as a problem because you can’t escape the inherent minimal level of socialization and cohesion a nuclear family provides by default.  Taking individualism up to the level of the nuclear family is destructive to said families in the longer term, but each individual family can still get something otherwise denied them in an anti-natal society– social contact that is not dependent on the external society that hates their irreducible cohesion.

And because marriage is a wealth extraction and maintenance program, nuclear families can circle each other’s orbits and carve out a rocky, inferior, but still present kind of socialization mostly separate from regular society.

Because we live in Clown World, a 28 year old urban journalist has higher social status and social approval than a same-aged married couple with twins who make 4x that journalist’s income.  How do we know?  The extraordinary explosion in 21+ only environments, including social events like weddings and birthday parties and company picnics.  That’s not something you do if the group “married parents” is one you want the social approval of.

But, of course, that married couple, being antisocial, is perfectly happy to be cut off from much of their urban city environment and may well have a third child a few years later.  Part of the lack of support for raising kids is that antisocial people, by definition, are prone to really like the miserable environment we have and prefer not having to deal with icky socially normal levels of interaction.