An Argentinian variant of Italian fascism with stuff from German National Socialism that took an unexpected turn and led to a globalist and progressive ideology. Menemism was a conservative variant but not faithful to the doctrine and from that new generation arose Kirchnerism.

Chile is the poster child for extreme economic inequality in a developed country. I spent time there last year for my book (which has a chapter on Chile) and what I found hardest to understand is why there wasn't more political unrest. Now there

A few choice facts about Chile and inequality:

In Chile, the social security system is basically designed to redistribute wealth from the masses to the rich, because workers are required to put their savings into private investment funds that charge ridiculous fees.

The commitment to private industry runs deep. If the available water is sufficient either for drinking or growing avocados... well, you get the idea.

The result in Chile is two worlds, side by side.

And what is most remarkable is that, for the longest time, even the ostensibly left-wing parties were on board. Chile's socialists basically don't like socialism.

There is a recent new word in Chinese that I think deserves introducing into the Western neoreactionary canon.

The word is 内卷 (nei-juan) which has been translated as "involution". Originally a Chinese phenomenon it increasingly applies anywhere there is modernity.

To capture the essence of what "involution" means it helps to picture a spiral in your mind. Our modern narrative says that as we progress technologically we should progress OUT of the spiral and have more free time to be capable of ever more amazing things...

But what if the progression of technology and society actually sends us WITHIN the spiral in an infinite number of ever-decreasing circles? What if we are walking DOWN the spiral staircase of progress rather than UP?

"Involution" in its original meaning has been used to describe agrarian societies and how their development actually leads to self-perpetuating processes that prevent change and progress rather than encourage it.

Increased food production has limited many civilisations and sent them into stagnancy rather than allowed them to grow. This stagnancy can continue for millennia in safe environments till threatened, other times it drives the civilisation into extinction from external threats.

KILLMONGER'S DIARY

Fuck Africa. I'm American. Any African mad at dem words, kick rocks. Don't like it, jump ship. Back 2 Africa. Need receipts. How much yall made off us? U think we didn't know? Mafucka, we the vibranium that made Africa pop. We werent stole. We were sold.

Yall sold us. Then yall hv the audacity 2 come here, pass as American niggas, lecture us about racism & white supremacy, police our emotion, critique our anger & then U have the bravado 2 lecture us about fighting when yall let Europeans come & take yall shit? Fuck out of here.

Immigrants by nature unpatriotic. When times got tough, you left your country. You abdicated the responsibility to make your country better. You didn't fight. You ran. We didn't leave. We stayed. We fighters. Yall runners. Ain't know runner can tell a fighter about a damn thing.

"Erik U dont understand. We wouldve been killed." So the fuck what. We died fo our shit, but yall weren't willing 2 die for yours & now U come here trying 2 cut the line & take our place & Bitch, dont be calling me by my 1st name. We aint cool like that. Thats Mr. Killmonger 2 U.

& we ain' family. I dont play crayola politics so I dont care we got da same skin color. I ain't got no Melanin infatuation like the rest of deese niggas. I's knows what yall done did to us. I gives as much afuck about Africans as George Jefferson gave about Archie Bunker.

This thread was inspired by @PrinceGanaku. He made a legal argument pushing back against the legalization of homophobia, which some like @konkrumah have happily advocated.

I come from an academic background in social and political philosophy. I wanna make a moral argument 1/x.

Homosexuality is better defined as sexual attraction in homogeneity. The claims made against this phenomenon have been drawn anywhere from biological science to majoritarianism in democracy. I would like to pick and tackle three of these: science, religion and majoritarianism

The search for what makes one gay, sensationally-named the Gay Gene, has dominated the scientific discourse on the matter. Science is reductionist materialism

The attraction btwn man and woman is thought to have been reduced to a material cause in our being so what about gays?

But have we really reduced heterosexual attraction to its material cause in our biology? The best answer is no.

I would encourage anyone to seek this: "what is the cause of heterosexual attraction" and I would confidently tell you that the science is inconclusive

We don't know

We have no idea WHY usually, those we call male are attracted in sexual biological and neurological terms to those we call female.

We know HOW it happens. That is to say we can explain observable phenomena like hormones and receptors moving but we don't know WHY men like women.