Is Neo Con Gay Marriage Rights to Blame for the Rise of the Trans Movement?
This stream-of-consciousness set of notes explores the decline of intellectual conservatism in favor of populism, critiques progressive dominance in media, academia, and culture, and reflects on generational shifts toward economic pragmatism and individualist morality. It also questions groupthink, the role of identity in capitalism, and the intellectual isolation faced by young conservatives in elite institutions.
Main Questions
Who leads conservative ideology—intellectuals or populists?
Why do youth and media glorify the L.A. lifestyle of drugs and promiscuity?
Is this glorification driven by capitalism or left-wing propaganda?
Was the trans movement a reaction to neoconservatives supporting gay marriage?
Is it now the era of "contra-contrarians"?
Is the American mindset superior to Europe’s groupthink culture?
Why is American legal philosophy based on outdated European or theological ideas?
Do all people have individual rights, or just Americans?
Is killing bad people morally acceptable?
Why do cultural insiders often push against the cultures they understand best?
Is there value in contrarianism rooted in cultural understanding?
Is Curtis Yarvin the modern-day Thoreau?
Why are conservative student groups common, but student governments mostly progressive?
Why can’t conservatives have hobbies like liberals do?
What should we read and learn about?
What lectures or readings do you recommend?
Is it worth it for PhDs to study Greek texts?
What are friends, and are they even real?
Why don’t students unite through shared notes to challenge professors?
Why did you choose to ignore philosophy?
In contemporary conservative circles, a quiet yet profound crisis unfolds: the fading prominence of intellectual conservatism in the face of rising populist sentiments. Historically, intellectual conservatives like William F. Buckley provided nuanced philosophical underpinnings to right-wing thought. Today, however, the intellectual right finds itself overshadowed, often eclipsed by populist rhetoric and figures who dominate public perception and influence.
This ideological shift prompts key questions: Who truly guides conservative ideology today—intellectuals or populists? Initially, the populists appeared to follow the intellectuals. Yet, in a dramatic reversal, populism has effectively dismantled the once robust neoconservative intellectual foundation.
Simultaneously, progressive dominance across media, academia, and culture has become a catalyst for introspection among young conservatives, particularly in elite institutions. The intellectual isolation faced by these students, who balance their academic pursuits against prevailing cultural tides, reveals deeper tensions within the educational and cultural spheres.
Moreover, this period of ideological realignment has spotlighted distinct generational shifts. Economic pragmatism and individualist morality increasingly resonate with Generation Z, driven by intense competition for jobs, status, and even romantic connections. The result: a forced economic realism that favors lucrative career paths like law and finance over more traditionally enjoyable or creative pursuits.
Central to these debates are questions of morality and rights. American legal philosophy, deeply rooted in European and theological foundations, faces criticism as outdated. Is America's robust individualism inherently superior to Europe’s collectivist tendencies, which some dismiss as groupthink? Furthermore, do individual rights inherently extend beyond American borders? Such questions probe the foundational ideals upon which modern conservatism and liberal democracy stand.
Contrarianism itself merits scrutiny. While often praised for challenging societal norms, contrarian views—particularly those advocating moral relativism or questioning fundamental ethical standards—can breed inconsistencies. For instance, the morality of taking lives is widely condemned, yet killing "bad people" often receives tacit approval. This highlights the deeply flawed and inconsistent American moral framework.
Youth culture further complicates these dynamics, particularly with its glorification of an extravagant L.A. lifestyle characterized by drugs, promiscuity, and luxury. Is this a capitalist phenomenon, leveraged by consumerism and corporate interests, or rather a manifestation of left-wing cultural propaganda?
This tension also manifests in the rise of the trans movement, which some argue emerged as a reaction against conservative openings toward gay marriage, notably advocated by neoconservatives like Dick Cheney. Meanwhile, cultural insiders frequently promote contrarian ideas that challenge their own roots, often driven by deep self-awareness or capitalist incentives, particularly visible in communities and markets centered around sexual identities and orientations.
Curtis Yarvin, a figure gaining traction in contrarian circles, is frequently compared to Thoreau. Like Thoreau’s Walden, Yarvin’s writings challenge prevailing norms, though with distinctly modern implications, suggesting we may be entering a "contra-contrarian" era.
This ideological tension permeates student life in elite institutions. Conservative student groups and journals exist, yet progressive groups dominate student governments and campus culture. This disparity raises concerns about intellectual diversity and suggests implicit social pressures against conservative thought and identity. Why must conservatives sacrifice their hobbies or interests, unlike their liberal counterparts who freely blend political beliefs and personal pursuits?
Indeed, conservative philosophy itself advocates individual intellectual growth, yet conservatives often face ridicule or social isolation for pursuing diverse interests beyond politics.
Education and intellectual engagement also warrant reflection. Is studying classical Greek philosophy worthwhile, especially for those seeking advanced degrees? Rather than superficial comprehension aimed at passing exams, genuine intellectual exploration should be encouraged, fostering deep understanding and reflection.
Finally, these discussions provoke existential reflections on friendship and communal relations. What constitutes genuine friendship, particularly within the context of ideological isolation? The collective power of students to challenge academic orthodoxy remains largely untapped, leaving many intellectual conservatives frustrated yet hopeful for greater unity and advocacy.
Ultimately, intellectual conservatism faces a crossroads, balancing thoughtful critique and pragmatic realism amid populist currents. Reclaiming intellectual rigor and ideological consistency may be essential for its renewal, demanding courage from a new generation willing to navigate complex social, cultural, and philosophical terrains.
OG Video Notes
There’s a huge difference between intellectual conservatives like Buckley and just social conservatives. One is interested in understanding the underlying principles; the other is just populist. The question is: which one leads the ideology and which one follows? It’s not clear anymore. If anything, the reverse happened—the populists killed the right-wing intellectuals, a.k.a. the neocons.
Why have youth and media glorified the L.A. lifestyle—drugs, hookers, and promiscuous sex? Is it just capitalist or left-wing propaganda?
More conservatives should be former artists.
Metaphysics is still cool.
Law school and investment banking in Monterey pay off. It’s a good idea, and a good thesis for Gen Z: we’re being forced to be greedy. Economically, we’re fucked, and the competitive markets are only getting more competitive—for jobs, positions, and even love. These factors push us to be more fiscally direct—chasing money at its source instead of choosing random enjoyable careers or industries.
No mention of CS, engineering, or even medical school seems wack.
The trans thing was probably a liberal swing after Dick Cheney and the neocons opened the door to gay marriage.
Hobbes? It’s contra-contrarians’ time now.
We’re told not to smoke—so therefore, it must be good? The contrarian view isn’t always correct; it just depends on the basis of the debate.
The idea of the individual being bad versus groupthink is intriguing. But isn’t the American mindset better than the highly organized groupthink of Europe?
Why is American legal philosophy based on outdated European beliefs or “forgotten” theological foundations?
So only Americans have rights? Do all people on Earth have a right to individual rights?
I’d say yes. American ideals of rights are the only correct thesis. Even if they’re inventions, they must be invested in and expanded. If you say no, you’re just Dick Cheney or anti-human.
Right and wrong are self-made in reality—but also fakery created by society. Killing people is seen as bad, but if you kill bad people, is it fine?
This is clearly flawed. The American moral system is deeply inconsistent. Each individual should define their own view of right and wrong—not let society decide for them.
Trump commits extreme sexual scandals, but it’s generally ignored because of his value to society. The interviewer overlooks the individual’s value outweighing their flaws or corruption.
Oh shit—memetics. Did Rijzard read Marx? I haven’t read him yet, lol.
Yes, gay marriage probably caused deep issues in society. But why were so many neocons secretly gay?
How is it that those who deeply understand culture often push for its opposite? Is there a good idea here—some truth in contrarian thinking born of deep understanding?
Still, if you’re financially invested in gay culture and the corporate “gay dollar,” you’re more likely to push it. Personally, I profit from “gayism”—both through investments and self-understanding. The best fashion people are all gay or bisexual.
Gays are good for the economy but bad for the deeper social fabric. I might support a moral pushback or reversal.
But again—I profit off the growth of homosexuality via stock in Grindr, Match Group, and Bumble, and through investments in woke companies and makeup brands.
Gays are better consumers than women.
They are the capitalist consumerist’s wet dream.
Is Curtis Yarvin the modern Walden?
On pushback: elites publicly act progressive but are privately conservative.
There are lots of conservative students, but no major professors.
How come every college has a conservative org or writing journal, but the student governments are always progressive, and the Democrat clubs are bigger than the Republican ones?
True—transcripts and jobs matter. It's way harder to pursue STEM, finance, art, or anything I like while being openly conservative.
I like both the fashion club and the conservative club, but I’m told to choose.
Why can’t conservatives have hobbies too? Liberals do.
Lawsuits mean nothing if they change nothing. Real change needs capital, infrastructure, and direct “violence”—not physical, but intellectual attacks and maximizing conflict costs for the other side while minimizing your own.
LMAO—Twitter fights. Yes, they’re not intellectually rigorous.
Humans have more than 6 hours of intellectual energy.
Figuring out what to do is important. What to read? What to learn?
No American should take a bland vacation.
What lectures or readings did you like or recommend?
Never seen your other papers. Would love to read them!
The intellectual suffering is real. I’ve been doing it since early teens. I love it—the self-sacrifice is great.
Reading a lot, fast, is cool.
Is it worth it for PhDs to study Greek texts? I’d try it for fun, but also maybe just read the texts instead of doing quizzes. If you only learn to pass a quiz, you're not learning deeply.
Groupthink suffering—lol.
Why doesn’t the class unite on notes to push back against the professor?
LMAO—I love the Chinese protégés. Real students don’t need to pay attention in class. Students should be able to think and study what they want during lectures. A truly enjoyable class is like music—you can listen while doing something else.
Real—let people pull a Walden for everyone.
Yeah, affirmative action screwed both Asians and whites. It helped a few, but hurt most.
If your own college hates you, you’re probably right about what’s wrong with the local society.
The overregulation of women has led to under-innovation and lack of creativity.
True—most of my Ivy friends are just socialized into Ivy groupthink progressivism.
Some of them don’t even read or understand things deeply. It’s scary.
Philosophy is very important. What made you ignore it?
Ancient philosophy isn’t so ancient.
Mentor advice: do what you're good at or what you love.
LMAO—the Jewish-owned bookstore. I watched the documentary on it.