Re: Becoming worthy. I don't know you in real life, of course, but from your online life I can see that you put a great deal of effort into hitting all eight of these goals. This is extremely commendable.
I don't know whether that will pay off in some way in the broader world off of Substack, but even if it doesn't you're making a positive difference right now. I disagree with you about many topics, but in my mind you're worthy. Thank you for being you.
RFK’s site, https://www.mahanow.org, has a nomination form to serve in numerous capacities on different areas to help an incoming Trump Admin. to transform government.
I nominated a friend for Elon Musk’s DOGE. He checks all the boxes—ideologically aligned with Vance, brilliant, experienced negotiator, great personality, successful in life (family, career, sports), independently wealthy, willing to sacrifice for the country. And there is not a thing in his background that would blow up in the administration’s face.
My friend, you might not know it, but you are FAR worthier than the Con Inc trash that gets published all of the time by so many outlets on the right. I will match your worst article against their best any day, and you will always come out on top. 👍🏻
There are people who will be made political appointees who are below your demonstrated intellectual level. Just because you are doing deliveries doesn't mean you couldn't rise high in the political game. It's a surprisingly small club.
This is a great article, but it's nearly impossible to share in any but the most radically open-minded spaces, because you allowed the default thumbnail to be "Secret Hitler." If someone isn't familiar with the Lomez Problem, like I wasn't, this article looks to be about something entirely different than it is. I only read it because I'm already familiar with your work.
For my part, I’d be curious about who’s secretly Hitler. It’s the kind of thing I’d want to know.
The picture is actually from a game created by some liberals as some kind of political science experiment. What’s ironic is that they anticipated that some people would consider it too serious to treat in a light manner, but wave off those concerns by directing complainants to email various Republican congressmen. I suspect that the smug progressives who play it get a transgressive thrill out of having 30s Voldemort out for game night with the rest of the software development team.
I mean, I clicked on it, so obviously it piqued my curiosity.
But in the context of the advice you give in this very article, to not put off normies, it's not great. Also generally, it doesn't illustrate the article at all, in the way key art should.
It doesn’t put off normies. They say it does, but deep down they find the phenomenon of evil fascinating. They love Breaking Bad and the Sopranos. It’s fun for them to toy around with things they imagine they’re safe from. There’s a reason they’re playing Secret Hitler and not Chutes and Ladders. If I had called the article Hitler McHitler goes Hitlering it would have gotten more views even than it did with just the picture.
I have no love for Hitler- he’s the product of modernism and democracy, a jumped-up corporal who turned the most civilized nation on earth into a showcase for mass murder and misrule, taking the reputation of rightism into the abyss with him. The point of my Secret Hitler thumbnail was to make a subtle joke at my own expense: an idiot would imagine I’m the same sort of bogeyman while presenting to the world as a mild-mannered schoolteacher.
From personal experience, some bigshots do indeed read our work here. I was messaged on Twitter for permission to reprint one of my pieces for The Blaze. I didn't get it for two weeks because it was stuck in the Message Requests folder that I never check due to it usually being porn-bots.
I said sure, of course, and he said he was still interested in reprinting it. It never happened, but it was a little shocking and an honor to get that attention.
There's a ton of talent available but they're offline and obscure. Anyone clamoring for the job is probably suspect, so we need to find people who are content where they are, and good at what they do.
Honestly some sort of sortition method might be best. To make the list pick a town, remove everyone that's ever voted D, remove everyone that doesn't own property or have a job, and pick ten at random from those that remain. There might be surprising amounts of talent there.
Or do an Apprentice-style deathmatch. Select random groups of 20, have them compete in some way that filters for desired qualities, and give the winners positions.
Any group that discovered a consistent method for revealing and rewarding hidden talent wouldn't win instantly, but over time they'd become unstoppable.
Lower the bar. Politics is a game played by weirdos. Rational people stick to games where there is less faith requirement.
Morton Blackwell founded the Leadership Institute many years ago based on the theory that it's much easier to train a real conservative in the skills of governance than it is to turn a natural politician (or reporter, or bureaucrat) into a true conservative.
Blackwell's definition of a true conservative is obsolete, unless he has evolved with the times. (It's over a quarter century since I took one of his courses.) But the principle is valid. Principle and willingness to work first. Train for competence.
For example, I'd appoint you to work in the Department of Education in a heartbeat. But I wouldn't make you cabinet secretary without evidence of mastery of bureaucrat fu. I suspect you need practice. In terms of raw intellect, you are well above many who have risen high in terms of political appointments. (I'll say more in a private message.) But I don't know based on your posts what your skills are for managing others and dealing with bureaucratic rules, so some testing/practice is in order.
One hunting ground for talented individuals with the right stuff could come from the waves of people from Silicon Valley that took off to sweeter conservative climes powered by stock options and real estate gains. Some left because the atmosphere for raising children became poisonous, others saw no way to coexist in an environment that was clearly corrupt. Others left because rampant meritocracy devolved into cultish slavery. I ran away to save my kids and bought a gentleman’s ranch. Best thing I ever did!
Informal networks of contacts would be a viable solution to finding candidates and having that initial exploratory conversation.
Just an idea. Really enjoyed reading your piece. Thank you for taking my mind off the election.
This is a great article. I really appreciate your insights here, as you've touched a lot of the questions I have as a young writer who can't provide a living from his writing (yet). In particular, this segment meant a lot to me as a new, young writer:
"I can do my part to make the world a better place and advance my principles. I expect to be held accountable for the following:
Is my work of consistently high quality and published regularly?
Am I honest to all parties I address in my work? Am I willing to accept just criticism?
Do I actively engage with my readers? Do I thank them and acknowledge their support?
Do I like and restack the work of my peers? Do I offer meaningful commentary where appropriate? Do I encourage others to read them?
Do I support newer and smaller writers? Am I subscribing to and following people with promise, not merely because they can help me?
Do I seek new challenges as a writer? Do I write about new subjects, or write longer pieces, or just generally try to improve each time?
Do I never accept a lack of reader interest in particular works as anything other than an indication to work harder?
Do I have a meaningful life outside of writing? Do I let this work get in the way of faith, family life, work, or other obligations and duties? Am I the same person under my pseudonym as I am in my own name? Am I a credit to my family and community here, and will my ideas make their world better?
I proceed in my career with total faith that if I am becoming worthy my worthiness will find its proper outlet."
It provides a framework for me to emulate, as well as the assurance that someone I look up to as a writer has people like me in mind.
My day job is as a CPA, but I read copiously when I'm not working and pitching in with my wife to take care of our two boys at home. I started my Substack primarily as an outlet to process the information I take in through my reading and listening to different podcasts. It's been an excellent exercise, but your observation about a class of young writers who are interested in becoming thought leaders without actually getting into the fray hits home. While I'd like to see my work reach a wider audience some day, if I am not getting in the weeds with people around me to practice the things I write about, I'm just a poser and grifter.
On top of the outline you gave in the essay about embodying worthiness, what advice do you have for a young writer like myself to avoid such pitfalls and actually build meaningful networks for positive change?
Thank you for your answer and for always having great content!
The writing I do, that you do, must always be ancillary to the primary work of raising a family and performing a productive role in society. Through your writing, you'll meet people who share your ideas, and through your daily life you'll meet those with whom you have real organic connections. The goal is to link them, to use the work to support the writing and the writing to elevate the ideas that will lead to your real-life circle being enriched. Be the sort of friend you would have and you'll find them.
I remember receiving an email in 2020 for conservatives in education to apply for Trump’s Education department. Unfortunately, he lost and nothing ever came of it.
That said, if he won, and there was a chance I could help reform our schools, I would’ve jumped at the chance. I’m a certified administrator, but have understandable problems with the public school bureaucracy and can actually articulate these concerns. Thus, my advancement would require some change in the system and likeminded reformers in charge.
I appreciate your essay here because it makes the important point that good people are everywhere and we need to stop relying on old credentials and outdated talent assessments to find them. The more I encounter these Ivy League grads and supposed elites, the less I’m impressed by them.
We need to rethink our idea of effective thinkers, communicators, and managers. They’re the ones taking risks already and toiling in obscurity, not the people following the prescribed paths and can parrot the right lines.
Re: seeking talent. I discussed this wonderful essay with my son. He pointed out that emptying N. VA of the blue ticks and scattering them to metros in say OH, could move VA to the right. He picked OH because it has a number of large cities with the required infrastructure and it is solidly red. Other states are great candidates too.
It's sad but you can't necessarily trust or work with people just because they're Right-wing; a fair few on our side are dysfunctional, disagreeable, born contrarians who maybe settled into Right-wing positions the way an edgy teenager takes up black metal - because it pisses people off. They define themselves in permanent opposition, unfortunately this means that eventually they see other Right-wingers as their enemy. I know a contrarian who is obsessed with Jews, over the years he's come to hate every single Right-wing politician and content creator, dissident or not, till he is finally nicely ensconced with his inner circle of 1, his entire worldview reduced to the JQ. These people turn on everyone, sooner or later.
Oh, absolutely. I address that in my piece. Some people adopt contrarian politics as a way of rationalizing their unlikability and general misery. It’s just as easy to imagine them as resentful communists calling everyone sellouts and bourgeois all day. Regarding the JQ person you referenced, the sad thing is everyone who reads this thinks he knows who you’re talking about and I promise everyone is imagining a different person.
I just re-read my comment and realize it may have come off as dismissive of your main idea in this piece. This wasn't my intention. I really think your idea has a lot of merit. I've watched some of the most creative and talented people in the last couple of generations ignored and abandoned to obscurity by a nation that no longer cares to foster the talents of its people. Instead preferring to promote those who display blind loyalty to small cabals rather than those with character and talent. Petty power politics and internecine strife drain firms of their promise more often than not. Careerism is rampant and overrides loyalty and decency. Firms lay off workers for no other reason than to boost a stock price.
One reason startup culture has been admired is it has promoted the image that it is a meritocratic stalwart in a nation of bloated and lazy corporations and bureaucracies. Unfortunately it doesn't often measure up to that ideal even if many of these firms employ people who really want to build something - who hunger for the meaning that comes with completing a beautiful design.
As it often works out startups are largely quick cash grabs pimped out by marketing execs with promises that can never be fulfilled. Teams such as SpaceX and Musk's other companies are real standouts in this regard: firms that build real things that impress and inspire.
Before the neoliberal era men and women of talent were able to rise because businesses and government were hungry for talent. With Trump's victory I feel an optimism I haven't felt in a long time. The goals he and Vance embrace are the rebuilding of our national infrastructure and industry and this will open up tons of opportunities for meaningful work rather than the all-too prevalent bullshit jobs of today. The MAHA element will redirect people out of the business of manufacturing cheap poison to a return to making healthy and quality foods and products.
The boundless optimism and energy of the American people will return to its natural level. Finding and nurturing the best of ourselves is something we urgently require if we are to succeed at this massive project. I think we will find that there are tens, hundreds of thousands of Americans who want very much to live and work performing meaningful labor with integrity and honor.
Whatever ways we can think of to inspire and draw out the best in those around us should be our goal. Some are already putting themselves forward and dislaying their talents. Others will need encouragement to dig their way out of their ennui. When Jordan Peterson started giving his lectures in the 2010s he was overwhelmed with young Americans eager for his message. Now they may very well have access to.the opportunities they so desperately need.
"I think the model of paying people in blue cities to abandon careers to become right wing activists, finding a shortage of prospects, and then expanding the search into the surrounding liberal biome is not sustainable on the long run, and will indeed prove counterproductive."
I agree. Though you've said it in expanded form I agree that financial incentives for people who value principles and faith over finances is ridiculous on the face of it. "Hey maybe we can use MONEY to get these guys who couldn't be bribed and were fired and lost all their money over it!" I would say it's even retarded but it's probably misguided moreso.
My opinion is that if you want men who can withstand battle look for men who have already withstood it. So let's say you could get a list of everyone who was fired from their job over vaccine mandates - that list by itself would probably have more successful hits than looking for right leaning traitors hiding under leftist coattails. Similarly a list of everyone who lost family members over the Trump elections and stood strong, people fired for making fun of fat women, things like that.
I foresee that the weakness of this approach is that you don't necessarily filter for leadership this way. But any army needs far more soldiers than it needs leaders and the right already has a glut of armchair generals. And there are an entire hinterlands full of exiles banished by the establishment left. I'd trust a youtuber with 10,000 subs who got banned because he was critical of Sweet Baby Inc. over any of these recent leftist convert grifter media heads.
Thoughtful and sincere. I like your point about Lomez' blindspot for picking "talent". He does go on about "high status" and I know he's being ironic at times but it's a bit much to be all irony.
The older I get the fewer answers I have. The emergent problems of bureaucracy will never disappear. I used to think if the citizenry didn't live such precarious lives the drive for status and wealth wouldn't be as intense - and morality, integrity and honor would increase. I am no longer sure of that.
It seems to be an integral part of the human condition to strive for power, wealth and status. I see it as deleterious to character and my goal has been to maintain some semblance of honor and integrity rather than ambition but I think it is possible, but rare, for these to coexist within a man.
There is no real answer to the problem you and Lomez discuss since those with ambition will tend to rise above others regardless of moral fiber. It's going to be a messy business however we game it out.
What I will say is one thing that would really help is for those in positions of power to return, in word as well as action, to the undying values you espouse. Neoliberalism is amoral. The easy path to wealth through theft, deceit and "white collar" crime was approved from the top in word and deed when I was a child. The "shut up it makes money" ethos has pervaded our society and tech bros will build any nightmarish technology if it makes them rich. Peter Thiel being no exception.
So I'm going to assume things won't really change in a fundamental way until I see men in positions of power vocally stand up for honesty, integrity, character and honor. I see some of that in people like Musk and RFK Jr who have risked a lot to defend the First Amendment and the health of our republic. And yet there is something lacking in their voices.
The emotional muscle that speaks inspiring words about honor and integrity has withered in all of them. You can hear it in the way they speak. They have no true authority because they refuse to grasp it. We've been overcome by the new mannerism - of speaking with false humility or its circus-mirror reflection in Trump's braggadocio. In all cases simple, plain speech stirring us to our better nature is missing. The scene from LotR you posted is stirring because it does what I'm speaking of.
If we want people to act with honor and integrity we have to demand it of them. Expect it from everyone in everything they do. And that fruit, that sea change in culture, change most of us are hungry for even if we don't know it, cannot ripen from the bottom alone.
If I read you correctly, you're saying that a barstool is no place to look for a wife and Harvard is no place to look for a loyal staffer; the exceptions making the rule.
Re: Becoming worthy. I don't know you in real life, of course, but from your online life I can see that you put a great deal of effort into hitting all eight of these goals. This is extremely commendable.
I don't know whether that will pay off in some way in the broader world off of Substack, but even if it doesn't you're making a positive difference right now. I disagree with you about many topics, but in my mind you're worthy. Thank you for being you.
That’s very kind.
RFK’s site, https://www.mahanow.org, has a nomination form to serve in numerous capacities on different areas to help an incoming Trump Admin. to transform government.
I nominated a friend for Elon Musk’s DOGE. He checks all the boxes—ideologically aligned with Vance, brilliant, experienced negotiator, great personality, successful in life (family, career, sports), independently wealthy, willing to sacrifice for the country. And there is not a thing in his background that would blow up in the administration’s face.
Visit the website (https://www.mahanow.org) and start nominating worthy candidates.
I restacked it for those who might be able to serve.
My friend, you might not know it, but you are FAR worthier than the Con Inc trash that gets published all of the time by so many outlets on the right. I will match your worst article against their best any day, and you will always come out on top. 👍🏻
There are people who will be made political appointees who are below your demonstrated intellectual level. Just because you are doing deliveries doesn't mean you couldn't rise high in the political game. It's a surprisingly small club.
This is a great article, but it's nearly impossible to share in any but the most radically open-minded spaces, because you allowed the default thumbnail to be "Secret Hitler." If someone isn't familiar with the Lomez Problem, like I wasn't, this article looks to be about something entirely different than it is. I only read it because I'm already familiar with your work.
For my part, I’d be curious about who’s secretly Hitler. It’s the kind of thing I’d want to know.
The picture is actually from a game created by some liberals as some kind of political science experiment. What’s ironic is that they anticipated that some people would consider it too serious to treat in a light manner, but wave off those concerns by directing complainants to email various Republican congressmen. I suspect that the smug progressives who play it get a transgressive thrill out of having 30s Voldemort out for game night with the rest of the software development team.
https://www.secrethitler.com/
I mean, I clicked on it, so obviously it piqued my curiosity.
But in the context of the advice you give in this very article, to not put off normies, it's not great. Also generally, it doesn't illustrate the article at all, in the way key art should.
It doesn’t put off normies. They say it does, but deep down they find the phenomenon of evil fascinating. They love Breaking Bad and the Sopranos. It’s fun for them to toy around with things they imagine they’re safe from. There’s a reason they’re playing Secret Hitler and not Chutes and Ladders. If I had called the article Hitler McHitler goes Hitlering it would have gotten more views even than it did with just the picture.
I have no love for Hitler- he’s the product of modernism and democracy, a jumped-up corporal who turned the most civilized nation on earth into a showcase for mass murder and misrule, taking the reputation of rightism into the abyss with him. The point of my Secret Hitler thumbnail was to make a subtle joke at my own expense: an idiot would imagine I’m the same sort of bogeyman while presenting to the world as a mild-mannered schoolteacher.
From personal experience, some bigshots do indeed read our work here. I was messaged on Twitter for permission to reprint one of my pieces for The Blaze. I didn't get it for two weeks because it was stuck in the Message Requests folder that I never check due to it usually being porn-bots.
I said sure, of course, and he said he was still interested in reprinting it. It never happened, but it was a little shocking and an honor to get that attention.
That’s great; I’m sure it will happen again.
There's a ton of talent available but they're offline and obscure. Anyone clamoring for the job is probably suspect, so we need to find people who are content where they are, and good at what they do.
Honestly some sort of sortition method might be best. To make the list pick a town, remove everyone that's ever voted D, remove everyone that doesn't own property or have a job, and pick ten at random from those that remain. There might be surprising amounts of talent there.
Or do an Apprentice-style deathmatch. Select random groups of 20, have them compete in some way that filters for desired qualities, and give the winners positions.
Any group that discovered a consistent method for revealing and rewarding hidden talent wouldn't win instantly, but over time they'd become unstoppable.
Lower the bar. Politics is a game played by weirdos. Rational people stick to games where there is less faith requirement.
Morton Blackwell founded the Leadership Institute many years ago based on the theory that it's much easier to train a real conservative in the skills of governance than it is to turn a natural politician (or reporter, or bureaucrat) into a true conservative.
Blackwell's definition of a true conservative is obsolete, unless he has evolved with the times. (It's over a quarter century since I took one of his courses.) But the principle is valid. Principle and willingness to work first. Train for competence.
For example, I'd appoint you to work in the Department of Education in a heartbeat. But I wouldn't make you cabinet secretary without evidence of mastery of bureaucrat fu. I suspect you need practice. In terms of raw intellect, you are well above many who have risen high in terms of political appointments. (I'll say more in a private message.) But I don't know based on your posts what your skills are for managing others and dealing with bureaucratic rules, so some testing/practice is in order.
One hunting ground for talented individuals with the right stuff could come from the waves of people from Silicon Valley that took off to sweeter conservative climes powered by stock options and real estate gains. Some left because the atmosphere for raising children became poisonous, others saw no way to coexist in an environment that was clearly corrupt. Others left because rampant meritocracy devolved into cultish slavery. I ran away to save my kids and bought a gentleman’s ranch. Best thing I ever did!
Informal networks of contacts would be a viable solution to finding candidates and having that initial exploratory conversation.
Just an idea. Really enjoyed reading your piece. Thank you for taking my mind off the election.
Thank you. It would be great to develop a sideline teaching Classics to rich tech people to help them broaden, should they need it.
This is a great article. I really appreciate your insights here, as you've touched a lot of the questions I have as a young writer who can't provide a living from his writing (yet). In particular, this segment meant a lot to me as a new, young writer:
"I can do my part to make the world a better place and advance my principles. I expect to be held accountable for the following:
Is my work of consistently high quality and published regularly?
Am I honest to all parties I address in my work? Am I willing to accept just criticism?
Do I actively engage with my readers? Do I thank them and acknowledge their support?
Do I like and restack the work of my peers? Do I offer meaningful commentary where appropriate? Do I encourage others to read them?
Do I support newer and smaller writers? Am I subscribing to and following people with promise, not merely because they can help me?
Do I seek new challenges as a writer? Do I write about new subjects, or write longer pieces, or just generally try to improve each time?
Do I never accept a lack of reader interest in particular works as anything other than an indication to work harder?
Do I have a meaningful life outside of writing? Do I let this work get in the way of faith, family life, work, or other obligations and duties? Am I the same person under my pseudonym as I am in my own name? Am I a credit to my family and community here, and will my ideas make their world better?
I proceed in my career with total faith that if I am becoming worthy my worthiness will find its proper outlet."
It provides a framework for me to emulate, as well as the assurance that someone I look up to as a writer has people like me in mind.
My day job is as a CPA, but I read copiously when I'm not working and pitching in with my wife to take care of our two boys at home. I started my Substack primarily as an outlet to process the information I take in through my reading and listening to different podcasts. It's been an excellent exercise, but your observation about a class of young writers who are interested in becoming thought leaders without actually getting into the fray hits home. While I'd like to see my work reach a wider audience some day, if I am not getting in the weeds with people around me to practice the things I write about, I'm just a poser and grifter.
On top of the outline you gave in the essay about embodying worthiness, what advice do you have for a young writer like myself to avoid such pitfalls and actually build meaningful networks for positive change?
Thank you for your answer and for always having great content!
The writing I do, that you do, must always be ancillary to the primary work of raising a family and performing a productive role in society. Through your writing, you'll meet people who share your ideas, and through your daily life you'll meet those with whom you have real organic connections. The goal is to link them, to use the work to support the writing and the writing to elevate the ideas that will lead to your real-life circle being enriched. Be the sort of friend you would have and you'll find them.
This is excellent. Thank you
I remember receiving an email in 2020 for conservatives in education to apply for Trump’s Education department. Unfortunately, he lost and nothing ever came of it.
That said, if he won, and there was a chance I could help reform our schools, I would’ve jumped at the chance. I’m a certified administrator, but have understandable problems with the public school bureaucracy and can actually articulate these concerns. Thus, my advancement would require some change in the system and likeminded reformers in charge.
I appreciate your essay here because it makes the important point that good people are everywhere and we need to stop relying on old credentials and outdated talent assessments to find them. The more I encounter these Ivy League grads and supposed elites, the less I’m impressed by them.
We need to rethink our idea of effective thinkers, communicators, and managers. They’re the ones taking risks already and toiling in obscurity, not the people following the prescribed paths and can parrot the right lines.
Re: seeking talent. I discussed this wonderful essay with my son. He pointed out that emptying N. VA of the blue ticks and scattering them to metros in say OH, could move VA to the right. He picked OH because it has a number of large cities with the required infrastructure and it is solidly red. Other states are great candidates too.
It's sad but you can't necessarily trust or work with people just because they're Right-wing; a fair few on our side are dysfunctional, disagreeable, born contrarians who maybe settled into Right-wing positions the way an edgy teenager takes up black metal - because it pisses people off. They define themselves in permanent opposition, unfortunately this means that eventually they see other Right-wingers as their enemy. I know a contrarian who is obsessed with Jews, over the years he's come to hate every single Right-wing politician and content creator, dissident or not, till he is finally nicely ensconced with his inner circle of 1, his entire worldview reduced to the JQ. These people turn on everyone, sooner or later.
Oh, absolutely. I address that in my piece. Some people adopt contrarian politics as a way of rationalizing their unlikability and general misery. It’s just as easy to imagine them as resentful communists calling everyone sellouts and bourgeois all day. Regarding the JQ person you referenced, the sad thing is everyone who reads this thinks he knows who you’re talking about and I promise everyone is imagining a different person.
I just re-read my comment and realize it may have come off as dismissive of your main idea in this piece. This wasn't my intention. I really think your idea has a lot of merit. I've watched some of the most creative and talented people in the last couple of generations ignored and abandoned to obscurity by a nation that no longer cares to foster the talents of its people. Instead preferring to promote those who display blind loyalty to small cabals rather than those with character and talent. Petty power politics and internecine strife drain firms of their promise more often than not. Careerism is rampant and overrides loyalty and decency. Firms lay off workers for no other reason than to boost a stock price.
One reason startup culture has been admired is it has promoted the image that it is a meritocratic stalwart in a nation of bloated and lazy corporations and bureaucracies. Unfortunately it doesn't often measure up to that ideal even if many of these firms employ people who really want to build something - who hunger for the meaning that comes with completing a beautiful design.
As it often works out startups are largely quick cash grabs pimped out by marketing execs with promises that can never be fulfilled. Teams such as SpaceX and Musk's other companies are real standouts in this regard: firms that build real things that impress and inspire.
Before the neoliberal era men and women of talent were able to rise because businesses and government were hungry for talent. With Trump's victory I feel an optimism I haven't felt in a long time. The goals he and Vance embrace are the rebuilding of our national infrastructure and industry and this will open up tons of opportunities for meaningful work rather than the all-too prevalent bullshit jobs of today. The MAHA element will redirect people out of the business of manufacturing cheap poison to a return to making healthy and quality foods and products.
The boundless optimism and energy of the American people will return to its natural level. Finding and nurturing the best of ourselves is something we urgently require if we are to succeed at this massive project. I think we will find that there are tens, hundreds of thousands of Americans who want very much to live and work performing meaningful labor with integrity and honor.
Whatever ways we can think of to inspire and draw out the best in those around us should be our goal. Some are already putting themselves forward and dislaying their talents. Others will need encouragement to dig their way out of their ennui. When Jordan Peterson started giving his lectures in the 2010s he was overwhelmed with young Americans eager for his message. Now they may very well have access to.the opportunities they so desperately need.
"I think the model of paying people in blue cities to abandon careers to become right wing activists, finding a shortage of prospects, and then expanding the search into the surrounding liberal biome is not sustainable on the long run, and will indeed prove counterproductive."
I agree. Though you've said it in expanded form I agree that financial incentives for people who value principles and faith over finances is ridiculous on the face of it. "Hey maybe we can use MONEY to get these guys who couldn't be bribed and were fired and lost all their money over it!" I would say it's even retarded but it's probably misguided moreso.
My opinion is that if you want men who can withstand battle look for men who have already withstood it. So let's say you could get a list of everyone who was fired from their job over vaccine mandates - that list by itself would probably have more successful hits than looking for right leaning traitors hiding under leftist coattails. Similarly a list of everyone who lost family members over the Trump elections and stood strong, people fired for making fun of fat women, things like that.
I foresee that the weakness of this approach is that you don't necessarily filter for leadership this way. But any army needs far more soldiers than it needs leaders and the right already has a glut of armchair generals. And there are an entire hinterlands full of exiles banished by the establishment left. I'd trust a youtuber with 10,000 subs who got banned because he was critical of Sweet Baby Inc. over any of these recent leftist convert grifter media heads.
Thoughtful and sincere. I like your point about Lomez' blindspot for picking "talent". He does go on about "high status" and I know he's being ironic at times but it's a bit much to be all irony.
The older I get the fewer answers I have. The emergent problems of bureaucracy will never disappear. I used to think if the citizenry didn't live such precarious lives the drive for status and wealth wouldn't be as intense - and morality, integrity and honor would increase. I am no longer sure of that.
It seems to be an integral part of the human condition to strive for power, wealth and status. I see it as deleterious to character and my goal has been to maintain some semblance of honor and integrity rather than ambition but I think it is possible, but rare, for these to coexist within a man.
There is no real answer to the problem you and Lomez discuss since those with ambition will tend to rise above others regardless of moral fiber. It's going to be a messy business however we game it out.
What I will say is one thing that would really help is for those in positions of power to return, in word as well as action, to the undying values you espouse. Neoliberalism is amoral. The easy path to wealth through theft, deceit and "white collar" crime was approved from the top in word and deed when I was a child. The "shut up it makes money" ethos has pervaded our society and tech bros will build any nightmarish technology if it makes them rich. Peter Thiel being no exception.
So I'm going to assume things won't really change in a fundamental way until I see men in positions of power vocally stand up for honesty, integrity, character and honor. I see some of that in people like Musk and RFK Jr who have risked a lot to defend the First Amendment and the health of our republic. And yet there is something lacking in their voices.
The emotional muscle that speaks inspiring words about honor and integrity has withered in all of them. You can hear it in the way they speak. They have no true authority because they refuse to grasp it. We've been overcome by the new mannerism - of speaking with false humility or its circus-mirror reflection in Trump's braggadocio. In all cases simple, plain speech stirring us to our better nature is missing. The scene from LotR you posted is stirring because it does what I'm speaking of.
If we want people to act with honor and integrity we have to demand it of them. Expect it from everyone in everything they do. And that fruit, that sea change in culture, change most of us are hungry for even if we don't know it, cannot ripen from the bottom alone.
If I read you correctly, you're saying that a barstool is no place to look for a wife and Harvard is no place to look for a loyal staffer; the exceptions making the rule.
Being charitable, I’d say they’re at least not the only places.