Seeing Greene

Addressing David's objections

This past weekend I published a manifesto outlining my plan to castrate the Left through coalitional dealmaking under a pro-white, pluralist, and vitalist framework.

Yesterday the inimitable

Dave Greene

responded to my article with a note I’ll be addressing in its entirety here, as most exchanges tend to get lost in notes and it’s very important that everyone see my arguments are much better than Dave’s.

---

Walt Bismark finally posted an outline of his ideas in full. As such, I am going to assume that these propositions are serious and proper objects for critique, not just provocative performance art. As such, I intend to provide push-back.

I wouldn’t expect anything less from Dave Green!

I do appreciate the author for putting the essay together, but I think there are a lot of problems with the author’s political plan.

First, it's full of contradictions.

Most notably, you can see this in Walt's idea to "Win Back White Women" while "Running up the score with young white guys" which involves simultaneously giving young men license to "break social norms" while providing their female counterparts with avenues to financially devastate them with alimony settlements for situationships. This is a glaring contradiction that will require a mass propaganda campaign to cover up, and even that probably wouldn't work. Otherwise, the net effect would be alienating both parties when they realize that you are lying to them.

This isn’t a contradiction in the slightest, and I’m not lying to anyone. Dave is either severely misstating my views here or seems not to have read my piece very carefully.

Literally nowhere do I offer women alimony for “situationships.” I’m very specifically offering them alimony for engagements lasting multiple years wherein the man ends the relationship past the woman’s peak SMV. This is grotesquely antisocial behavior that causes women to become femcel man-haters in their thirties, and we need to alter the legal incentive structure to make men less morally lazy in their dating habits.

If David actually read my piece, he’d understand that my offers to men and women are orthogonal and not oppositional. The promises I’m offering to women deal with marital engagement, coerced / ambiguous consent in casual hookups, and involuntary pornography. The promises I’m offering to men as part of my “Barstool Conservative” platform involve destigmatizing things like age gaps in adult relationships, mutually inebriated sex, and the male gaze.

There is literally nothing contradictory about offering both of these platforms simultaneously, because they deal with completely different issues. But the venerable Dave can’t grasp this because he’s a rigidly ideological thinker who insists on painting the world with a broad brush. As such, he can’t conceive that we might conjoin elements of traditionalism and modernism to generate a positive sum outcome for factions that seem intractably opposed under his crusty Gen X framework.

I should also note here that Walt’s proposed trade-off of emotional support for male promiscuity combined with legal wealth transfers for women to offset its consequence is the OPPOSITE of what a good sexual compromise would look like, which should involve EMOTIONAL support to women while transferring more FINANCIAL resources to men to make them better marriage prospects.

Horrible take.

Dave is probably too far removed from young people to realize this, but most of the problems in the current dating market involve Zoomer men being unagentic pussies who are too afraid to approach women thanks to crippling anxiety, falling testosterone levels, overly accessible porn, and a culture that abhors male sexuality.

In my piece I propose measures to address these problems both directly (by curbing endocrine disruptors and offering men free rehabilitation for porn addiction) and obliquely (by taking measures to reduce mass sexual trauma in young women).

But a big part of this impulse must be encouraging an assertive laddishness in younger guys, because your typical 20 year old dude these days has all the masculine presence and sexual confidence of a middle schooler. Your average young man needs a lot more emotional support than your average young woman, whose self esteem is perpetually buttressed by an unlimited reserve of Tinder matches and Instagram likes.

Young men need to be encouraged by older guys (by which I mean men my age, not someone as old as Dave) to be more aggressive and ask women out. And yes, this is entirely aligned with my efforts to curb female sexual trauma, because as my girlfriend Alyssa pointed out in our pod together, women are vastly more comfortable around sexually assertive men than guys who are covert about their intentions.

Anyway, in terms of transferring financial resources to men, I fully agree with David. Young men should read my job stacking guide so they can learn how to make $450k per year by age 28 scamming woke megacorporations. They should then use their newfound wealth and status to obtain a buxom housewife they proceed to impregnate multiple times per year. This is the way you secure your imagined trad future, not by operating a dour integralist blackpill pharmacy.

Second, a lot of Walt's ideas are notably unoriginal. Most of the propositions he lists in his essay are slight variations on the old neo-con talking points that I remember seeing in the California Republican party in the early 2000s, and which famously ended in disaster.

Some examples here would be Walt's presumption that, because Brahmin families tend to be socially conservative, therefore Indians are somehow a getable voting block for the right. This is IDENTICAL to the mistake California Republicans made with Hispanics. Admittedly, the proposition does have a kind of logic to it, but it doesn't work because of how real human social dynamics operate at a group level.

Individually, elite members of socially conservative minority groups go through the same progressive education that we all do to get ahead. And they are always INDIVIDUALLY benefited by playing along with the regime's anti-whiteness ideology rather than taking a risk to stand against it. Furthermore, on a collective level, the overall group interests will always be against the native population for as long as mass immigration increases their overall share of the voting population.

I am notably someone who doesn't care about race when building individual alliances. But I recognize history, and this strategy does not work at scale.

Three points:

1. You obviously can’t map a heuristic developed around Aztec farm equipment to a population of software engineers descended from their nation’s priestly caste.

2. Dave is exhibiting the very obnoxious tendency of Californians to inappropriately apply the Californian experience to everywhere else in the country. I grew up in Arizona (where the Hispanics are as bad as they are in Cali) so I understand this impulse, but I changed my tune after moving to Florida, where courting Hispanics has been an incredibly effective strategy for Republicans. For example, in the 2022 midterms Ron DeSantis very famously flipped Miami, which is full of middle class Cubans and Venezuelans who map a lot more closely to Brahmin Indians than the four foot tall Mayan peasants in Dave’s backyard.

3. Nowhere in my piece did I advocate for continued Indian immigration (in fact I advocated the opposite), and I also didn’t suggest we make a play for winning the Indian American vote as a whole. My goal is to prevent Brahmins from occupying the same metapolitical role as Jews in the twentieth century by working with select allies like Vivek and my BFF Rajeev to bolster opposition to further immigration while building space for white advocacy / Castizo Futurism in the discourse.

Similarly, Walt’s idea that conservatives can win Jewish support by… uh… flattering Jewish people and supporting Israel harder has a lot of problems. Do I even need to explain to readers that this has been done before? Good grief, I don't think I have ever seen a political party more deeply fellate a constituency that consistently VOTED AGAINST THEM. It might be unique in human history.

So how is Walt’s deal going to suddenly start working now? It’s unclear. The deal certainly can’t be getting Jewish votes and dollars in exchange for flattery and financial support for Israel. The deal can’t even be getting reciprocated praise for gentile whites. Otherwise, these things ALREADY would have happened sometime in the last 40 years.

Again, not what I was advocating.

Jews aren’t even numerous enough for me to care about their votes, I am interested in accessing the resources and rhetorical talents of a select group of elites who I expect to behave in an entirely self-interested manner. Instead of merely pointing and laughing at them, or acting like a cool exhausted above-it-all Gen Xer, we need to exploit the pressure Jews are under from third world student protestors to extract useful metapolitical concessions and pressure them where possible to identify as white.

This is completely different from the Bush-era philosemitism that David alludes to because Jews are no longer in control of the GOP and Boomer sensibilities are rapidly fading. This time we have all the leverage.

Dave needs to realize it’s possible for circumstances to change in a way that impacts the relative viability of various tactics. He should take note of shifting conditions on the ground and make some effort to update his stale Butt Rock mid-aughts priors.

Still, a worse idea is Walt's notion that paying trillions of dollars of Slavery Reparations to Blacks will be a "poison pill" for the regime’s reigning racial ideology. Could we pay reparations and in exchange undo Affirmative action, eliminate DEI, and wake white people out of their individualist complacency?

Probably not.

Once more we have to begin by recognizing that this is not a new or radical idea, this is a David Brook's article from 5 years ago, and I think I've seen similar think-pieces from conservative-leaning Atlantic writers in the early 2000s.

It’s really annoying how Dave completely ignores the specifics of my proposals and instead maps everything onto something from his distant Bush-era youth. Unlike any of the cuckservatives he cites, I am operating under a framework that accepts HBD and is explicitly focused on undermining the epistemics of white guilt.

My proposal is substantively different from anything Dave mentions, but Dave needs to play the aloof hipster who has seen everything and is so terribly bored with my optimistic and forward-thinking late millennial exuberance. And so he willfully characterizes my proposal as a lot less interesting and innovative than it actually is.

Still despite how many people suggest this idea, it will never work. The exchange Walt imagines will never be honored

THAT IS THE LITERAL POINT.

The entire purpose of reparations, as I clearly state in my article, is to provoke black people into betraying their promise and thereby undermine white guilt in a much more permanent way than typically occurs in the course of America’s dysfunctional cycle of reverence and hatred for blacks.

I am really starting to suspect that Dave only briefly skimmed my essay.

The critical distinction we need to be aware of Is between the things our government WILL DO and things that our government WILL NEVER DO.

Things our government WILL DO:

1. Payout mass entitlements to client groups on the order of trillions

2. Print money to obscure the connection between said payouts and the middle-class tax burden

3. Funnel entitlements paid to individuals BACK into activist groups to lobby for MORE entitlements

Things our government WILL NEVER DO:

1. End Affirmative Action

2. Purge DEI bureaucrats either at the state or corporate level

3. Stop teaching progressive ideology that supports DEI principles to all prospective professionals in college

How do I know this? Well because for the last 60 years, the government HAS been doing the former despite repeated popular opposition, and HAS NOT been doing the latter despite repeated popular support. A deal where your enemies get realizable promises and you get fake promises is a bad deal by definition.

In this case Dave is just demonstrably wrong, and I feel very embarrassed for him that he would post something so retarded.

Affirmative Action is being rolled back as we speak. This process will take time, but we’ve made sizable victories and it’s well underway. Also items 2 and 3 are literally being implemented at the state level all across the country.

Dave should remember that not everyone lives in a progressive shithole like California or New Jersey. Here in the Free State of Florida that shit doesn’t fly.

And there are similar problems with the idea that operations will change the cultural dynamic. While Walt understands, from the history of racialized entitlements, that reparations will not satisfy the Black community. But he does not seem to understand from the same history, that reparations will not outrage the White community.

As 80 years of debt-based government waste shows us, middle-class people aren’t outraged by line items on a budget, regardless of the digits behind them. As for the symbolism, White Americans don’t object to racialized humiliation as long as they have been educated to accept it by people that they perceive as high status. Never forget that the explicitly genocidal anti-white EFF party in South Africa still has some white supporters. You can’t outrage people out of these habits.

Another straightforwardly retarded take.

I know Dave is getting on in years and his memory probably isn’t what it used to be, but he should recall that Ronald Reagan twice secured a landslide victory by exploiting ferocious hostility from the white middle class toward black “welfare queens” who were exploiting Great Society programs.

This maneuver was so effective that Bill Clinton famously adopted the same strategy in his triangulation against the 90s GOP, hence his famous declaration that “the era of big government is over.” It wasn’t until very recently that advocating for extensive redistribution was even politically possible in America.

Also, affirmative action was recently overthrown and a massive legal infrastructure has emerged to undermine it specifically because of outrage from the white community (safely masked as outrage from or on behalf of the Asian community). Similarly, the Alt Right emerged largely in response to antiwhite racial humiliation, and thanks to our efforts the worst excesses of that era have mostly disappeared from public life.

All this is not to say that I don’t like Walt. He is a good guy, and I am a big fan of his old Disney parodies. However, I think he makes a bunch of fundamental mistakes in thinking about politics.

First, he doesn’t respect or learn from past failed efforts by the conservative movement. He proposes things, that while technically possible, rely on everything working perfectly with none of the complexities that have sunk previous efforts in the same direction.

I like you too, Dave. Honest Injun.

But I am right here and you are wrong.

I am not advocating the same thing as past iterations of the conservative movement, and you should be a little less smug and supercilious when engaging with my ideas. Instead of finding a David Brooks article that is vaguely similar to my suggestions, you should actually look at the details of what I propose and assess how my platform differs from what was tried in the past.

I am not ignorant about HBD or naive about Jews. I am not an adherent of the magic soil hypothesis. I am not a colorblind civnat, and I don’t think you can trust average IQ people to make good decisions absent a firmly paternalistic incentive structure.

But unlike you, I recognize that the world can change in a way that necessitates tactical flexibility. I also update my priors when experience gives me data that challenges my current heuristics and mental models.

Unlike you, I’m not always fighting the last war.

And unlike you, I present an exciting and invigorating vision for the future that inspires young men to follow me into battle in pursuit of my vision. I’m bellowing a victory march while you chant a requiem. And that’s why Zoomers like our mutual friend

John Arcto

vastly prefer my approach over yours:

To complicate this, I also notice that Walt relies on a level of secrecy and privacy that the very existence of his articles undermines. This is most obvious in his contradictory approach to sexual norms, which MIGHT be reconciled if kept absolutely private, but which will NEVER work once they are loudly proclaimed on social media.

That’s because this is Substack, where everyone can handle the nuances of a private position poorly scalable to low IQ normies.

But judging from the comments of your followers on Twitter, I can certainly see why this is something that concerns you. Take, for instance, this knuckle-dragger:

A similar problem exists with the handling of Walt’s pro-life issue. I have been a pro-life skeptic of the strategy of focusing on Roe-v Wade for years. However, if we follow Walt’s lead and PUBLICALLY disparage pro-lifers for being pro-life all while effusively flattering long-time enemies, we can kiss the hopes of an anti-progressive movement goodbye. No one is going to join a coalition that rhetorically throws its loyal soldiers under the bus the minute it becomes convenient to do so, progressives never do this.

I’m not suggesting we publicly disparage pro-lifers.

I’m suggesting that we chastise pro-life maximalists who push for maximally onerous abortion restrictions without giving any thought to political sustainability, because this is what provokes a thermostatic backlash that normalizes partial birth abortion.

This is the only sensible policy. Most people (including most Republicans) are centrists at best on the abortion issue, and the only way to meaningfully progress toward the world you desire is to change hearts and minds at the grassroots level.

Otherwise you, Dave Greene, are murdering babies.

Lastly, I think Walt suffers from a bit of “main-character syndrome” as he frequently assures his audience that he and his friends will be able to succeed in the brinksmanship when many many many others have failed before. I guess the idea is that everyone else who tried this previously was a low-IQ redneck Chud who couldn't get shit done? But I know this isn’t the case witnessing the California Republican party led by very competent people.

I probably am more competent than them, but the real issue is they were in California.

Walt is always ready to remind readers of his elite status. And I do appreciate the success he has had making parody videos and job-stacking (though his bragging about sexual exploits is cringe and low-class).

I never pretended to be high class. I’m just a very white trash guy with an extremely high IQ and a lot of money.

And I don’t really brag about my sexual exploits so much as recount them in a neutral way to give an example of what works to Zoomer guys. You need to allow for some amount of this behavior if you want to facilitate effective intrasexual mentorship.

It’s not the role of a dour tradcath father to teach young guys how to approach women—it’s the role of a successful single guy 5-10 years older than them.

However, does Walt Bismark’s brilliance somehow outshine the previous Californian Republican leaders who I have known in the past: all Ivy-League graduates, college football stars, Corporate Executives, and successful Start-up founders?

Probably.

Anyway, I’m not operating in Fagifornia (again, an overwhelmingly Democrat state full of soft effeminate people), and am not especially interested in its political history.

I’m in the Free State of Florida, where strategies like mine have been very effective in recent years. We’re on the cutting edge of efforts to dismantle the wokeocracy, so I refuse to let you blackpill me with your postapocalyptic blue state sensibilities.

I guess I will end my critique here. I know Bismark has asked for debate, and I may in the future. as my schedule permits. However, I hope that these initial critiques serve to sober up the conversation and remove the chaff from the arguments so we don’t end up repeatedly listing the same talking points.

We don’t need sobriety.

We need enthusiasm. We need energy. We need balls.

That’s what I am offering in the Walt Right.

---

Whenever I read Dave’s work I notice he talks a lot about being exhausted. He calls things tiresome a lot, and talks a lot about being bored.

This lack of energy and vitality really isn’t healthy, even for someone Dave’s age.

I think what he needs is a vacation. He deserves to take a few weeks off being a hectoring schoolmarm on the internet and spend some time in the sun recharging and relaxing with his family.

To that end, I suggest that all my followers visit

Dave Greene

’s page and purchase a paid subscription to his publication. Give my man Dave some money so he can buy himself a nice cruise to the Bahamas.

Maybe this will help him be less exhausted.