The Asness Chair of Applied Liberty
"Based" Needs to put on a Suit
Few honors hold a candle to the grandeur of the Asness Chair of Applied Liberty. Its influence spans the entire class strata, with even the lowly carpenter giving thanks he lives in an era where such a principled fighter of freedom has bestowed his presence. In the halls of Congress, the most common sentence uttered is “What does the Asness Chair of Applied Liberty think?” When the Asness Chair of Applied Liberty is talking, you sit your ass down and listen.
The award is bestowed by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a well-known paragon of objective, critical analysis that isn’t beholden to any donor. The fact that the Asness Family Foundation gave 2.4 million dollars to the AEI does nothing to sway their brave, principled positions. This can be seen from the current chair of this incredible honor, a scholar who has sent shockwaves through the entire establishment with his shocking, unorthodox views preaching hard truths everyone needs to hear. With an extensive bibliography giving truly unique insights into the political landscape, including “Liberal Fascism” where he argues Liberals have gone too far, and “Suicide of the West”, where he expresses Nationalism and Tribalism is a threat to Democracy, you’re dealing with someone who doesn’t care what sacred cows are slaughtered. The current chair, Jonah Goldberg , is the only man capable of wielding this terrifying responsibility.
Of course I’m joking. No one cares who the Asness Chair of Applied Liberty is, and you’re more likely to get a chortle from the sheer pompousness of the title, alongside the more juvenile reason that Asness sounds hilarious. Jonah Goldberg has been a hack his entire career as a pundit, and even those in the think-tank world would be hard-pressed to think of a single interesting thought he’s had. His biggest claim to fame amongst most is being the cantankerous guy who sometimes appears on 24-hour news channels or the butt of the joke in Ben Garrison’s most surreal comic.
Pompous academic titles are a mainstay of the think-tank and university world. Most of my readers have likely had to suffer through some guy getting an honorary doctorate in an already overlong graduation ceremony. While most on the outside consider these awards strange and pointless, it’s catnip to many inside the system. In the non-profit and college world where most people aren’t getting rich, it’s the way to tell the world they’re influential, that they’re important. Academics take great pains to showcase their lofty credentials that tell their audience they’re worth listening to.
It’s also a very large and incestuous ecosystem. There isn’t much real debate per se, but institutes inviting people from other aligned institutes for lectures, with the guest keynote speaker being bestowed honors. On the occasion debates are hosted, punches are pulled in the name of decorum. Then there’s the intellectuals moving from organization to organization but never really leaving the system, creating a vast network of aligned people to push his particular brand. There’s also the open secret of other perks, like aligned think-tanks buying thousands of copies of your lousy book. All of this is funded by people stemming from ultra-rich foundations to upper middle-class donors who want to donate to their intellectual cause. This ecosystem has made lucrative careers for many, giving the opportunity for intellectuals and faux-intellectuals to work full time for their political causes.
While left-leaning think-tanks are notorious for changing their principles on a dime based on political realities, right-leaning think-tanks quickly become ossified. They are notorious for fighting battles using weaponry from a generation ago, all the while being puffed up about principles as battle after battle is lost. A lot of this sphere is still stuck in a Bush-era proto-libertarianism steeped in equality of opportunity rhetoric that has been left to the dustbin of history. While this is often due to a donor base consisting of old guys whose political opinions never evolved since their twenties, it’s also due to their inability to change course when the solutions they promulgate either don’t work or have no practical applicability anymore. Some of this is understandable given how brutal the backlash can be. You see this in the Heritage Foundation, who paid dearly for going off the plantation.
It would be easy to dismiss the respectability pipeline as a cynical cash grab for public speakers and educated midwits to fleece suckers who think they’re getting an intellectual discussion while being firmly in the bonds of out broken political Overton Window. If one looks outside the haughtiness though, there’s a need being fulfilled. If you look past some of the fossils and clear shills, there are some incredibly sharp individuals.
All the high-minded titles and conferences in this ecosystem gives the aura of status, the reassurance that intellectuals are on the case to solve America’s problems. To be fair, they largely are. Obama admitted the Affordable Care Act stemmed from ideas originating in the Heritage Foundation. The RAND Corporation is practically holy-writ in parts of the defense industry. Institutes have incredible leverage on policy and public relations when they speak before Congress, and they often are the catalysts for springboarding political careers. You can’t discard the whole infrastructure.
I’ve met some truly formidable individuals who are either alumni or currently employed or the think tank circuit. While in times past you had to sift through a lot of strivers, it’s easier now for the best to trickle to the top. Prestige magazines linked to these policy non-profits are sinking or swimming based on their ability to ascertain current realities. Near infinite pockets are not able to control intellectual discourse anymore. The dam has burst, and while previous generations were able to suppress the Joe Sobrans of the world, the field is wide open to those who have something useful to say.
There are think-tanks that are now willing to skirt the margins of allowable opinion. The Claremont Institute’s Jeremy Carl , the author of “The Unprotected Class”, has aggressively sounded the alarm on rabid anti-white racism that polite company was supposed to ignore. He was nominated to a position by Donald Trump, only to have to withdraw after Republicans, in typical fashion, cucked to pressure.
While many on the right have reservations about The Claremont Institute, one has to realize that these topics once verboten in polite society are getting traction largely because foundations with respectability are willing to take them up. While one can say that everything “edgy” these think-tanks now promulgate was be found in right-wing social media ten years ago, these posters were incapable of giving the “permission structure” many in elite circles need.
When a guy with the handle “Dogs Don’t Have Thumbs” dismembers a CATO immigration activist using his own study, it makes for hilarious fodder. This sort of humiliation does lower the hack’s status by making them look clownish, but no one is going to quote “Dogs Don’t Have Thumbs” at a congressional panel. Constantly beating-down high-level media pundits and public intellectuals by stating the obvious realities of modernity and watching them squirm makes them less admirable, but it doesn’t increase the status of the schizo-poster with the Anime avatar among most elites. While the X guy named “RetardedPinochet” might have better rhetoric and stats, no one but J.D. Vance reposting the bangers on his alt account is taking him into account. The aesthetics aren’t there. You need someone in a suit with institutional backing say things in a different, more palatable tone.
It’s the same idea as the “permission piece” in journalism, where a once taboo topic whispered under hushed tones is brought to the limelight by a prestige journal and therefore allowed to be talked about in the open. The opposite is also the case, where a prestige journal says without reservation that a topic is verboten, usually by trying to destroy an up-and-coming intellectual who dares cross a certain line.
While the insufferable circle-jerk of titles and honors make most sensible people blanch, strivers eat this up. It’s a signaling mechanism. There’s also a large cohort of people who want to be part of a greater cause, and willing to give little compromises to get there. You’ll be shocked how many smart guys will suddenly give full-throated advocacy for your cause for the right paycheck. Yeah, they’re mercenaries who pretend to be principled bulwarks of integrity, but they could be our mercenaries.
The Age of the Shitposter has Ended
There’s been a lot of handwringing over the future of the online right-wing movement. Many have justifiably lamented the deterioration of social media into silly infighting and rage-baiting. There’s a lot of ego in this sphere, and the usual trampling of taboos have lost their edge. This is inevitable, as you have thousands of people with large accounts dependent on engagement, a fickle algorithm, and a paucity of funding. This is an improvement from five years ago, where some people can actually make a living instead of worrying that getting doxxed will destroy their livelihood. Still, even the smartest anons aren’t getting the ear of congressmen, aren’t being tapped to write legislation, aren’t strategizing election campaigns, and aren’t being paid enough. The data wonks might have the argument, the poasters the rhetoric, but they don’t have a face that gives reassurance he’s a proper “expert”.
It doesn’t help when even the purity of posting for love of the game is gone. There have been countless scandals of accounts being paid off, run by foreigners, or devolving into thoughtless rah-rah-ism or blackpilling. The guys in it for the laughs are decreasing while many sharp guys with paying jobs don’t have the time to commit to nonsense online wars.
We’re seeing the limits of populism, whose energy always devolves into chaos and backbiting. This doesn’t mean populism’s ascent was in vain though. Mass appeal helped smashed through old dogmas and left the intellectual class humiliated by failing to see the signs of the time. The initial energy was necessary, but what’s next can’t be the mob, but core values embraced by the right: hierarchy, discipline, loyalty.
Instead of countless independent anons shooting from the hip, the best and brightest need a mechanism to band together, have each other’s back, strategize messaging, and gain real funding. They need to convince the upper classes with as much fervor as they spent recognizing the needs of the left-behind working class. They need to ally with politicians, businessmen, and philanthropists that can write a check without worrying about being humiliated. Tastemakers have to be elevated, prestige has to be granted, and message coherence has to be enforced. In other words, they have to operate like a think tank.
It might seem strange to dunk on think-tank culture for the majority of this article only to advocate following its tactics, but this is precisely the next step.Imagine if a couple dozen anons got together and form “The Institute for American Excellence”. They get a reasonable studio setup, get a good graphic designer, and do press releases and an interview circuit with other “thought leaders” who can interact with well-educated people from multiple backgrounds without sperging out. They make their hardline stances sound nice and nuanced, the clear thinkers in the room. They make a yearly multi-day conference, “American Excellence University”, that people pay to attend.
The difficulty, of course, is funding. They’re going to have to get someone from the wealthy classes to write the check. While billionaires are more than happy to spend hundreds of millions in updating college sports facilities, many on the right are stingy about money that doesn’t show immediate returns. This isn’t insurmountable, and a lot of our guys could do incredible work for a fraction of the tens of millions invested into outlets like Daily Wire. Sure, many rich boomers are going to give their last donation to the Cato institute, but the next generations will have a more pragmatic view.
Maybe some can start schmoozing with the guys working in the old think-tanks. If they have the creds and can somewhat hide their power level, maybe they’ll get employed. They can moderate their beliefs and build their network, giving feelers as to who has the more edgy beliefs. Maybe they’ll get to talk to donors and build relationships. Some can build a respectable persona and start writing articles for prestige magazines. They can spend as much time building rapport with in-real-life personas as one does in a discord chat. Get connected enough, and you might find someone willing to cut a check.
We already are seeing some of this transformation. Probably nothing shows the vibe shift that’s occurred better than comparing Trump’s 2016 Inauguration to 2024. 2016 had the “Deploraball”, with underground right-wing influencers walking through a swath of police and protestors to get to their venue. The 2024 election ended with the “Coronation Ball” run by Passage Press, a black-tie affair featuring Curtis Yarvin alongside Steve Bannon. While I don’t know who funds Passage Press, I do know that its founder, Jonathan Keeperman, is a refined, talented man who doesn’t crash out every other week. He’s a guy who can make deals, be respectful, compromise, and play the long game.
Of course, there’s the argument that any moderating presence is a sign of cucking out. It’s true that many get sucked in and turn into insufferable hacks. The twenty years prior to Trump entering politics was full of them, most of whom never realized they spent a good deal of time making argument and papers that had nothing to do with reality. When money comes, so does the temptation to moderate a little too much, counter-signal views you actually believe in, throw your friends under the bus, and to sell out one’s own mind for accolades and steady funding. Yet we have no choice, as the anarchic flurry of online politics has no staying power.
None of this is to decry the posters of times past, nor to denigrate those who have no interest in playing the new game. There will always be a place for funny memes and online spaces. What needs to end are the countless beefs, turf wars, and catty backstabbing that is a core feature of populist politics. Anyone serious needs to look at how to make friends more than dunking on enemies, how to find common cause with people who are 75% aligned rather than countless purity spirals. Most importantly, we need to build the permission structure necessary for the milquetoast but status-conscious liberal in suburbia to break rank. Instead of constant provocative posts designed to get a rise out of your enemies, you need something to allow your current enemy to respectfully come to your side.
Being in the online space for a decade, I can say with confidence that the talent among anons is far superior to the Jonah Goldbergs of the world. All that’s needed is putting the scaffolding in place to give them a platform to speak in exquisite meeting rooms instead of in the realms of discord, to give an oratory at a lavish banquet hall instead of behind a silly X avatar. In order for this to happen, they need a livelihood to be compensated to the personal risk in doxxing or even semi-doxxing oneself. Based on everyone’s risk tolerance, steam-clean your old suit, get it tailored nice and fit, and get out there.
Thank you for reading Social Matter. If you enjoyed this article, please consider liking and subscribing. Paid Subscribers are also greatly appreciated and have access to my “Judge My Bookshelf” series.