I'm sorry you've been ill. The headache, weird dreams, sensitivity to light and back-pain all indicate you may have had an infection in your cerebrospinal fluid so it's a jolly good thing you recovered so quickly.
To me, this article and your article on incels speak to the sense of anomie among young men in particular, and perhaps especially young white men, although your incel article questioned that somewhat.
There is also a trend where young people (typically but not only men) choose to self-define online as paedophile. For some, this is a genuine (and often anguished) acknowledgment of their involuntary (and frequently unwanted) sexual attraction, but for others it isn't: it's chosen.
Thus one of the 'worst' terms a person can be called (similar to 'Nazi') is adopted deliberately as a self-assigned label, chosen as a way of the individual signalling their sense of separation from the larger group, a rejection, perhaps a self-loathing or a revelling in 'taboo'. Thank God, for some the self-identity may not manifest in actual behaviour other than forms of manga / anime.
It's an interesting multi-faceted phenomenon, and I see connections with both choosing to identify as 'despised' incels or 'hated' Nazis. So, to me, that's why your Nazis come across as politically very naive and ill-informed. It's because perhaps they're not actually particularly interested in politics or history per se but only in identifying with the stigmatised label. Hence they got cross and chucked you out when you pedantically expected them to know basic stuff!
I find similar trends across political spectrums, hence my opener with Conservatives talking tough and not doing anything, and Liberals talking compassion but not actually helping.
I think there is an aspect of 'tribalism', but that makes it sound primitive, when I think it is a normal social behaviour. For example, specific groups of people explicitly identify as a 'supporter' of a particular football team: "I'm a supporter of Manchester United". They're not obliged to align with any team, but they do.
Why do people attach so strongly to what are otherwise interchangeable sports teams? I think it is the shared collective experience. They're not saying it because they're experts in that football team, but saying 'here is the one with the experiences I most identify with'. Usually family outings and the like.
In this case, the online communities get called something, which before then is shapeless (I remember when 4chan was just considered a community of 'hackers' or 'trolls' depending on what day of the week it was), the label - be it 'degenerate', 'incel', 'Nazi', 'ultra MAGA' - sticks, describing what was shapeless, and forms an association to those shared experiences.
As the label expands, gains more clarity, more definitions, others identify themselves as matching those properties, and thus adopt the label, to join a group of like-minded individuals. They couldn't answer the objectivity question because there is no objective test for 'genetic purity', but they couldn't accept the implications either because it would mean de-identifying from the group - social rejection.
Are all single lonely males *truly* 'incels' (involuntary celibates)? You wouldn't know without a time machine or precognition, and every male starts out single. The risk is they adopt the label and it defines their life ('I can't possibly hope to succeed I'm forever alone'), rather letting their life define itself. A variant of the "Nocebo" effect. I'm wary of psychological labels for this reason.
Yes, but there's a huge difference between choosing to be something like a Man U supporter or a MAGA supporter and choosing to self-identify (online, probably not irl typically) as a paedo, Nazi or incel, none of which are very uplifting or cheerful, are they? That's what interests me. As you say, rather a self-defeating 'nocebo' position to adopt. Forever alone. So painful and self-attacking. Maybe links to the lying flat / let it rot movement in China? And young men in Japan 'marrying' holograms or never leaving the house. Defeatism and despair and anomie and destructiveness.
Single unmarried men used to join the priesthood. Historically, too many surplus men = time for a war. But in the West there isn't a surplus of men, is there? Perhaps just a surplus of messed-up social messaging.
"none of which are very uplifting or cheerful, are they?"
One of the biggest factors in outcomes in terms of medicine, over all possible factors (wealth, health, age, etc), is social status. Before I quit the NHS I was slated to build a system that would try to predict outcomes for patients based on vitals data (like bloods) and essentially try to prioritise health resources depending on whom the algorithm started flagging as having health issue (it would have been very transparent, explaining the whys and the data).
Social status outweighed everything, because the risk wasn't the ailment, so much as the recovery period. If a patient has little to no motive to want to recover, then they're not going to. It is a bit like the case of the fisherman who cut off his own arm to go see his own children again rather than die trapped at sea. I don't even know how that's possible without passing out from pain.
You can literally die from a heart attack purely induced by loneliness resulting from heart break - it even has a term in medicine it is so common: taktsubo cardiomyopathy. Unsurprisingly, it was discovered in Japan.
It isn't surprising, humans are overwhelmingly social creatures, we mainly invent means of communication or travel to meet others. We adopt other species and creatures and talk to them even if they can't understand or talk back. Some people talk to themselves.
So, in my view, people would rather associate with a negative outgroup and have some friends/peers/associates, than have no association at all. We do know that solitary confinement destroys prisoners' mental health, so perhaps it is better - from a health perspective - to be associated with any outgroup - even ones like the Nazis or incels - than no outgroup at all.
Btw, bizarrely, having read your Nazi article yesterday or whenever, last night by chance I came across probably the main source for your 'wooden door' argument, having never heard anything about it before.
I sometimes think there's a 'Ghost in the Machine' when it comes to online materials. A GPT-3 AI type situation.
I often get pertinent information dumped in relation to topics in related feeds, which feels kinda like the 'keyword search' in advertising privacy issue people have.
Interesting that in the meta-analysis you reference, it was men more than women who were at higher risk from the impact of loneliness. It reminds me of Dylan's lyrics:
"old men with broken teeth stranded without love.
Do I understand your question, ma'am, is it hopeless and forlorn?
'Come in', she said
'I'll give ya shelter from the storm.'"
No wonder so many sad and confused and hopeless people died in "care" homes during 'lockdowns', especially people with dementia and people with learning disabilities who could not understand why the people they loved hadn't come to see them.
I was really horrified to read that one of the groups at highest risk of not surviving covid was people with learning disabilities in care-homes, no doubt dying not only of heartbreak but helped along with Midazolam and opioids. Which brings us back to the *actual* Nazis, doesn't it.
But my question remains. Yes, we agree that most humans choose to be and stay in groups rather than isolation, but that doesn't address why - of all the potential groups one could join - a significant minority gravitate towards 'miserable' ones. It's like the young people suddenly developing tics on TikTok ( yup, those TikTok tics) or dissociative identity disorders blah blah yadda yadda, or girls suddenly deciding if they ain't got that injectable testosterone then life ain't worth living (yup, that TikTok T). As Jeanette Winterson might have said, Why Be Happy When You Could Be Abnormal?
Isn't that the real question? Why are so many choosing to be "abnormal" ... *and* unhappy. Is it just extended teenagerhood writ large on the cellphone screen? Or something deeper?
I wonder if the same thing applies to online jihadis, btw. Are most of them halfhearted about violence and murder like your half-a-Nazis? Or not. It would be interesting to know.
"a significant minority gravitate towards 'miserable' ones."
I think this relies on the assumption that all groups are welcoming. They are not. My point was they choose these outgroups because the alternative is no identity at all (IE they are rejected - given labels like 'Nazi' (even if they are not) by other groups).
And it isn't so simple as forming a new group either, because it requires others accept your new group. If your new group has no members in it, the effect is as the same as having joined no group at all (IE undesirable for others to join).
As for the negative aspects, I think they see the group as being 'realist'. It'd be like saying 'why do amputees keep moaning about having no limbs, it is so negative'. Maybe the amputees wish to mope about their negative circumstances. Not all socialisation involves positive emotions. Misery loves company, I guess?
"I wonder if the same thing applies to online jihadis"
I've not really encountered those anywhere in my online 'travels', to be honest, besides some stray unlisted YouTube videos where people highlight double-standards in YouTube censorship. I'm guessing they don't really want their terrorism operations to be public or under scrutiny.
When I think of NAZI, I think of a socialist dictatorship with some economics borrowed the National Fascist Party and the totalitarian nature of the USSR. The USSR excelled in mass murder.
I think one of the biggest misunderstandings I've noticed is everybody has differing definitions of 'Nazi' on the table, as well as what they consider to be, or not be, a Nazi-like trait. And it isn't restricted to people outside the groups, inside there are fights too.
Here I am wading in with a third definition just to make everybody's day that bit more complicated, but on the flip side, also to try to broaden understanding for all sides.
Initially I took Quinine (2 tablets of Hyland's leg cramps) as I suspected it might have been SC2, however it had no impact, and the LFT I was required to take for an upcoming hospital appointment returned negative. So I moved to the assumption it was probably flu.
As I wasn't eating due to hypersensitivity and nausea, I used an 'A-Z multivitamin' tablet to ensure my mineral nutritional needs were being met, whilst drinking energy drinks (glucose; non-caffeinated) to keep glucose levels up. I wasn't able to stomach any carbohydrates on the first day it hit, so glucose only. I made sure to stay hydrated due to fever triggering sweats, and used a mini-USB fan to keep cool as needed, although the body often uses increased heat to kill pathogens, so I was selective in how I applied cooling. I used goggles I had that reduced sunlight as a means of coping with the brightness. I turned down brightness on all devices I could as well as sound, although I could only manage to use them a few minutes at a time.
On the second day, I used an ice pack placed inside a zip-loc bag (to minimise cross-contamination) to reduce inflammation and swelling on the spine/back after that flared, took a store brand 'LemSip' drink (although couldn't bear the disgusting taste and tipped half away) which contained paracetamol, and took a concentrated Garlic tablet to reduce bloodclotting risk for being stationary for so long (I was also hoping the Garlic tablet would reduce inflammation). I tried to reposition the pillows under my body to alleviate spinal pressure where possible although it felt futile if I was being honest. I had a rice noodle soup so I had some solids, but with a good ratio of liquid, and also had chocolate oat drink with the hope the chocolate would act as anti-oxidant.
Third day, ice packs resumed, ready meals (as I was unable to stand long enough to properly cook) as solids, A-Z multivitamin tablet to deal with perceived fatigue, another Garlic tablet, with drinks being phased back to normal, mini-USB fan for cooling again which was vital as I was overheating at night for some reason. Had I not recovered as much, I would have likely switched to soups + microwaved rice, which, again, I'm aware isn't as healthy, but when you're ill it is often difficult to cook decent meals.
I'm transitioning away from this back into my usual routine as my condition improves.
Was your headache caused by the jab? You dodged a bullet then! Another GRANT just given to Wuhan to make something even more catastrophic - Can you believe that? Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed and ready.
"All three will claim the evidence supporting their side is ‘overwhelming’ (with them often over-citing a single Red Cross report) but apparently not that overwhelming as they lack consensus even in their own circles. They avoid confronting these inconsistencies within their groups, whilst bragging how they resist social conformity. Uh huh."
Why is this Red Cross report less relevant than a sing anecdote"
"Why is this Red Cross report less relevant than a sing anecdote"
I was not comparing the report to a single anecdote, I was highlighting the overdependence on a single piece of evidence. Remember, this is not a rebuttal piece (remember what the title is).
One of the big warning flags one might be overreaching on a conclusion in terms of evidence is becoming dependent solely on a single point of data and using it for everything, without looking for additional datasets and expanding. It is a single point of failure, and if refuted, leads little recourse.
As said, my goal wasn't to gather together all arguments they make, nor was it to provide a systematic rebuttal, nor is it to gather together evidence of abuses in WW2 (which is something the history part of education should really be doing). It is to highlight disparities and incongruences I perceive in the community. I do highlight my own doubts and views, but, as a journalist I'm writing from my own viewpoint.
"They suggest apparently gas isn’t toxic if doors are made of wood (okay… tell that to the British troops in open trenches and open fields in WW1 facing chlorine, phosgene and mustard gas)."
I never hear an 88er or any Revisionist make this claim, the problem is that a gas chamber would have a wooden door that opens form the inside.
You may wish to peruse postings on Gab, where the argument about the wooden door is somewhat common, suggesting it isn't an airtight one (like a metal door). Given many people die in everyday houses from everything from smoke caused by fire, to mainline gas leaks, I find the argument not particularly convincing about the door.
This wasn't going to be a detailed list of all possible arguments I've read, my point is the group have politically different notions internally as to what they believe, and do not possess the ruthless streak of the Nazis of old. Depending on where someone stands, they might see it as a compliment or an insult or a fair point.
I think politically they need to self-reflect, as there's a distinctly different political party they're advocating compared to the ones they claim to be associated with. I wouldn't be able to say which because there is no comparable traditionalism + technology political party and the various subtle factions defy any classification (and it isn't my job to pigeonhole anyway).
I'm sorry you've been ill. The headache, weird dreams, sensitivity to light and back-pain all indicate you may have had an infection in your cerebrospinal fluid so it's a jolly good thing you recovered so quickly.
To me, this article and your article on incels speak to the sense of anomie among young men in particular, and perhaps especially young white men, although your incel article questioned that somewhat.
There is also a trend where young people (typically but not only men) choose to self-define online as paedophile. For some, this is a genuine (and often anguished) acknowledgment of their involuntary (and frequently unwanted) sexual attraction, but for others it isn't: it's chosen.
Thus one of the 'worst' terms a person can be called (similar to 'Nazi') is adopted deliberately as a self-assigned label, chosen as a way of the individual signalling their sense of separation from the larger group, a rejection, perhaps a self-loathing or a revelling in 'taboo'. Thank God, for some the self-identity may not manifest in actual behaviour other than forms of manga / anime.
It's an interesting multi-faceted phenomenon, and I see connections with both choosing to identify as 'despised' incels or 'hated' Nazis. So, to me, that's why your Nazis come across as politically very naive and ill-informed. It's because perhaps they're not actually particularly interested in politics or history per se but only in identifying with the stigmatised label. Hence they got cross and chucked you out when you pedantically expected them to know basic stuff!
I find similar trends across political spectrums, hence my opener with Conservatives talking tough and not doing anything, and Liberals talking compassion but not actually helping.
I think there is an aspect of 'tribalism', but that makes it sound primitive, when I think it is a normal social behaviour. For example, specific groups of people explicitly identify as a 'supporter' of a particular football team: "I'm a supporter of Manchester United". They're not obliged to align with any team, but they do.
Why do people attach so strongly to what are otherwise interchangeable sports teams? I think it is the shared collective experience. They're not saying it because they're experts in that football team, but saying 'here is the one with the experiences I most identify with'. Usually family outings and the like.
In this case, the online communities get called something, which before then is shapeless (I remember when 4chan was just considered a community of 'hackers' or 'trolls' depending on what day of the week it was), the label - be it 'degenerate', 'incel', 'Nazi', 'ultra MAGA' - sticks, describing what was shapeless, and forms an association to those shared experiences.
As the label expands, gains more clarity, more definitions, others identify themselves as matching those properties, and thus adopt the label, to join a group of like-minded individuals. They couldn't answer the objectivity question because there is no objective test for 'genetic purity', but they couldn't accept the implications either because it would mean de-identifying from the group - social rejection.
Are all single lonely males *truly* 'incels' (involuntary celibates)? You wouldn't know without a time machine or precognition, and every male starts out single. The risk is they adopt the label and it defines their life ('I can't possibly hope to succeed I'm forever alone'), rather letting their life define itself. A variant of the "Nocebo" effect. I'm wary of psychological labels for this reason.
Yes, but there's a huge difference between choosing to be something like a Man U supporter or a MAGA supporter and choosing to self-identify (online, probably not irl typically) as a paedo, Nazi or incel, none of which are very uplifting or cheerful, are they? That's what interests me. As you say, rather a self-defeating 'nocebo' position to adopt. Forever alone. So painful and self-attacking. Maybe links to the lying flat / let it rot movement in China? And young men in Japan 'marrying' holograms or never leaving the house. Defeatism and despair and anomie and destructiveness.
Single unmarried men used to join the priesthood. Historically, too many surplus men = time for a war. But in the West there isn't a surplus of men, is there? Perhaps just a surplus of messed-up social messaging.
"none of which are very uplifting or cheerful, are they?"
One of the biggest factors in outcomes in terms of medicine, over all possible factors (wealth, health, age, etc), is social status. Before I quit the NHS I was slated to build a system that would try to predict outcomes for patients based on vitals data (like bloods) and essentially try to prioritise health resources depending on whom the algorithm started flagging as having health issue (it would have been very transparent, explaining the whys and the data).
One example:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33130511/
Social status outweighed everything, because the risk wasn't the ailment, so much as the recovery period. If a patient has little to no motive to want to recover, then they're not going to. It is a bit like the case of the fisherman who cut off his own arm to go see his own children again rather than die trapped at sea. I don't even know how that's possible without passing out from pain.
https://listverse.com/2018/12/20/10-unbelievable-cases-of-self-amputation-for-survival/
You can literally die from a heart attack purely induced by loneliness resulting from heart break - it even has a term in medicine it is so common: taktsubo cardiomyopathy. Unsurprisingly, it was discovered in Japan.
It isn't surprising, humans are overwhelmingly social creatures, we mainly invent means of communication or travel to meet others. We adopt other species and creatures and talk to them even if they can't understand or talk back. Some people talk to themselves.
So, in my view, people would rather associate with a negative outgroup and have some friends/peers/associates, than have no association at all. We do know that solitary confinement destroys prisoners' mental health, so perhaps it is better - from a health perspective - to be associated with any outgroup - even ones like the Nazis or incels - than no outgroup at all.
Btw, bizarrely, having read your Nazi article yesterday or whenever, last night by chance I came across probably the main source for your 'wooden door' argument, having never heard anything about it before.
Zeitgeist, I suppose.
I sometimes think there's a 'Ghost in the Machine' when it comes to online materials. A GPT-3 AI type situation.
I often get pertinent information dumped in relation to topics in related feeds, which feels kinda like the 'keyword search' in advertising privacy issue people have.
https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/google-is-absolutely-listening-to-your-conversations-it-just-confirms-why-people-dont-trust-big-tech.html
(That but online searches, posts, messages, etc.)
Interesting that in the meta-analysis you reference, it was men more than women who were at higher risk from the impact of loneliness. It reminds me of Dylan's lyrics:
"old men with broken teeth stranded without love.
Do I understand your question, ma'am, is it hopeless and forlorn?
'Come in', she said
'I'll give ya shelter from the storm.'"
No wonder so many sad and confused and hopeless people died in "care" homes during 'lockdowns', especially people with dementia and people with learning disabilities who could not understand why the people they loved hadn't come to see them.
I was really horrified to read that one of the groups at highest risk of not surviving covid was people with learning disabilities in care-homes, no doubt dying not only of heartbreak but helped along with Midazolam and opioids. Which brings us back to the *actual* Nazis, doesn't it.
But my question remains. Yes, we agree that most humans choose to be and stay in groups rather than isolation, but that doesn't address why - of all the potential groups one could join - a significant minority gravitate towards 'miserable' ones. It's like the young people suddenly developing tics on TikTok ( yup, those TikTok tics) or dissociative identity disorders blah blah yadda yadda, or girls suddenly deciding if they ain't got that injectable testosterone then life ain't worth living (yup, that TikTok T). As Jeanette Winterson might have said, Why Be Happy When You Could Be Abnormal?
Isn't that the real question? Why are so many choosing to be "abnormal" ... *and* unhappy. Is it just extended teenagerhood writ large on the cellphone screen? Or something deeper?
I wonder if the same thing applies to online jihadis, btw. Are most of them halfhearted about violence and murder like your half-a-Nazis? Or not. It would be interesting to know.
"a significant minority gravitate towards 'miserable' ones."
I think this relies on the assumption that all groups are welcoming. They are not. My point was they choose these outgroups because the alternative is no identity at all (IE they are rejected - given labels like 'Nazi' (even if they are not) by other groups).
And it isn't so simple as forming a new group either, because it requires others accept your new group. If your new group has no members in it, the effect is as the same as having joined no group at all (IE undesirable for others to join).
As for the negative aspects, I think they see the group as being 'realist'. It'd be like saying 'why do amputees keep moaning about having no limbs, it is so negative'. Maybe the amputees wish to mope about their negative circumstances. Not all socialisation involves positive emotions. Misery loves company, I guess?
"I wonder if the same thing applies to online jihadis"
I've not really encountered those anywhere in my online 'travels', to be honest, besides some stray unlisted YouTube videos where people highlight double-standards in YouTube censorship. I'm guessing they don't really want their terrorism operations to be public or under scrutiny.
When I think of NAZI, I think of a socialist dictatorship with some economics borrowed the National Fascist Party and the totalitarian nature of the USSR. The USSR excelled in mass murder.
I think one of the biggest misunderstandings I've noticed is everybody has differing definitions of 'Nazi' on the table, as well as what they consider to be, or not be, a Nazi-like trait. And it isn't restricted to people outside the groups, inside there are fights too.
Here I am wading in with a third definition just to make everybody's day that bit more complicated, but on the flip side, also to try to broaden understanding for all sides.
Hope you are feeling much better. Did you take some sort of treatment for this malady?
I always enjoy your articles. Glad you didn’t come across anyone who is genuinely scary. Those people are out there but perhaps not in these groups.
Yes.
Initially I took Quinine (2 tablets of Hyland's leg cramps) as I suspected it might have been SC2, however it had no impact, and the LFT I was required to take for an upcoming hospital appointment returned negative. So I moved to the assumption it was probably flu.
As I wasn't eating due to hypersensitivity and nausea, I used an 'A-Z multivitamin' tablet to ensure my mineral nutritional needs were being met, whilst drinking energy drinks (glucose; non-caffeinated) to keep glucose levels up. I wasn't able to stomach any carbohydrates on the first day it hit, so glucose only. I made sure to stay hydrated due to fever triggering sweats, and used a mini-USB fan to keep cool as needed, although the body often uses increased heat to kill pathogens, so I was selective in how I applied cooling. I used goggles I had that reduced sunlight as a means of coping with the brightness. I turned down brightness on all devices I could as well as sound, although I could only manage to use them a few minutes at a time.
On the second day, I used an ice pack placed inside a zip-loc bag (to minimise cross-contamination) to reduce inflammation and swelling on the spine/back after that flared, took a store brand 'LemSip' drink (although couldn't bear the disgusting taste and tipped half away) which contained paracetamol, and took a concentrated Garlic tablet to reduce bloodclotting risk for being stationary for so long (I was also hoping the Garlic tablet would reduce inflammation). I tried to reposition the pillows under my body to alleviate spinal pressure where possible although it felt futile if I was being honest. I had a rice noodle soup so I had some solids, but with a good ratio of liquid, and also had chocolate oat drink with the hope the chocolate would act as anti-oxidant.
Third day, ice packs resumed, ready meals (as I was unable to stand long enough to properly cook) as solids, A-Z multivitamin tablet to deal with perceived fatigue, another Garlic tablet, with drinks being phased back to normal, mini-USB fan for cooling again which was vital as I was overheating at night for some reason. Had I not recovered as much, I would have likely switched to soups + microwaved rice, which, again, I'm aware isn't as healthy, but when you're ill it is often difficult to cook decent meals.
I'm transitioning away from this back into my usual routine as my condition improves.
Was your headache caused by the jab? You dodged a bullet then! Another GRANT just given to Wuhan to make something even more catastrophic - Can you believe that? Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed and ready.
"All three will claim the evidence supporting their side is ‘overwhelming’ (with them often over-citing a single Red Cross report) but apparently not that overwhelming as they lack consensus even in their own circles. They avoid confronting these inconsistencies within their groups, whilst bragging how they resist social conformity. Uh huh."
Why is this Red Cross report less relevant than a sing anecdote"
"Why is this Red Cross report less relevant than a sing anecdote"
I was not comparing the report to a single anecdote, I was highlighting the overdependence on a single piece of evidence. Remember, this is not a rebuttal piece (remember what the title is).
One of the big warning flags one might be overreaching on a conclusion in terms of evidence is becoming dependent solely on a single point of data and using it for everything, without looking for additional datasets and expanding. It is a single point of failure, and if refuted, leads little recourse.
As said, my goal wasn't to gather together all arguments they make, nor was it to provide a systematic rebuttal, nor is it to gather together evidence of abuses in WW2 (which is something the history part of education should really be doing). It is to highlight disparities and incongruences I perceive in the community. I do highlight my own doubts and views, but, as a journalist I'm writing from my own viewpoint.
"They suggest apparently gas isn’t toxic if doors are made of wood (okay… tell that to the British troops in open trenches and open fields in WW1 facing chlorine, phosgene and mustard gas)."
I never hear an 88er or any Revisionist make this claim, the problem is that a gas chamber would have a wooden door that opens form the inside.
You may wish to peruse postings on Gab, where the argument about the wooden door is somewhat common, suggesting it isn't an airtight one (like a metal door). Given many people die in everyday houses from everything from smoke caused by fire, to mainline gas leaks, I find the argument not particularly convincing about the door.
This wasn't going to be a detailed list of all possible arguments I've read, my point is the group have politically different notions internally as to what they believe, and do not possess the ruthless streak of the Nazis of old. Depending on where someone stands, they might see it as a compliment or an insult or a fair point.
I think politically they need to self-reflect, as there's a distinctly different political party they're advocating compared to the ones they claim to be associated with. I wouldn't be able to say which because there is no comparable traditionalism + technology political party and the various subtle factions defy any classification (and it isn't my job to pigeonhole anyway).