Randoms

If you enjoy old books, you really should get a Kindle – most of them are free at Amazon or Google Books. As Frost puts it, "If you regularly read anything longer than a stop sign, I strongly, STRONGLY recommend you pick up one of these bad boys now" – and here’s a flowchart to help you figure out what you want.

"The crisis of our time is also a crisis of manliness and true masculinity which the left always suspected as ‘reactionary’" – EKL

Herman Melville was apparently a monarchist.

More on dysgenics from Hail.

"Aristocrats think in generations; they govern on behalf of their grandchildren. Democrats want to get reelected next week” – Richard Spencer

HBDChick:

76% of pakistani marriages in oxford in the 1980s were to first- through-third cousins (a couple of those first-cousins were double-first-cousins, so the genetic relatedness is even closer) — and another 11% were to someone in the same biradari (i.e. patrilineage). that’s a whopping 87% endogamous marriage rate!

Whiskey on sexual repression:

Science Fiction Author and Blogger Eric S. Raymond has a post up on Reconsidering Sexual Repression. Basically his point is that we will likely have to give up two of the following three things: family formation, sexual equality (women equal to men in all legal and social and cultural forms), and sexual liberty (no restrictions legal or social in any way of women’s sexual activity).

WRM:

Protectionism is not the answer for keeping manufacturing jobs at home, but neither should Americans naively assume that all paths toward a more liberal global order are equally prudent, equally advantageous for the United States, or equally sustainable. the great weakness of the globalist consensus of the 1990s — one of the Clintonian concepts that made the transition into the Bush years and has survived into the Obama era — was its naively ahistorical understanding of economic policy and its role in American strategy. American intellectuals need to search for a more sustainable internationalism which takes our interests into account. Many paths to a more open world economy exist, but determining which works best for the U.S. is a task that America’s leadership has largely neglected for almost twenty years.

I would have said for more than eighty years.

About these ads

11 Responses to Randoms

  1. RS says:

    > “The crisis of our time is also a crisis of manliness and true masculinity which the left always suspected as ‘reactionary’” – EKL

    Deeply Nietzschean, if it suggests that the left is sub/semi-consciously motivated largely by rancorous envy.

    (I guess it doesn’t have to suggest that but it can.)

  2. RS says:

    Melville was extremely talented.

    (Alas……… Whitman was just as talented.)

    I definitely recommend Melville’s shorts over ‘Moby Dick’, they are much better. The most famous of them, ‘Bartleby’, is by far the worst, and hardly worth the time.

    The following is not Whitman’s genius stuff, rather it’s what best shows why I love(not in that way)/hate him:

    32
    I think I could turn and live with animals, they’re so placid and self contain’d,
    I stand and look at them long and long.

    They do not sweat and whine about their condition,
    They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins,
    They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God,
    Not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of owning things,
    Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago,
    Not one is respectable or unhappy over the earth.
    ….

    ……[FACEPALM] …I do like the anti-materialism though, at least.

  3. Alrenous says:

    My system is fine with sexual ‘repression’ IF the women in question agree to it. If ESR and the reactosphere is right, the ones that do will prosper and the ones that don’t, won’t.

    I think I figured out the problem with aristocracy. Nobility wasn’t a condition for entry, it was assumed to be a result of membership.

  4. According to these guys, Melville was also a Homeric polytheist–now that’s reactionary!

    I started listening to the podcasts of Hubert Dreyfus’ UC Berkeley philosophy course, but deferred the project when I realized that to get maximum value I’d have to read (among others) Moby Dick.

  5. RS says:

    Very interesting.

    The novel is not actually bad at all, but the best part is the prependix on different species of whales.

    I don’t know, maybe I should read it again and maybe change my mind. I don’t want to spread false rumors about it. At least I could get the audio from librivox and not have to actually read. Last time though I thought Augie March was more the top American novel and I’ve done both twice. I guess I’d put Moby Dick at #2.

  6. RS says:

    Funny that you should post that, I just read half of ‘only a god can save us’ about three weeks ago, and it was way too boring to start, let alone finish. I had remembered just the title from years ago and it sounded interesting (but boy, it sure wasn’t). Maybe your link, when I go back to reading it right after I post this, can tell me if I missed anything.

    I haven’t read much Heidegger, the only thing I happened to try that I really got through is ‘Was heisst denken’ (‘What is called thinking’ or ‘That which we call thinking’). I’ve read it about 1.5 times and it’s not bad. About ten pages were missing when I bought my copy new and I’ve never gotten around to reading them someplace, it was kind of mysterious. I had to read this in English of course as I don’t know any languages.

    • RS says:

      Man, that link about Dreyfus and ‘only a god can save us’ is truly awesome. Haven’t read anything so interesting in a while.

      I’m not fully absorbed by Greek pantheism, personally, rather I basically see the divine kosmos – which is how I think of Heraclitus though he did not use that phrase. Some of those who do use it, who are mostly really new agey — eg try to pretend that conflict is not present essentially in the cosmos, or at least its pre-transhuman history, but peace only — describe it as an empirical religion, which reminds me of Heraclitus’ whatever comes from sight, hearing, learning from experience: this I prefer. To me the world’s religions are elaborations on this, and most of their content I can only accept as metaphorical. Personally I observe consciousness and the existence of the cosmos itself, which seem almost certainly impossible to be treated by science, even in principle. The fact that these things cannot be explained seems just as clearly valid as any of the facts of science.

      While I’m pretty much cool with whatever, especially the more mystical and immanentist manifestations of worldwide religiosity, I guess I’ll probably never be another way than that personally.

      Steven Hawking is crazy, he says the universe is not miraculous because the nature of gravity implies that universes take zero net energy to create. So where did the Order (kosmos) come from in which the law of gravity holds true – rather than there being no Order, or for that matter anything, ever? Is it not obvious that things other than what we have are possible? It’s hard to believe Stephen fucking Hawking could ever wind up quite that far out of his depth on any possible subject.

      The absolutely essential translator and illuminator of Heraclitus, for anyone who’s interested in his short book of fragments (the rest being lost), is Charles Kahn.

      • Alrenous says:

        The ultimate cosmos are the laws of logic, as far as I can tell. It might be possible to have a substitute, but I don’t think human imaginations, embedded as they are in a logical universe, will ever find them. Or interact with them, so the thing is moot.

        I once tried to explain that to Max Tegmark, but unfortunately my prestige rating wasn’t high enough for him to understand.

        In addition our universe may require a seed assumption to get an actual existence instead of a set of possible existences, but the physics consensus – with which I have personal experience – is that we require only one such fact. There is one question, with a yes/no answer, which when answered implies our entire universe. Which means primarily that existence is profoundly unified.

        I would endorse studying physics even if all it did was let you experience understanding that profound unity. It’s truly sublime.

        Consciousness is the subjective epistemic. However, it interacts with the objective ontological, which we can measure. As the subjective epistemic must be absolute – what make a thing red is the sensation of redness, that’s how you know you’re perceiving red – the correlation can be drawn and science done.
        This is not standard philosophy, or science, but true regardless.

      • josh says:

        Have you guys ever really eaten an apple? I mean *really* eaten it. It’s fucking delicious.

        I kid, those were interesting comments.

  7. RS says:

    > Heraclitus’ whatever comes from sight, hearing, learning from experience: this I prefer

    To shed some light on this, what’s interesting to me is specifically how he says this even while being interested mostly in things more like the meaning of the cosmos and man’s existence, and the laws of human nature and conduct, not in the laws of nature (qua nature apart from man). He was interested in applying this epiricism to human and to spiritual life, not in using it to create something like natural science – not that he would necessarily dislike science but he didn’t consider something like science to be the overarching explanation or meaning of life. Though he may not even have conceived of natural science, I’m pretty sure he would have felt that way if he did or could have conceived of it.

    He does recount some things like natural-cosmological laws but I take them as poetic metaphor, and even think he pretty clearly intended them to be so taken. Eg All things are requital for fire, and fire for all things, as goods for gold and gold for goods – which has a very obvious, very emotional and sublime poetic and mystical meaning – and Sea pours out from earth, and it measures up to the same amount it was before becoming earth, which (I suspect unintendedly) has a more concrete air to it, at least for our ears today, and is not too easy to see much non-concrete meaning in.

  8. RS says:

    This Goldman thing is way too awesome.

    > The problem with this claim is that many people continue to find meaning in Christianity. Indeed, Dreyfus and Kelly acknowledge the evidence that the United States is the throes of a Third Great Awakening. But if tens of millions of modern men and women believe that God has already saved them, the attempt to revive polytheism seems superfluous.

    Yeah I agree with that, I don’t really want to stop Christianity or something but I think for them to sort of fix Christianity is not too much to ask. Sola scriptura and personal interpretation by every individual believer is a really bad thing and it’s far better to have a church that has authority somewhat commensurate with scripture, as in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It’s way too easy to interpret scriptures poorly ; even if they are divine manifestations, man the interpreter is not wholly divine. For example ‘there is no Greek, there is no Jew’ should not be taken as literally abolishing nationality in this world, which I think is totally unworkable and harmful ; it means that nationality does not exist on the most divine level, where few can dwell from day to day. I agree with that, on the highest level all things are one.

    The cosmos and man’s life change, and even if they didn’t there is gradual attrition and change in his spiritual knowledge and must be corresponding rediscovery, and I don’t think scripture by itself can illuminate the entire world. One should consult zen on this, words can’t communicate everything. In Islamic terms I agree with the theology of Soroush in this way, ‘the dilation and contraction of religious knowledge’ – if what I heard about him in a course one time is true. It sounds like he may be a leftist though

    > Put differently, the condition [of existential confusion and vague existential malaise] that Heidegger described might be troublesome on the college campuses where Dreyfus and Kelly spend their time—but it’s not a civilizational crisis.

    Lolzlozllzozlzlzozozollolzlozlzlzoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean really, lolz to that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 148 other followers

%d bloggers like this: