Randoms of the day

I am now a minority in the (almost) majority – " just wait and see what happens when the first viable white candidate runs for mayor of DC." Given that the black people throw out any black mayors that aren’t blatantly corrupt, I hope it doesn’t take long. (Also, I love how Republicans "inflame" while Democrats "mobilize." I think it’s more accurate to say that Republicans unconsciously benefit from the obvious incompetence of black politicians. How many places that are consistently governed by blacks are not corrupt?)

Why I am Not on tribal conflict.

Jonathan Jones on slavery, Rothbard, and the is-ought problem.

Sluts are sad.

Vox: "The fact is that 21st century Hispanic Catholics are simply not going to harbor the same allegiance to the concepts of 18th century English Protestants that 21st century English Protestants do."

The ICC is a joke – it intends to prosecute Libya 40 years too late.

Advertisements

12 Responses to Randoms of the day

  1. Gian says:

    Well 18C English Protestants did not divorce, abhorred abortion and contraception and homosexual relations were not to be spoken of in pubic.

    How many of 21C American Protestants can claim to share these attitudes?

  2. Gian says:

    What is never understood in Moldbug is while the Blue Empire is supposed to have descended from Calvinism, what is the equivalent history of the Red Empire?. I mean the Red Empire people are mostly Protestants too.

    • Foseti says:

      The Red Empire people are also supposed to have descended from Calvinism. Every couple decades, the Blue Empire people kill the Red Empire people and the new Red Empire spins off from the old Blue one. That’s a bit of a simplification, but . . .

  3. Gian says:

    Moldbug is not immune from Quaker attitudes himself. Witness his concern that the negative-value Californians should have a life of dignity which he proposes to bestow via virtual reality.

  4. robert61 says:

    Gian – Doesn’t Moldy at least bring up the idea of the “Red Empire” descending from the Cavaliers?

    Thanks for the Jones article. A problem with both the Rawlsian veil and Rothbard’s derivation of rights from natural law (despite his being an atheist) is the way they ignore systematic group differences.

  5. josh says:

    It is true that were are all descended from Calvinists now (at least most of our cultural DNA seems to be from some English dissenter faction or other).

    It is also true that modern liberalism is so different from 18th C protestantism as to be all but unrecognizable. High school history texts treat Puritan “intolerance” as if it demonstrated that they were the ancestors of the Confederates. It’s also true that modern liberalism didn’t have to inevitably flow from 17th C American conditions.

    However, the statement “modern liberalism is a best understood as a branch of Calvinism” remains true. When people point out the differences between the Obama and Cotton Mather, I immediately think of my students asking what they see as the gotcha question “How come you never see a monkey give birth to a person?” (I’m always asked to explain evolution when I am supposed to teach an insanely inaccurate whig-history version of the publicity stunt known as the Scopes trial).

    • icr says:

      You know, there’s another theory about the origins of modern “liberalism”:
      http://racehist.blogspot.com/2010/07/reply-to-mencius-moldbug-on.html
      (…)

      I’ll attempt to extract Moldbug’s argument. See if you can find any holes in this logic:
      (1) There were a handful of radical abolitionists in mid-19th-century America.
      (2) They weren’t Jewish.
      (3) Therefore New England Puritans are responsible for 20th-century leftism, Jews bearing no responsibility whatsoever.

      (…)

      You could start by explaining how New England Puritans were able to radicalize Jews such as Moses Hess and Karl Marx — while said Jews were still in Germany. This is kind of important, since most analysts see Marxism weighing rather more heavily in the pedigree of modern leftism than radical abolitionism.

      (…)

  6. Thanks for the linkage, Foseti.

  7. icr says:

    Explanations for the success of the Moldbug theory:
    http://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/capitalist-liberal-multicultacracy/
    (…)

    I’d propose two further points: One I wrote about above, involves desire to be PC. Second is the principle embodied in that old cynical line: “There’s a sucker at every poker table. If you don’t know who it is, it’s you.” Now, everyone knows White-Protestants have been the “suckers” for decades running now. (True to form, many White-Protestants have no idea there is any sucker at the table). Enough people realize it, and want to switch sides: “the hell with being the sucker at the table, I am going to join the Jewish mob and help in the ongoing crucifixion of the White-Protestant.”

    Thus, in these times there are plenty of reasons why a even white person of protestant background would embrace the frankly silly premises of Moldbuggery. (Being dazzled by flashy writing; Desire to be PC; Desire to get on a winning team by suddenly starting to shout “We Want Barabas!” and pretending you’d been shouting that all along.)

    The actual merits are weak and silly. Implying modern Multiculturalism has been a conspiracy involving an evil cabal of white people, including Woodrow “The Klan Saved the White Race in the South” Wilson. Wilson’s foreign policy and his stance on race are two different matters. It is inconceivable that a man like Wilson would have supported Multiracialism.

    (…)

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

%d bloggers like this: