– nydwracu on starting a reactionary webzine. Personally, I’d like to see something a little narrower. Dark Enlightenment only.

Moldbug on Aaron Swartz:

Autocratic and unaccountable power in the modern democracy has been dispersed, but not in any way dissolved. Sovereignty remains conserved. . . . The US Attorney’s office has also its little kings, no more accountable than Henry VII. Who took orders only from God, just like any “apolitical” “civil servant.” But at least there was only one Henry VII. . . .

The truth is that the weapons of “activism” are not weapons which the weak can use against the strong. They are weapons the strong can use against the weak. When the weak try to use them against the strong, the outcome is… well… suicidal. . . . “Civil disobedience” is no more than a way for the overdog to say to the underdog: I am so strong that you cannot enforce your “laws” upon me. I am strong and might makes right – I give you the law, not you me. . . .

Today, it is really the progressive activist who is closest to the essential truth of all political endeavor – the fact that Might makes Right.

– Sometimes, the official story is really bullshit.

– On Japan and Lee Kuan Yew.

– Isn’t the real problem here not so much eugenics in China but dysgenics in the West? Sort of weird to think that increasing human intelligence is a really big problem, no?

– A thought experiment, which goes nicely with some additional thoughts here.

– I think it would take measures like these to restrict gun ownership a way that didn’t make all non-criminals worse off. Does anyone think the US government could pull these sorts of things off?

Gold repatriation.



31 Responses to Randoms

  1. Anonymous says:

    Increasing human intelligence isn’t thought of as a problem. Nobody is really worried about Chinese Eugenics except in the context that it might make the idea of eugenics acceptable again. If goyim get the idea that eugenics is OK, they will obviously then immediately get right back to the pograms, death camps, etc, so we can’t have any eugenics at all.

  2. nydwracu says:

    The Dark Enlightenment is the flavor I’m most inclined toward, just since it makes more sense than the others, but I’m not going to rule out [a less Tennessee-grandfatherish form of] Front Porch Republic-style localist distributism just yet; I can’t think of a good way to market Moldbug or Land to the hipster class, whereas a reaction-lite of farmers’ markets and suspicious glances at the Walmarts of the world seems like a good bridge between Coruscant and the Death Star. Some FPR writers even vote Democrat! Others are monarchists.

    Or I could just be biased; that’s how I went, after a halfassed attempt at libertarianism.

    • Handle says:

      One thing I picked up from Charlton’s “Thought Prison” (with which I was a bit disappointed) is that Progressivism (or “PC” as he says) is socially transmitted and “enforced” by a remarkably similar complex of mechanisms as clothing Fashion.

      It doesn’t seem like a particularly astute insight until you find that it’s more effective to “de-politicize” your mental working when thinking about questions about how create sub-cultural content-institution focal points. It’s not exactly the same question as how to become “popular” or “mass-market”, is it? It really is more like the question of how hip fashions are created and propagated among a select community with a superior, elite sense of style. It’s a question in niche-marketing psychology and sociology. Of course, status in a class-like hierarchy, and being able to think oneself as unfathomably better than the sheep-like losers and chumps of the masses, always plays its part.

      Once upon a time, the whole civilized world wore something like a toga and liked them, and now nobody dares sport one, not even “rebels” trying to “be unique individuals,” and “not caring what anybody else thinks.” Why? Because other people would think they looked ridiculous, and of course you dress a certain way because you care what it does to your audience. You want to be seen as edgy, or at least belong to a sub-community, or at the very least not become the obvious softest-target for social ostracization – pointed and laughed at. That’s like being the slowest gazelle – which nobody wants to be.

      So, before we get started, I’d suggest we do more to identify a non-political analogue of what we’d like to achieve, and study how it achieves its effectiveness.

  3. josh says:

    I was once not good enough for the moldbug comment section. Now I am waaaaaayyy too good. I don’t know what this means, but it seems bad.

    • spandrell says:

      Regression to the mean. It happens once you get too famous.

      • josh says:

        and some kind of inversion of Gresham’s law; bad commenters drive out good.

      • Federico says:

        bad commenters drive out good.

        Have you ever had a great conversation on YouTube?

        It surprises me that Moldbug, arch-monarchist, doesn’t exercise some personal authority and lustrate his comments section. I believe he finds this uncomfortable. He should, were he a true able-man, institute moderation, delete abusive and ignorant comments on sight, or else do away with comments altogether.

        However, the rot begins within. Unqualified Reservations began to go downhill when Moldbug lowered the tone in 2009. He is now committed to a persona of fringe dissident and disagreeable crank, rather than enlightened, generous historian. And his alluring compositions of abstraction and specificity have veered toward the former.

        It might be best for him to shelve his blog, which now has irredeemable bad vibes, and start afresh with a different, renewed approach. He is undoubtedly still a genius.

      • Nyk says:

        Nice to find Federico’s (or should I say Giacomo’s 😉 blog once again!

  4. Steve Johnson says:

    Reading that Atlantic article and it seems like totally standard Cathedral revisionism.

    The original story? The living god Kennedy (the physical manifestation of Cathedral perfection) deftly handled the crisis that was caused by miscommunication between the United States and the lovably paranoid Soviets.

    The corrected story from the Atlantic article? The insufficiently progressive war-monger Kennedy tried to force a nuclear confrontation with a peace loving Soviet Union by being provocative through too much strength (installing missiles that were only useful for a nuclear first strike). The peace loving Soviets installed missiles in Cuba as a teaching moment. The only way out of the dilemma was to remove the source of provocation but Kennedy didn’t want anyone to know that he agreed to this because of the stupid war-like American public.

    Totally standard Cathedral revision. The current story is always the most progressive story that’s palatable. Opinion has (somehow) shifted since the original story was promulgated so the original story has been replaced.

    • Foseti says:

      Also illustrates that, no matter how progressive you are (ie Schlesinger), they’ll still throw you under the bus in a few decades if it suits them

    • Bill says:

      I don’t think that is what is going on at all. The story the Atlantic tells there is the truth. Furthermore, anyone who has been paying attention to the Cuban Missile Crisis, even a little bit, knew this story. What are the points the Atlantic makes? That JFK was a dilettante and a lightweight. That the US lost the Cuban Missile Crisis. That the US provoked the Cuban Missile Crisis. That there was no discernible reason for us to provoke it. Etc. There is nothing that is both important and new in the article. So why was it written?

      Leading to the other interesting thing about that article: the way it obliquely critiques current US foreign policy. It quotes de Gaulle noticing how dangerous it is to be a US ally. It notices how like a mad dog we were during the Cuban Missile Crisis. it notices how having lightweights at the top of our government conduces to these things. All in all, it is a remarkable thing to see in a “serious” establishment magazine.

      • Toddy Cat says:

        “Reading that Atlantic article and it seems like totally standard Cathedral revisionism.”

        Totally agree. With the passage of time, Kennedy has become insufficiently progressive, and hence must be thrown under the bus, as Foseti says. It must also be emphasized that it was, in the long run, the Communists who provoked the Cuban Missile Crisis, by the nature of it’s ideology. “Progressives” are always going on about U.S. Cold War “Paranoia”, but never let it be forgotten that the Communism was an ideology that; A) Aspired to spread it’s system throughout the world; B) admitted that, in the long run, it could no co-exist with any other social or economic system; C) viewed eventual war between itself and its rivals as inevitable; D) was a messianic eschatological philosophy; E) had killed somewhere between 75 and 100 million people; (F had been found to have agents located high in the U.S. Government, and (G had recently spread to the most populous country on Earth. For God’s sake who WOULDN’T have been a bit paranoid?

        “The story the Atlantic tells there is the truth”

        The Atlantic is the Cathedral Organ par excellence. Why would they suddenly start to tell the truth?

      • Bill says:

        ToddyCat, A-D and F describe the US beautifully.

        Notice how both the US and USSR were wrong about the necessity or inevitability of war, as well. The moderate peaceniks were right: kicking the can down the road worked.

        CMC had nothing at all to do with paranoia. It is just as the Atlantic said. We put a first-strike-only weapons system six inches from Russia, and then we went berserk when the Russians responded in kind.

      • Drive-By Poster says:

        To honor the memory of JFK, give this game a go: JFK: Reloaded.

      • Tarl says:

        dearieme says:
        January 18, 2013 at 11:21 am
        Lightweights at the top of your government are the norm, according to Bryce.

        You mean the lightweights who did what Louis XIV, Napoleon, the Kaiser, and Hitler could not do — destroy the British Empire? Ha. Though it goes without saying that the lightweights in Downing Street were also a cause of Britain’s downfall.

    • spandrell says:

      Well is it true or not?

      • Toddy Cat says:

        In my opinion, it’s like the standard Cathedral Moderate-Liberal account of WWII. There’s some truth in it, but it’s not “the Truth”. It’s yet another weapon in a Intra-Cthedral faction fight over U.S. foreign policy. As Bill points out, the article is really about current U.S. security policy. It contains those bits of truth that suit the author’s preferred policy prescriptions today.

  5. senexada says:

    Via the comments on that nydwracu post, the best intro to Carlyle I’ve seen: http://radishmag.wordpress.com/

    I cross post here because I’m not sure if radish comments here. Nice to see the Carlyle vs. Whitman angle, and the Walt Whitman quotes atop the damning images. Beautifully designed, too.

    • Handle says:

      It helps that he picked the best excerpt from section II of Shooting Niagara where Carlyle quotes Marcus Aurelius and shows us again that the Germans are particularly good at developing the best vocabulary to describe certain social and political phenomenon when he mentioned, “Schwärmerey” -a socially spontaneous form (see comment on “fashion” above) of what they’d later call Gleichschaltung.

  6. It might help curb crime, but it sure doesn’t sound fun.

  7. Does anyone think the US government could pull these sorts of things off?

    Sensible gun controls measure shouldn’t be advocated in the USA since gun control advocates have the end goal of disarming the population. Sensible measures are just a step towards then end goal of disarmament. This is a bad thing since the USA is a patchwork of hostile tribes engaged in a low level war.

    So, while mental health screenings would be a good thing, I’m against them since it’s a step towards abolishing civilian gun ownership. Political abuse of psychology is likely as well. (You believe the races are different? You must have a psychosis!)

    It’s also important to note that just because the Japanese have a type of gun control that suits their volk, doesn’t mean it would be a good fit for Whites.

  8. Allan says:

    may be relevant to the question of ‘The Flynn effect’, dysgenics, etc.

  9. Remnant says:

    Isn’t Richard Spencer’s Alt-Right essentially the type of forum / webzine that is being contemplated? I’m sure they could use more contributors, so why not try to work off of that platform?

    • spandrell says:

      That’s a white nationalist webzine. Ever seen the comment threads over there? Brett Stevens’ articles?
      Richard Spencer and Colin Liddell are cool but the level of discourse over there is way too low. An ideal would be Moldbug’s comment threads circa 2007-08

    • nydwracu says:


      The error of the right is that it throws its gang signs openly. When the average reader clicks through to an article on The Atlantic from Facebook, he won’t see the phrase “COMMIE PROG FREAKS WHO WANT TO BE STALIN” jumping out at him from the header, but when he clicks through to Alternative Right, he’ll see, well, “Alternative Right”. And it’ll have the same effect as the bit about Stalin. At least.

      Another advantage of The Atlantic is that it doesn’t just print articles about how the glorious organs of the king of kings, the righteous ever-reigning sun-god Massachusetts need to genocide the kulaks or whatever. You can go there and read about football and the DC reality show and it all looks perfectly respectable and not like propaganda at all. Propaganda only works when it isn’t visible as such! So if you hang a neon sign over everything spelling out “FASCIST PROPAGANDA” in bright flashing letters, nobody’s going to read it.

      What Moldbug missed is that explicitly leftist organizations aren’t particularly cool either. Daily Kos is for middle-aged minivan drivers and Counterpunch is for newspaper-pushing Trot freaks who jack off to Kim Il-Sung and probably do heroin. I think I’ve seen maybe one Daily Kos link on my Facebook feed in the last year. Not even the communists on Twitter bother with Counterpunch; they read each other’s blogs and take expensive classes in critical theory, but for news and entertainment and so on, they read the same thing as junkie sorority girls and education majors at second-tier colleges.

      • Bill says:

        Walt Disney tried what you seem to be suggesting. Readers Digest, back in the day, tried what you seem to be suggesting. Neither worked all that well. Both were pretty quickly widely recognized as explicitly right wing. Disney did not have enough Jews and Communists, relative to other studios, so it was critiqued as rightist and antisemitic. Readers Digest dared to sneak in some right-wingery amongst its otherwise neutral book condensations, so it was characterized, successfully, as rightist. And deeply uncool, both of them.

        Doing propaganda without being explicit about it is a luxury of those in power. If you try to do it from a position of weakness, power calls you out on the propaganda and makes it stick. The closest you get is stuff like South Park or early Simpsons: stuff that disguises a point of view one micron right of the approved narrative in an appealing, soft-candy shell.

        As Matt asks “Can there be an institution that is right-wing without being conscious about it?” Answer: only when the right is in power.

        Besides, the right has a very particular problem right now. Mainstream conservatism is a wholly owned subsidiary of the left. The problem actual rightists have is convincing the sheep that NRO is a wolf organization and that they, the alt right, are the real shepherds. For both these reasons, the right has to be more upfront.

    • Matt says:

      I thought of alt-right too, but I guess we’re thinking something more like Slate. Rightists do seem very focused on fighting the culture war at every turn, along with trying to out-puritan the left. Just think of poor Auster, who sees The Enemy in everything nowadays.

      Steve Sailer sometimes wonders why sports media is so left-wing. I guess the answer is that they aren’t left-wing at all, at least not consciously so. Can there be an institution that is right-wing without being conscious about it?

  10. Hello there. I am sorry but I can stand the color of your respective internet site,
    It is just terrible make sure you put it back I enjoy your posts.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: