– An introduction to the Neoreaction:

Ultimately, however, if after all these centuries of trying to improve society based on abstract ideas of justice have only made life worse than it would have been under pre-Enlightenment social systems, the time has come to simply give up the whole project and revert to traditional forms whose basis we might not be able to establish rationally, but which have the evidence of history to support them.

Mass media = public opinion.

– Yes, but how cheap are the chalupas?  Not cheap enough for these guys, apparently.

History as left singularity.

– Heartiste links to Moldbug.  Moldbug has linked to Heartiste in the past (I can’t resist):

The entire spectrum of right-wing folk activism, from pointless whining through spectacular terrorism, is what Roissy would call “beta.” It is strictly man-bitch behavior. Look, if you think Norway should be ruled by patriotic, axe-wielding, Odin-worshipping Vikings rather than Euroquisling kulturmarxistene, I agree! A gelded and humiliated Norway, mentally sodomized by her raceless, epicene internationalist masters as she gradually morphs into Somalia North, is a pathetic and sickening spectacle. Haakon the Fairhaired could not possibly approve.

The circle, however, is now complete.

– Even though this is making fun of me, I can’t resist linking to it.  As my dad always says, fsck him if he can’t take a joke.

– A three-part series on the Hapsburgs (ends here, follow links to the beginning if you want it all).

Class in England.

23 Responses to Randoms

  1. PA says:

    The entire spectrum of right-wing folk activism, from pointless whining through spectacular terrorism, is what Roissy would call “beta.”

    Whining, yeah. The other stuff, no – it’s not beta either by Roissy’s definition or Moldbug’s interpretation of Roissy.

  2. Handle says:

    My God, I’m behind on my projects. I just started a new job, but I’m feeling very creative lately (maybe it’s the new energetic girlfriend – there’s something to that muse idea), and I feel like I need a sabbatical to write down the ideas before they evaporate.

    But I see I’m going to have to elevate my own “introduction” (or, whatever, I can’t go effectively concise like you or Anomaly can) on my priority list and jump on the bandwagon to explain what I understand this to be about.

    Or should I stick to writing “The Actual Constitution of the United States Government” instead?

    • Foseti says:

      Frankly, I’d prefer the latter, but asap to both.

      If you need a place to post them . . .

      • Handle says:

        Ack, More Projects. The Dark Enlightenment Gateway is something I should get started on (in the mold of viva), if for nothing more than a place to host my own stuff.

        Open bleg for someone with mad 1337 interwebz skeelz who’s willing to help me out.

        And, of course, there is the business of organizing the IRL Red Pill Roundtable club with regular DC-area meetups.

        Frankly, I prefer the latter. Because A. I like socializing and bringing people together and “building things”, and B. I hear there may be booze involved. Only fine booze. At least until we get the “beer beer goggles“.

      • Handle says:

        And, apropos of nothing, a little excerpt from Scott Alexander’s latest

        For a twenty-eight year old, I am really good at sighing and saying “Kids these days!” in a despairing tone, and that was about my response to the whole polyamory concept.

        And now seven months after moving to Berkeley I’m dating three people.

        Res ipsa loquitor

      • James says:

        Res ipsa loquitor

        —also a creditable response to the troll in the comments section.

  3. PA says:

    I re-read that Moldbug article about Bravik, and the problem tjat still remains is the fact that he never satisfactorily defined Right or Left. If history is reducible to ‘who-whom,’ then Right and Left are relative, situational phenomena.

    This calls into question his assertion that right wing activism is innately ineffective, beta, retarded.

    • fnn says:

      To drive home your point, Charles “Social Justice” Coughlin was allied with Huey “Share Our Wealth” Long. Coughlin was considered “right-wing” due to his anti-Semitism., Long was not anti-Semitic. They were working together in anticipation of Long’s forthcoming campaign for POTUS in 1936-which never came to pass due to the assassination of Long in 1935. I’m not sure, but maybe Long was considered right-wing because he had no links to the pro-Soviet club that ruled in DC at the time.

  4. James says:

    Mangan is seriously in error. There is nothing in that link to suggest “billionaires for open borders”, apart from his amygdaloid imagination. Zuckerberg et al are the nearest thing America has to aristocrats, and they our fighting our corner, perhaps in more exciting ways down the line.

    Consider: USG is prepared to admit 10 million illegal Helots. Yet, tech entrepreneurs are sincerely—not because they want to rub anyone’s nose in diversity—frustrated by a bureaucratic accreditation system that debars and balks the most highly intelligent, civilised immigrants. Some of these are from the Third World, but they create jobs, innovate and supplement the unusually sane, undemocratic technologist caste. They could not conceivably ruin anyone’s neighbourhood. Paul Graham has an interesting piece on the subject here.

    Now why doesn’t USG just wave them all in? They would be a golden nugget in a sterquiline river.

    Because they are aristocrats. USG wants peasants, not accretion to a rigorously analytic, independent elite which has already begun to wave its saber. It wants a flood of Helots, and no more than a carefully metered trickle of rivals.

    These billionaires have realised their internet-enabled power. After SOPA, why not continue to force the issue? Unfortunately, whereas SOPA protests were purely adversarial, now they have grasped the democratic ring of power by attempting to influence USG. Quite possibly, they will be corrupted—just as all the energy behind mainstream “libertarianism” has been diverted to “Mexicans are hardworking, so let them work here”, i.e. let’s not change anything, but keep the flood of progressive meatpuppets coming in.

    Still, in principle Paul Graham, Alexis Ohanian and Zuckerberg are far more likely to steer America in a sane direction than the Cathedral’s inner circle. They are honest men, and I have never known them to prate about “crimes against humanity” or “unfair coercion” in regard to the question of national borders.

    • James says:

      American immigration policy keeps out most smart people, and channels the rest into unproductive jobs. It would be easy to do better. Imagine if, instead, you treated immigration like recruiting– if you made a conscious effort to seek out the smartest people and get them to come to your country.

      A country that got immigration right would have a huge advantage. At this point you could become a mecca for smart people simply by having an immigration system that let them in.

      —Paul Graham.

      I don’t just think that immigration restrictions are bad policy; I think they’re a grotesque crime against humanity – with all that implies. Given this starting point, Obama’s semi-amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants sounds like the best U.S. political news of the 21st-century.

      —Bryan Caplan

      I know which country I’d rather live in.

    • Foseti says:

      I sympathize with some of your broader points. However, mid-level computer programmers are hardly aristocrats by any standard.

      • James says:

        As long as they don’t become Sauron’s minions, I would trust tech entrepreneurs—with enlightened guidance— to become a benign element in America’s new, undemocratic constitution.

        Their specific ideas, now, are less important than their principles such as espoused in the above quote. Nonetheless, although not necessary I don’t think modest immigration of mid-level programmers is incompatible with a prosperous and stable America, as long as other things were to change. Ideally, not only would every racial state privilege be abolished, every discrimination law abolished, and every legal right-to-exclude restored, but internal migration would be subject to more choice and discrimination, e.g. through city-based visas allotted by local franchises.

        More abstractly, anti-demotism implies a measure of faith in and consent for the rule of aristocrats with political property rights. Mangan strikes me, based on his general writings, as more of a conservative demotist than a reactionary.

  5. Samson J. says:

    Mass media = public opinion

    I read through the entire comment list at Steve’s, even though I’m only a semi-regular Steve reader, and I must say some of the comments there were very, very good.

    It was nice to see someone articulate a thoughtful comment that echoed my own ideas about the whole matter: namely, that “gay marriage” is almost entirely one incredible triumph of the mass media. It more or less proves that the mass media can take any idea, no matter how preposterous, abominable, or immoral, and make it popular.

    Does anybody else find this terrifying? I remember once, in undergrad, having a conversation about whether 1984 could ever really “happen”. On the one hand, I think it’s unlikely to literally happen. On the other hand, we’re pretty much already there in some ways.

    The seemingly rapid change in public opinion does suggest to me that a) the change might not be as deep as it seems; and more importantly b) it could be changed back just as quickly, if we got the right people in power, which might be easier to do than it appears. The Nazi piece was fascinating.

    • Samson J. says:

      On the other hand, I would suppose that the mass media is only really effective at shaping the thoughts of people who don’t come with some pre-conceived worldview. Which underscores my traditionalist Christian opinion about the importance of having firm beliefs to begin with. This is why the culture had to first destroy religious faith before these other ideas could take hold.

    • Anonymous says:

      we’re already there, but the victory gin is so much better we don’t care

  6. Handle says:

    Some Anniversaries:

    1. 100 years – April 8th, 1913 – Ratification of the 17th Amendment. In my view, this was the last time the fundamental structure of government was changed in a formal, open, and explicit manner. Everything since then has been the short-lived experiment with alcohol prohibition, merely expanding the franchise (women, the young, the indigent, and DC), or trivial (no pay raises, presidential term and succession matters). Oddly enough, the popular election of Senators was a species of the old Progressive enthusiasm for “cozy club corruption neutralizing” radically direct democracy which also took form in the various referendum processes you see mostly in Western states. Today’s Progressives mostly hate these elections and want them abolished, but you’ll see them arguing for the return of state-legislator chosen Senators. On the contrary, they also want the filibuster abolished.

    2. 10 years – April 9th, 2003 – The fall of Baghdad.

  7. Harry Suit says:

    You know you’ve made it when Firepower whines about your undeserved attention in the blogosphere. Don’t you know he figured all this out years ago, and has better things to discuss – like how all other bloggers aren’t as relevant as he is.

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: