Mandela, the W-force, and the progressive need for chaos

In the third part of his “Open Letter to an Open Minded Progressive” Mencius Moldbug concluded his explanation of “the W-force” and progressive’s need for chaos.

Nelson Mandela’s life and legacy are an excellent way to examine both of these phenomenon.

The progressive explanation of history doesn’t make sense.  For some reason, the political center continually, steadily, and predictably moves leftward.

(For my money, this is best explained in Moldbug’s series on Dawkins, in which Dawkins refers to the W-force as “the zeitgeist.”  You’ve really got to admire Dawkins for admitting that he needs this fudge factor.  On the other hand, you have to marvel at his obtuseness and generally lack of ability for self-criticism if he doesn’t think it’s funny that his explanation of the world which he’s describing in a book about how he’s not religious requires a mythical, inexplicable force that in his mind works constantly, and across time, for Good.  For some reason I feel like there’s a name for such a force . . .)

Progressive history can’t account for this result.  In brief, the W-force (W is for Whig) is a plug in the progressive historical equation that makes both sides balance.

Also in that third Open Letter post, Moldbug argued that the reactionary was both: 1) the polar opposite of the progressive; and 2) best defined as one who supports order.  The difficulty with this description of the reactionary is that it logically follows that the progressive supports disorder, which doesn’t exactly square with the typical progressives I’ve known, who are generally quite mild-mannered.  As he put it:

Rather, when you look at what progressives, Whigs, republicans, and other anti-reactionaries actually believe in – whether they are supporters of Obama, Lafayette, Herzen, or any other paladin of the people’s cause – it is rarely (although not never) the simple, nihilistic liquidation of the present order. It is always the construction of some new order, which is at least intended as an improvement on the present one.

However, in order to construct this new order, two things need to happen. One: the builders of the new order need to gain power. Two: they need to destroy the old order, which by its insistence on continuing to exist obstructs the birth of the new.

In the progressive mind, these indispensable tasks are not objectives. They are methods. They may even be conceived as unpleasant, if necessary, duties. . . .


So the progressive is, indeed, the polar opposite of the reactionary. Just as order and stability are essential to reaction, disorder and destruction are essential to progressivism. 

Enter Mandela.  (Moldbug’s thoughts are here, but need some fleshing out).

There are some things we must get out of the way.  We’re reactionaries, after all, so we won’t just brush aside inconvenient bits of history.

What if I told you that the world’s most revered political leader was an adherent of the 20th Century’s most murderous ideology?  What if I further told you that he founded and ran an organization that practiced what may well be the 21st Century’s most murderous political methodology?  What if I further told you that even the supposed opponents of these movements don’t think it really matters?  (Imagine the progressive saying that some revered leader was fascist, but he was just a little fascist, and really, given his circumstances . . .)

Mandela was a Communist and he was a terrorist.  Yet to believe that these things disqualify him from greatness is to exist so far outside the present day mainstream as to be politically irrelevant.

How many things like this can one have been at least partly responsible for without disqualification from greatness?  I would have said zero, but apparently I would have been way off.  A few more such incidents are listed here.  If you have a strong stomach, don’t miss the pictures!  There’s more if you follow the links here.

Yet, at his death, we see all the leaders of the international community present and praising him.  Indeed, the mainstream media are – in sometimes in cagey terms – not reluctant to praise South Africa in general, despite the genocide, rape and murder (follow the links).

If nothing else, you’ve got to have a pretty lame sense of humor not to laugh at the presence of all these world leaders in a country with a leader who thinks you can shower off the AIDS, is married to too many people to count, not-so-covertly supports genocide, occasionally gets a little rapey (maybe he’s not too rapey like Mandela wasn’t too much of a Communist), is openly corrupt, sues the press when they criticize him, hates the gays, wants to confiscate the children of teenage mothers(?!), thinks minority groups have “less rights,” and can’t think of anything bad to say about Mugabe.  See you fuckers in Sochi!

Yet all that said, in some ways, the reactionary is the only who can really appreciate why Mandela was actually good.  After all, we seem to be the only ones who *can* see the horror of progressive Africa.

When the international community decided that colonialism must end in Africa, they kicked off an orgy or murder, rape, and genocide.  This violence was generally directed at Africans (white and black) who were members in minority tribes.  The level of chaos is nearly impossible to overstate.  The results were fairly obvious, but they were continually repeated over the course of decades and the “international community” never did anything to try to slow the horror.

Is there a better demonstration of the progressive need for chaos?

In this light, Mandela was a remarkable leader.  Although it wasn’t possible to stop the bloodshed unleashed by the international community in South Africa, Mandela somehow managed to slow the process down by decades.  Whereas everywhere else in Africa, the genocide, murder, rape and general descent into third-worldism were immediate, in South Africa, they’ve been remarkably gradual. 

If that’s your bar what makes a good leader, let’s just say that your bar is set a lot lower than mine.


58 Responses to Mandela, the W-force, and the progressive need for chaos

  1. Handle says:

    Of course, #1son comes home from nice suburban school and Mandela was the topic du jour. At dinner, “Oh really, what did they say about him?”

    He tried to recall specifics but found he couldn’t, it was all just positive impressions of freedom and equality. “Mandela was like George Washington for Africa.”

    It’s a tender age he’s at – I wonder something what the most appropriate and tactful way is to mildly push back against this stuff. He’s gotten smart enough to know that dad has some extra, secret facts, but not to use them ever to try and ‘correct’ what the teacher said. I don’t want him to disrespect authority, or spoil an eager interest in learning with cynical incredulity. It’s a balancing act.

    I said that Mandela was not at all like George Washington. He did not go to war with soldiers. He told people to put bombs on public streets that killed unsuspecting regular people.

    “They never said that.”

    One wonders what they’ll do for Fidel Castro’s funeral.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Ha! Level 1 neoreactionary there.

      Next level neoreactionary is that yeah, Mandela was like George Washington (and that says something bad about George Washington).

      Of course, if you’re going to have a revolution in your country it’s best to have it run by people like George Washington. Unfortunately George Washingtons are in short supply.

    • asdf says:

      Is it really that important to tell the children this stuff? He is likely too young to process the nuance, and if he spouts hate facts without knowing when and where its appropriate it could cause him a lot of trouble.

      You didn’t know the truth at that age. There seems to be a time and place for figuring this stuff out.

      • Handle says:

        Personally, I think it is important. There is a tradeoff between readiness in terms of maturity, but also impressionability and long-term imprinting regarding heroes, values etc.

        I tread carefully with precaution and a bit of trepidation, but I’m not willing to passively abandon his formative years to the deacons of Blue Orthodoxy.

        I concede a good amount of uncertainty in this regard. It seems to me like theology, it’s something that is best introduced in maturity and age-appropriate stages, refined over time with the development of experience and cognitive capability, but never ‘nothing’.

        This generation of children will be the first to have amongst them members who were raised neoreactionary from the start, without ever knowing a President prior to Obama. There’s no good instruction book for that; there can’t be one yet. Maybe we can write one a decade or two from now.

      • Candide III says:

        In Soviet Union experience, dissidents’ children learn to handle this kind of situation — that some things are not to be said in public and may be discussed only with family or trusted family friends — without much trouble. Apparently this idea is not contrary to the nature of man. Sigh.

      • asdf says:

        Well, that’s a problem. If he knows the truth but can’t say it, and may even be forced to say lies, he will soon develop lying as a habit. It’s like a little kid that knows Santa isn’t real. They can’t hold it in without blurting it out for too long. And that is good, I’d be a lot more worried about a child who spent years lying about Santa when he knew better.

        I think there is a way for people to pick up on this stuff without having to be direct. I figured out my parents real attitudes on race every time we locked the doors going through a black neighborhood. They didn’t need to hand me a copy of The Bell Curve. Most of the values I learned from them that stuck came from their attitudes and actions, ideological explanations weren’t necessary. And I knew what they disapproved of through their lack of enthusiasm for certain things without needing a thesis on why it was wrong/bad. Also, what we are talking about is reality itself, so you’ve got the fact that the world is constantly teaching him your values without you doing anything. All you’ve got to do is minimize progressive influences (mass media, etc).

        Lastly, all kids end up growing up and want to forge their own path (and rebel against the old). The less specific you are the less the child will rebel against it. If anything he may look at the progressive mainstream and rebel against it, as you have. Specific instances may vary though.

        Though I’m probably out of my element here.

      • Handle says:

        I recommend we continue this side-conversation over here.

      • sunshinemary says:


        In Soviet Union experience, dissidents’ children learn to handle this kind of situation — that some things are not to be said in public and may be discussed only with family or trusted family friends — without much trouble.

        Thank you for how you phrased that. This is, in fact, how we handle such conversations with our children. We told the older children a more accurate description of Mandela than what they heard in school but, like we do with many conversations of such nature, we reminded them that they should be very careful about how they discuss it in public. No lying is necessary, but a certain amount of reticence to enter into such discussions publicly is all that is needed.

        We told our younger children nothing, of course.

    • viking says:

      experience tells me you got two choices home schools or expect a little commie real soon

    • Erik says:

      “One wonders what they’ll do for Fidel Castro’s funeral.”

      Now that Castro has died, let me reproduce here the eulogy by Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, for the benefit of posterity. I expect Trudeau is fairly representative of “they”.

      From :

      “It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest serving President.
      “Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.
      “While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for “el Comandante”.
      “I know my father was very proud to call him a friend and I had the opportunity to meet Fidel when my father passed away. It was also a real honour to meet his three sons and his brother President Raúl Castro during my recent visit to Cuba.
      “On behalf of all Canadians, Sophie and I offer our deepest condolences to the family, friends and many, many supporters of Mr. Castro. We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader.”

  2. Gian says:

    “the reactionary is the only who can really appreciate why Mandela was actually good. After all, we seem to be the only ones who *can* see the horror of progressive Africa”

    Hardly. It is, in fact. standard mainstream conservative line. See any National Review Online article on Mandela.

    • Jake says:

      Conservative commentators have been pretty consistent at pointing out what Mandela was. Though the actual conservative propaganda makers are more like to tow the progressive line the closer to power they are.

      The conservative bases isn’t nearly as brainwashed on all issues as the progressives would like them to be. And even the progressives will say very un progressive things if you get a few drinks in them. It’s very hard to deny reality all the time.

  3. peppermint says:

    George Washington and Nelson Mandela were disgruntled insurgents who were handed power by Whigs. But after 20 years of corruption and incompetence befitting rule by disgruntled insurgents, the Americans decided to restore the British government, though Washington either did not understand the need for a king or didn’t want to be it, so he bowed out after 2 terms.

    Perhaps that was a good thing. Poland was once the most powerful country in Europe, but it had an elective monarchy, and then it got partitioned. Perhaps that happening to the US would have been a good thing for the world.

    20 years into the corruption and incompetence of much worse terrorists than the Americans in a much less homogeneous country…

    Anyway, progressives are right that committing genocide is a reasonable bar to set for a communist terrorist.

  4. Gian says:

    Moldbug, accepting as he does gay marriage, is a phony reactionary.
    He accepts and welcomes the leading edge of disorder.
    He might do a thought experiment comparing his views with even a 20C progressive, say Stalin. I am sure Stalin would come up as a reactionary compared to Moldbug.

  5. […] Mandela, the W-force, and the progressive need for chaos | Foseti […]

  6. dearieme says:

    “Mandela was like George Washington for Africa.” What, Mandela owned slaves?

    • Handle says:

      In a young boy’s mind, there is an instinct that nations and peoples are supposed to have stories with founding heroes. Kings, liberators, prophets, innovators, whatever. The way educational indoctrination / propaganda works is to ride the waves of these aspects of human nature; which are like innate mental pigeon-holes eager to be filled by some content.

      He knows a few names he’s learned to recognize as a crude pantheon of modern secular Saints alongside his ancient religious ones, but he hasn’t been exposed to any context about them yet.

      To a young American boy who hasn’t been taught any of the details, ‘George Washington’ is just the name of our hero, who did some vague heroic thing for our whole country a long time ago. Nelson Mandela, to him, is just their version of that hero.

      In a way, he’s right. Nelson Mandela is indeed clearly ‘their celebrated hero’. Hopefully, with a little corrective guidance, he can just barely begin his journey to understand the concept that, while none are perfect, there are still different kinds of heroes of different degrees of worthiness as regards their glorification.

      It is the exercise of virtue which makes one worthy, and the celebration of the unworthy is reflective of the state of virtues amongst the celebrators.

  7. dearieme says:

    I’m a Scot. Our national hero is Robert the Bruce. Nonetheless in primary school we learnt that on his way to power he murdered a man. (The Red Comyn.) You must tell me why American children – indeed, usually American adults – are reckoned too immature to accept equivalent harsh facts.

    • asdf says:

      In Japan they literally skip most of the entire second world war (and war with China before it) in school and at most museums. It goes something like.

      1930…stuff we don’t need to talk about…pearl harbor…more stuff…Tokyo getting firebombed

    • Zimriel says:

      I’m a Jew (in part). Our hero killed a Coptic overseer who was just doin’ his job. It’s not much of a secret; it was even in the “Prince of Egypt” cartoon.

    • Tarl says:

      They’re OK with telling American children that George Washington killed people. They just sugar-coat it by saying that the people he killed deserved it. Which is pretty much how, I expect, the Scottish histories sugar-coat the murder of Comyn – by saying he was a bum and a traitor who deserved it.

      • dearieme says:

        No; that’s the point. Nobody suggested he was a bum or a traitor. It’s Americans, apparently, who need everything sugar-coated. Even the adults.

      • Tarl says:,_Lord_of_Badenoch

        While later Scottish sources all try to justify the crime by amplifying earlier accusations of malevolence and treachery against Comyn, the English sources portray Robert as a villain who lured Comyn into a church — taken as a guarantee of safety — with the intention of committing premeditated murder.

        Apparently the Scots DO need sugar-coating. It’s the English who want to fling mud on a Scottish hero by accusing him of premeditated murder.

        But maybe Scottish schoolbooks are written by the English these days.

    • Handle says:

      It’s not ‘sugar coating’, it’s more abstract. It’s moral amplification. It applies to everything and everyone, not just to heroes. Yes, it’s very immature and unrealistic, but that’s what absolutist moralism does to people.

      Americans, especially progressives (but I repeat myself) tend to view things through an extremely Boolean moralistic lens; they do this probably with more intensity than anyone else in the world. People, even God and Nature, are either all Good or all Bad. That cart is put before the horse, and they fill in the moral interpretations of everything and everyone else to bolster those views.

      For instance, Blacks are All Good. Anything potentially wrong that a Black person ever does, if it’s even admitted at all, is not really wrong, because it’s really someone else’s fault, or it was done to someone who was All Bad and probably deserved it. Anyone who is not Black and does anything harmful to any Black is All Bad, and no mere facts or evidence can ever exonerate them.

      All of this plays deeply into the Ad Hominem style of American ‘point and sputter’ / ‘burn the witch!’ discourse, which never has to ever engage in argument, or admit that someone on the other side can ever say anything true. They are just All Bad people. And when one of our All Good friends does something bad, here come the excuses, rationalization, spinning, justifications, etc.

      The main point is that ‘epistemic closure’ enforced by excommunication of anyone who strays off the reservation even an inch. Moralism and Ideological Tribalism go hand in hand.

    • Gilbert P says:

      The important thing is never to kill spiders… except in self-defence.

  8. […] at Foseti’s place, there’s a little discussion going on in the comments which is more abstract and very […]

  9. Sonter Dunningham says:

    Years ago, I read what happened when The Belgians left the Congo in 1960. I forget where I read it, but it was a foreshadowing of events there since then and today. The most amazing thing was that the Western powers of the day actually sent in troops to try save the Nuns and Priests, unfortunately in vain.

  10. […] *Update: Foseti: Mandela, the W-force, and the progressive need for chaos […]

  11. […] It looks like Foseti finally woke up. Regarding […]

  12. Tarl says:

    Mandela was a Communist and he was a terrorist. Yet to believe that these things disqualify him from greatness is to exist so far outside the present day mainstream as to be politically irrelevant.

    Go me!

    • viking says:

      If you mean he had the alpha personality to lead or that terrorism is an automatic bar to leadership status yeah that’s true but shouldn’t a leader be wise enough to see the glaring hazards of terrorist implementation of communism for a people

      • Tarl says:

        Being a communist and a terrorist is no bar to being a “leader” — many communists and terrorists have been leaders.

        However, being a communist and a terrorist bars him from being a “great leader” in my book.

  13. VXXC says:

    “If that’s your bar what makes a good leader, let’s just say that your bar is set a lot lower than mine.”

    Then LEAD. Or FOLLOW.

    The most admirable thing about Mandela was how he carried himself in prison. As to the putative “bar” it’s not …nothing. Nor is it mere talk.

    The actual bar is set lower. Would the professional appratchik in the corner office carry himself so in a Salt mine? Probably not.

    Would he hold back even Walmart looters for a couple of hours? The answer to the question is known.

    Does Yglesias? Yet he can destroy …with a word? <<not my phrase.

    You are in the presence daily of our equivalent of the marauding EBanTu, who are currently looting us with childish abandon. But whom are instantly chastised when 40 checks Knockout.

    [it's bluff now BTW…they're done. Balls. Gone.]

    Don't criticize someone who held back all of sub-saharan Africa for 12 years when you can't hold back the EBanTu tribe for 120 minutes.

  14. viking says:

    what Afrikaners should have done when the Cathedral came a calling is negotiate for all white south africans to allowed in to the country of their choice with assistance if need be.

  15. Gilbert P says:

    Apologists for the saint talk about the relative paucity of bombings, shootings and other manifestations of what we might call event terrorism. But the real terror in RSA was day-to-day in the townships, where a Maoist network of ANC/SACP street committees ruled with matches, car tyres and blades. Their system was co-ordinated and ruthless, but with a chaotic and arbitrary nature characteristic of true terror and indigenous to the region.
    The most dangerous role in 1980s and late seventies was not riot policeman, white farmer, black activist or expat guerrilla. It was ‘sell-out’, the name given to a ‘comrade’ suspected of even the mildest form of collaboration with ‘The Regime’. Residents were set upon and torched for buying goods from a ‘boycotted’ shop, or publicly butchered for going to work on a ‘strike’ day.
    The forces of chaos were unleashed by the ANC/SACP with its infamous ‘make the townships ungovernable’ edict. Naturally, in victory, the new regime favoured a return to order, that the feasting and plunder might be more convivial.

  16. Gilbert P says:

    I should add that this terror is the reason why it was ‘chilling’ (as Cathedral journos would USUALLY say) when ANC heavies appealed for ‘discipline’ when some of the natives got restless during the send-off. You see, ‘discipline’ carries a very special meaning there, and it’s not subtle.

  17. […] at Mandela’s funeral. Related: More amusement. Related: Mandela and the W-force. Related: Mandela’s legacy in video. Shoot the Boer. “And was this also not the truth about […]

  18. […] Fosetti writes Mandela, the W-force, and the progressive need for chaos: […]

  19. Hugh Mann says:

    “The progressive explanation of history doesn’t make sense. For some reason, the political center continually, steadily, and predictably moves leftward.”

    Yet the ordinary worker, supposed beneficiary of Leftism, has been getting poorer and poorer for thirty years.

    The more “social” leftism triumphs, the less “economic”, Gompers-style leftism, concerned with wages and working conditions, succeeds. Must be coincidence.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Moldbug pointed out that the United States is a communist country with NAMs as the workers and that seems to be true. Everything policy has to be for the benefit of the NAMs, nothing can be done if it has disparate impact on the NAMs, etc.

      No one here is naive enough to believe that progressive policies actually benefit NAMs.

      Turn that reasoning around. When the left was all about the workers they weren’t benefiting the workers any more than they are benefiting NAMs now. It was an excuse then just like it’s an excuse now.

      There was no golden age when progressivism was a great deal for the white working class.

  20. Erik says:

    Merry Christmas Foseti.

  21. Doux says:

    Communism is only the most ‘murderous’ if you conflate deaths resulting from misguided policies and actual violent murder by the state. If you don’t, fascism takes the cake with both realized and unrealized murder: the nazis openly planned to destroy the whole nation of Russia and much of eastern europe to clear away for a greater Germany in the east. If you take all the deaths resulting from ill-designed policies of communism and count them as murder, then you must also account for expectancy in China rising from 32 to 65 under Mao, perhaps the greatest life expectancy leap in human history. Most figures that blame 70 million deaths on Mao’s policies are mostly wildly speculative. Additionally, you shouldn’t forget that communist rulers governed over vast lands with numerous economic and social problems, which will add to the death count without any communist policy in the first place. I am no supporter of communism, but given that the actual scale of communist atrocities is still up for debate, I wouldn’t be quick to label the ideology as the most murderous.

    As for the ANC and Mandela’s attraction to communism. This is no mystery. First of all, in the 1960s and even in the 1980s, the actual atrocities and problems of communist countries were not as widely accepted or realized by people outside the communist world, or even within it. The communist party was one of the few parties with any meaningful power or influence in South Africa that did not actively discriminate on the basis of race, which made it an important part of the struggle.

    And as for Mandela’s supposed terrorism. Again, violence against the apartheid state was justified. Violence against whites during the apartheid era was also justified. And this is not up for debate: it was self-evidently justified. The whites had voted for the apartheid regime and endorsed a policy of dehumanization, deprivation and humilaition of their country’s black population. The apartheid regime had declared whites to be a seperate and better nation and declared war on the blacks. Thus firebombing white schools, white hospitals, white churches, white-only coffee houses, sanitation systems servicing white people and so on was not only justified and but the moral imperative of all good people.

    “innocent white people” hardly existed under the apartheid. And if they did, they would not and should not have mattered the black resistence fighters because there comes a point in the course in total war when demurring from violence is an evil, even when facing the prospect of killing few innocents or even many. The United States realized this when they fire bombed Tokio, nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The violence against black collaborators was no less unjustified than the brutal murder of nazi collaborators. Mandela could have unleashed violence far worse than he did, but he was a better man than his enemies.

    As for the post apartheid economic problems. Following the collapse of Apartheid, the IMF prescribed that the SA should maintain a high interest rate. And the ANC complied, and oddly for a communist regime, it followed IMF macroeconomic policies rather slavishly. From their peak in the 1990s, the interest rates were 10-12 %. This did keep inflation down, only at 6.3 %, but it damaged the economy. Since the avarage non-financial firm in SA had a profit rate of less than 6 %, real interest rates of 10 to 12 % meant that few firms could borrow to invest. While the IMF policy was pursued in attempt to preserve investment, it actually diminished it from the high 30 % that it was once in the 80s, to a meagre 15 % and below.

    Investment was very much needed in South Africa. The apartheid regime had neglected manifactured imports and the great investments needed to build up such output. Instead, the regime focused of resource extraction and exportation, which is good enough if you only need to care for the needs of a minority but not suffiecent to provide for the whole country. state investment in manifactured exports, like in Malaysia and China, would have allowed for the country to employ massive numbers of its unskilled unemployed people. But apartheid neglect and right wing IMF dogma came together to condemn South Africa into poverty and massive inequality.

    • Erik says:

      “And as for Mandela’s supposed terrorism.”
      What’s supposed about it? Mandela was a terrorist. Mandela’s life history fairly well tracks that of Anders Breivik to date. Is Breivik also a supposed terrorist, according to you?

      “it was self-evidently justified”
      Ah, yes, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are equal (none of that Creator nonsense, can’t go establishing religion you know) and saying otherwise is sexist, racist, ageist, lookist, homophobic, microaggression… No. Bullshit, it wasn’t justified, self-evidently or otherwise.

      “The whites had voted for the apartheid regime and endorsed a policy of dehumanization, deprivation and humilaition of their country’s black population.”
      Can’t be all that self-evident if you feel a need to go about justifying it. Bullshit to your “humiliation” charge, sometimes the truth is humiliating. Bullshit to your other charges, poverty and savagery are the natural state of man, and I reject the complaint that equates not pulling sufficiently far up with dragging down.

      “The apartheid regime had declared whites to be a seperate and better nation”
      They were. This is more evident than any of your “self-evident” bullshit: whites are, on average, less violent and more intelligent than blacks. Thus white nations will tend to be better than black nations.

      “and declared war on the blacks.”

      “Thus firebombing white schools, white hospitals, white churches, white-only coffee houses, sanitation systems servicing white people and so on was not only justified and but the moral imperative of all good people.”
      Bullshit, but I’m still curious: under what moral system do you make this assertion of a moral imperative? Then I can expand on how it’s bullshit.

      “Mandela could have unleashed violence far worse than he did, but he was a better man than Robert Mugabe.”
      Fixed that for you. Low bar.

    • Dan says:

      @Doux — Communism is easily the most murderous however you do the counting. The general consensus is 100 million, which is a whole order of magnitude more than fascism.

      If you choose to ignore such things as the intentional starvation of uncooperative peasants, you still have an awfully hard time getting things down toward the range of fascism.

      But that is not even the main thing. Communism is so consistently genocidal because it is doctrinally so. The how-to-guides for building a Communist society are basically as follows: Step 1, kill a whole bunch of people. Step 2, if not yet properly Communist, see step 1.

      Consider a list of just the major genocidal places under Communism: the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Hungary, Romania, Vietnam, East Germany, Bulgaria, and even Ethiopia for God’s sake. That doesn’t even include the ‘minor genocides’ in places like Angola and Cuba. If your Communism is not genocidal, you aren’t doing it right.

      From that perspective, Pinochet’s strategy of dropping a handful of Communists into the ocean from airplanes was a moderate and evenhanded response.

    • bomag says:

      @Doux: by your metric, apartheid was good because under it Black life expectancy went up sharply while falling sharply post apartheid. I’ll expect you to send a thank you card.

  22. […] of violence makes the news and enters the public consciousness is a very interesting question. In Mandela the W-force, and the progressive need for chaos Foseti writes: “When the international community decided that colonialism must end in Africa, […]

  23. […] Foseti, who has recently started a series of posts reviewing Mencius Moldbug’s output (see here and here.)  His reviews are as punchy and clear as Mencius Moldbug’ originals are meandering […]

  24. shemale says:

    You really should experience a tournament first of the finest blogs on the internet. I’m going to suggest this website!

  25. No Experience Necessary

  26. Truman Stoen says:

    Weight Loss Guaranteed

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: