02
Feb
Michael Anissimov has published an e-book condensing the main Neoreactionary (and in fact older Right-Libertarian) arguments against democracy. The first chapter can be read here, the book purchased from here.
The distinction he makes between points 1 and 4 is not clear to me. It seems like they could both be condensed into one statement that says, “All property under a democracy is a fugitive resource.” Am I missing something? Maybe a distinction between private property and political power?
[Reply]
Posted on February 2nd, 2015 at 2:16 pm | QuoteNeoreaction is so screwed it is actually funny in a really dark way. Anissimov is very much a symptom of the death of NRx, neoreaction or whatever. Not only is he not going to go anywhere, but anyone who has any intellectual links to sov corp, patchwork, the hayekian/ Scots enlightenment underpinnings of analysis etc is left high and dry, because they have all been ejected and NRx has gone Identarian. Michael McGregor calls it here -http://www.socialmatter.net/2014/10/15/724/, and the reason he calls it, is that he is identarian and he can see that most NRx were really identarian. As most NRx were actually identarian, Anissimov’s obscene behavior has been quietly and organically allowed because it is within their accepted parameters, in fact it is beneficial, as he drags the thing in an identarian direction. Think of him as comparable to left activists.
If you make a claim along Moldbug lines (for example one based on incentives and rejecting WN and thedes and all that nonsense) you will get quickly admonished by most of NRx. It take major effort to get most NRx to deal with Anissimov, and even with the worst of his behavior it is only done grudgingly, it is really quietly allowed. You go against WN, Nazism and all the other mutated left wing bullshit, you get constant grief (really quietly allowed by “core NRx.)
[Reply]
admin Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 2:59 pm
This year should be interesting. It’s probably a good idea to learn from the short book idea, and set some things out calmly and clearly.
My sense of things (NRx-wise) isn’t quite as dire as yours. I think we’ve seen worse, in the height of the Evola-mania, and that the deep trend is to restoration of Moldbuggian analysis within the rough frame you propose.
Mike didn’t use this publication to launch Animissovism, but instead — mostly — to recollect Hoppean insights into the failure of democracy. He has to see that wherever the NRx center of gravity might be, his ethno-populist trolling isn’t it.
[Reply]
Chris B Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 4:05 pm
I think with every sad “success” by identitarians in europe (and by “new” right parties) the identitarian contingent within NRx is going to consolidate, become louder, and become more central.
The question really is – why the hell is anyone not identitarian nor WN/ socialist going to stick around to put up with this constant crap? Where is the analysis going to come from? I can see many different avenues that can be taken with a strong connection to current trends in urban development, technology and intellectual outreach but why would anyone want to do it under NRx when they then have to put up with the Evola spam bot tagging along for the ride and the identitarians waving their hands and banging on about mystical crap like this – http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/we-are-identitarians
[Reply]
Chris B Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 4:10 pm
You know what. That’s the last I’m going to say on this topic.
Izak Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 5:03 pm
“Where is the analysis going to come from?”
Probably from people who have intelligent things to say, try to stick to the best reading material possible, and don’t particularly care about the unusual quirks of various social groups. People with smart ideas don’t choose groups because they want somewhere to belong. They let groups basically choose them because their principles coincide. This whole tech-comm vs identitarian thing is a pseudo-controversy. Intelligent identitarians have doofuses who spend too much time embroiled in mud-slinging internet controversies and enjoy fringe for fringe’s sake (I’m sure you’ve noticed that this is a real cause for concern around those parts), while tech-comms are surrounded by intelligent libertarians who are too socially conformist to accept that democracy is a lousy system and thus unmotivated to read further into that direction. Each group obviously has its issues. Neither camp is robust or grounded enough to competently wage war against the other.
Bryce Laliberte Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 6:37 pm
How hard would it be to simply propose a division between “neoreactionary identitarianism” and, say, “neoreaction per se?” There’s no contradiction between neoreaction and identitarianism, especially insofar as the latter draws on the former and not vice versa.
Nick B. Steves Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 6:40 pm
This. Precisely.
Nick B. Steves Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 6:47 pm
The strength of NRx is being all kinds of politically impossible things without being insane, autistic, and wankerous about them.
If you’re concerned about hyper-thedish entry, then understand them, embrace them, teach them. Don’t run in fear. Lead. Most won’t follow. A few will. And they will be enlightened.
SOBL Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 7:05 pm
Isn’t Anissimov really “Neo-European Monarchist Identarianism” (could be refined). To use Bryce’s suggestion, can’t we just set that up as a piece under the umbrella but not neoreaction per se?
Mark Warburton Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 12:52 am
With you on this 100%, Chris. I only ever interpreted Spandrell’s Trichonomy as a prophecy of impending divisiveness. Since ’13 it’s been a matter of waving off genuine interstices and games of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. I guess it’s the role of the ‘throne and altar’ types to say, ‘come on guys, make up, it isn’t THAT bad.’
scientism Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 4:51 pm
If somebody set up a publishing brand under which to publish short books by NRx authors it’d be a neat way for people to promote stuff and a way to ensure editorial discretion and stop anything insufficiently NRxy from creeping in. All you really need is a name, a website, some respectable people for an editorial board and maybe an agreement to cross promote at various venues.
[Reply]
Erebus Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 7:03 pm
I’d be glad to finance such a thing, if the right people (e.g. our host) are involved. I also have designers and IP lawyers who could work on it. (I pay ‘em a salary anyway, so might as well put them to work!) If y’all are interested in pursuing this further, let me know how I can contact you.
Aeroguy Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 7:31 pm
That cuts to the heart of it. Who holds the keys and wears the editor hat. An invitation for an ego driven power struggle. To make matters worse we have the autistic trying to herd cats. The thing is, the based people following along are the prize and the beautiful thing about them is that brand recognition doesn’t work on them, where there is quality content, they’ll always manage to find it. NRx exists in squishy idea space. When NRx ideas reach maturity (they’re certainly not ripe yet), then it will be time to see formalized leadership structures emerge and apply fully realized NRx ideas to achieve real world goals.
scientism Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 8:06 pm
@Aeroguy
I proposed this solution since anyone can do it, it doesn’t have to be ‘official’ (whatever that would mean), etc. It’s basically a market solution to the problem. It’d give people some control over what gets promoted along with their own ideas and would be purely opt-in. There can be as many such organisations as people see fit and people can choose what they want to promote.
The problem with having everyone blog (or even tweet) is that NRx is about ideas and blogs are about (self-)promotion. If you want to get visitors to your blog, you need to produce constant content, which generally leads to lowering standards in the pursuit of popular appeal. It also produces the wrong incentives (i.e., self-promoters and populists inevitably get more attention, causing schisms). On the other hand, if people want to make irregular contributions, there’s the problem of promoting them. If you don’t already have an established identity, there’s no point in writing something up, since it’s unlikely to get any attention.
Books and journals suit NRx much better than blogs and tweets, given that it’s supposed to be about ideas, rather than the promotion of a political ‘movement’. But unless there’s something like an NRx imprint or an NRx journal, it’s not going to happen. You need a system where you can publish a small number of high-quality books and articles per year, not one where everybody has to try to publish content all the time.
scientism Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 8:30 pm
I’d also add that this is the best way to promote upwards. Since the goal of NRx isn’t to be a mass movement, it shouldn’t be trying to promote itself to the masses, it should be trying to elevate itself. It doesn’t need organisation, in the sense that a movement has a leader, so much as a process of professionalisation. People need to be moved from the periphery to the centre on the basis of merit and then they need to aided and promoted so that they can gain the attention of the people above (the elites), rather than the people below (the proles). But to do all that you first need a centre and you need a mechanism of professionalisation and promotion.
Aeroguy Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 9:25 pm
That does make sense, like social matter but with an emphasis on professionalism and a more academic style of writing, a proper think tank. My earlier thoughts were more in regard to seizing the NRx label as a brand.
Kgaard Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 9:40 pm
I don’t see how calling something a book advances the ball. The action is all in the blogs. That’s where the give and take is. I could easily see a scenario in which an e-publishing arm is set up, attractive e-books are created and … nothing happens. Self-publishing is not the bottleneck to idea proliferation. The bottleneck is marketing to interested cohorts. That’s a function of the viral-ness (or lack thereof) of the ideas and the quality with which they are presented in blogs.
I don’t see what an NRx publishing house would even do, unless it did something akin to what a regular publishing house does:
* Getting physical books in book stores;
* Booking writers on Oprah, John Bachelor, Book Notes, Charlie Rose etc;
* Sending hard copies to reviewers.
The bottleneck is really in the marketing, not the production, no?
scientism Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 10:09 pm
@Kgaard
You’d have something less ephemeral that could be cross-promoted. There’d be a website with all the books and their info. Each book would include a list of other books in the series. People can review the books on their blogs and perhaps promote them in a sidebar, etc. Copies can be sent to other websites, outside NRx, that might be interested in them for review. Again, the point isn’t to sell a lot of books, it’s to have a place where people can write high-quality content without having to maintain a blog. It could also be used to establish a canon.
If you stick to ebooks and keep the page count low, you can probably do it all at minimal cost.
Lesser Bull Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 5:09 pm
NRx’s refusal to spend its time bashing unacceptable rightists is one of its main strengths.
[Reply]
neovictorian23 Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 6:04 pm
Hear, hear!
[Reply]
James James Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 4:57 pm
Hear, hear! No enemies to the right!
Thales Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 7:57 pm
xReaction is just a blade pressed against the throat of “Progress.”
[Reply]
Kgaard Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 5:19 pm
Chris — I read that Social Matter interview and it’s very interesting. Key paragraph, I think, is this one:
“Still, I think a real base for NRx is in the tech industry and there’s definitely a sense of “we want to break away from these proles.” As the American Right has become identified more broadly with Middle American Christians who are anti-elitist, low-church Protestant, and strongly pro-American, it seems predictable that NRx is going to be defined as a kind of Right Opposition – overtly elitist (just against who runs the Cathedral today), high Church, and suspicious (at the least) of the entire American experiment. Identitarians are also against all that, but there’s a greater sense of “we have to save these people.” In NRx, you can be frankly indifferent whether we will deal with them at all.”
Good to get these distinctions on paper. But still I don’t see how one can realistically make a precise cleavage between NRx and Identarianism. There is too much overlap. Take any subject you want, but particularly economics and politics, and there’s obviously going to be a racial component. NRx will always have to acknowledge that, no? Else it will fall into all kinds of absurd errors.
Also, I don’t see how Evola can be presented as some kind of Identarian maniac. That’s not his message at all. Remember he split with the Fascists in large part over their race obsession. Evola is much more about the importance of elitism, and cultural mythos generally, than about race. He was an orientalist scholar …
[Reply]
Chris B Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 4:02 am
I wasn’t going to respond further but this needs response –
“There is too much overlap. Take any subject you want, but particularly economics and politics, and there’s obviously going to be a racial component. NRx will always have to acknowledge that, no? Else it will fall into all kinds of absurd errors.”
Identitarianism and a lot of discussion on aspects of race within the identitariansim sphere of NRx are utterly wrong in serious ways. I see zero overlap with Identitarianism and NRx here (assuming NRx is supposed to be deferring to HBD on all points.) The thede idea and race are both primary. HBD guys are repeatedly telling us that there is no genetic interest beyond the immediate family, yet those pushing thedes and all the race awareness nonsense are doing so in contradiction to this, and on the assertion that we should have “feels” for other co-ethnics (but not extend further, only so far left, and no further chaps!). The entire race issue is really the left talking to itself.
In fact, going further, I see almost no overlap between identitarians and NRx beyond the usage of the cathedral analysis, which even there is tenuous. NRx (and when I say NRx , it is my original understanding of what NRx was supposed to be) sees the systemic nature of the thing, and subsequently sees the lies based on race etc. Identarians and WN and all those guys don’t go into the system beyond “we need to have more white centric “feels”” – the only intersection is the observation of race and egalitarianism being bullshit – this is the opening they have come through.
Also, economics and identitarians? there is clusterfuck if ever I saw one.
[Reply]
Mark Yuray Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 7:02 am
I am actually deeply interested in this issue. My view at the moment is that the proper and natural hierarchy of genetic affinities goes in fairly concentric circles of me, my family, my extended family, my village, my city, my province, my nation, my race, my species. From this perspective the horror of the Cathedral is that “my race” is anathema, everything before it is suspect, and even “my species” is being attacked by vegans and animal-rights lefties of various looney sorts.
Are you arguing that the circles go something more like me, my family, my extended family and the dissipate into negligibility? Please link me to information on this topic.
FWIW IMO, a soft or “in-progress” Identitarianism among NRx ought not to be something frowned upon, since, though perhaps a softer 19th/20th century leftism, it is inherently a counterweight to the far more destructive, currently fashionable leftism of extending genetic interest to cows, pigs, chickens, cats and presumably eventually plants, rocks and twigs.
Peter A. Taylor Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 12:55 pm
@Mark Yuray
I’ve been thinking about trying to highjack a Chaos Patch and turn it into an attempt to write a glossary for all the possible different meanings people might give to “universalism” and its antonyms (particularism, nationalism, ?).
Kgaard Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 2:18 pm
Chris … What you’re saying here doesn’t add up. If we just start with the basic point that IQ and race are inexorably and demonstrably linked, then of course race and economics will be linked, and race and politics will be linked. Then if we accept that different races have all sorts of different, scientifically demonstrable proclivities (Asians calm and group-oriented, whites intellectual solitary thinkers as a function of eons living in the snow), then you arrive at various cultural and even architectural implications (different kinds of cities for different kinds of people).
So I guess I second Mark Yuray’s question: What are you proposing — a notion that we ignore attachments beyond the family level? That we should feel no more affinity for someone with DNA that is very close to our own even though it’s obvious we do feel greater affinity for them (because their minds work the same way)?
I’m confused …
admin Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 2:34 pm
@ Peter Taylor — You’re very welcome to give that a go.
Nyan Sandwich Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 9:16 pm
Chris you’re missing something here.
Identitarianism isn’t just about genes. It’s about culture and hertitage. If I have children with another anglo, my children are anglos, and know what they are and what their culture is and they inherit that culture. They become a projection of myself and my people into the future. If I hang out with other anglos, I understand them and have a huge shared library of culture and ways of thinking going back thousands of years. If I hang out with and have children with chinese for example, we can have only the crudest relationships and our children can only have the crudest heritage.
Thedes matter. People know their own and want to associate with them, which is why we get self segregation. Denying this and pretending like we can erase everyone’s identity with a clean conscience is insane.
Aeroguy Reply:
February 4th, 2015 at 12:09 am
Nyan,
Cultures have a far ranging influence. The ancient Greeks are the perfect example of this, Germanic peoples are very different than the Greeks but the heritage of the Greeks got passed on never the less. The core of western culture and tradition is Greek, not funny hats and animism. Ancient Greece itself was hardly a monoculture, for building communities it’s about being local and tight knit. In spite of everything wrong with it and a long history of prog experimentation, the military retains a very distinct culture and set of traditions. A woman who wasn’t a military brat marrying an officer is in for a much bigger culture shock than if she marries a second generation Chinese dude.
The ethnic thing is important, but it’s more of a compatibility thing, genetic predisposition to certain aspects of culture and heritage. I’d take a Taiwanese with a rightwing family history over a WASP with a leftwing family history. If both families share core values there already exists a culture and heritage to support it. It’s also worth noting the breakup of India into India and Pakistan, they’re ethnically identical, ideology is powerful stuff trumping ethnic loyalty making it more important. Identitarians tend to forget this.
Mark Yuray Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 12:28 am
This is pointlessly alarmist in the worst way. You try to use Anissimov as an example of creeping identitarianism, and ignore the constant drama we’ve had over the subject that has ended in everyone except Anissimov explicitly rejecting white nationalist demotist antics, both privately and publicly with blog posts.
Your claim about incentives has plenty to be argued about, and not just from a WN perspective. In Serbia, the American government pours milllions of $ of aid into the country and the entire Brahmin mission there sincerely believes in the cause of Serbian progress. Yet Serbs still hate America and instead spend their time parading around the capital with Putin chatting about dead Orthodox heroes. Man has material incentives about as much as he has incentives for social status, sacredness, spiritual rewards, etc.
[Reply]
Hurlock Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 1:15 am
When has anyone claimed that man has no other incentives but material ones?
[Reply]
Mark Yuray Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 2:56 am
If not that, what on Earth is Chris B talking about when he was “most of NRx” will admonish for talking about incentives?
E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 2:36 pm
There is an ambiguity to ‘man doing x for profit’ – some do mean that it all comes down to money. I trust though, that NRX is not quite so naive as to assume that.
Peter A. Taylor Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 5:14 am
I don’t want to have anything to do with ethno-nationalism, but it seems distinctly possible that things are going to unravel along the lines of a Tom Wolfe “Back to Blood” scenario, in which case we’re not going to have a choice. You may not be interested in ethno-nationalism, but ethno-nationalism is interested in you.
[Reply]
Mark Yuray Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 6:55 am
I am deeply interested in ethnonationalism, but not a result of NRx or the Internet. I have a nation in Southeastern Europe that I am deeply connected to by blood, soil and religion. If it at all clarifies, my beefs with American NR ethnonationalism tend to stem from my annoyance at the artificial way they acquire it.
[Reply]
Urban IX Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 9:29 pm
I sympathize with this. It seems that many, but far from all, young ethnonationalists love more the idea of a nation than any actual nation. This is true of other branches of the right (Traditionalists who love Tradition but not tradition), but it is much more prominent in ethnonationalism.
Butch Leghon Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 2:36 pm
I suppose that if you think that culture and genetics are separable, then you might think that non-identarianism is possible. But if you believe as JayMan and HBDChick do, in the gene-culture coevolutionary theory, then it becomes clear that ideas, concepts, and their expressions are very much dependent upon the genetic stock of those who hold those ideas. Culture and genetics are in a feedback loop.
Language evolved to allow for negotiation between parties, and to pass information to kin. What is being negotiated between parties is reproduction. All morality and all philosophy and all ideology and all religion are expressions of reproductive strategy, at root. Each genetic population will have differences in reproductive strategy, which will influence the expression of that strategy which we call culture.
NRx is all white guys. It is obviously the expression of a European reproductive strategy. This is a biological reality. Are we not supposed to recognize the biological reality of the genetic underpinnings of NRx? If we do, then I suppose we are identarians. If we don’t, then I don’t think we’re looking at the same literature on HBD.
[Reply]
Chris B Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 3:24 pm
Sure, society is a spontaneous order that is dictated by its constituent part, and yes cultural influences genetics over the long run, but that has pretty much nothing to do with what I wrote. I wrote that individuals only have real attachment to genetic kin – close family. Identarians and their call for “white pride” and racial awareness are synthetic, wrong and working on crap they pulled out of their arse – just as much as anti-racists.
It is very simple, white, nationalism, internationalism, anti-racism, pan-slavism, pan-germanism etc are all calls to collective identity which are based on picking a level of magnification and saying “I want that one”. They are all possible, and have been so since nationalism first raised its head. That there are groups of people with shared phenotypes that can be labeled races is not a issue of dispute really, just as you cannot dispute that all men are humans, but the ability to shift collective identity should really be a flashing light on this issue.
Think of racism and anti-racism as being comparable to attempts at managed economies.
[Reply]
Butch Leghon Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 5:49 pm
Ok, I think I get the difference. I agree that sometimes in the identarian conversation that some seem to be saying “Because you are White, you should support X”.
I am saying something more along the lines of “You are more likely to support X, because you are White”.
I will agree with you that the argument of “You are White, therefore you must support X” is specious and is a way to get the not-so-bright to follow along. Are you asserting that that is 100% what ‘Identarianism’ is? If you meet Y racial requirement, you must support X? That some person gets to define what the ‘Identity’ means and that everyone else has to go along with the assumptions and precepts of that ‘Identity’?
Are you sure that there isn’t a large portion of any Identarian movement that is busy trying to figure out just what that Identity is? To me, I see lots of wrangling about just what it means to be Western, and how it is that we got to be this way. I tend to think of Western Identarianism as those who are concerned with Western identity, what it means, not necessarily as a mass movement with an Identarian ideology.
I understand your fear and your warning of the sheep being caught up in Identarian mass movements, being easily led astray with it. That point is loud and clear and we agree on it. I think there is a distinction between intellectual discourse on European identity, and an attempt at mass mobilization using Identarian ideology. Can one lead to the other? Yes. Does that mean we should stop talking about it? No.
Bob Reply:
February 4th, 2015 at 2:51 am
Gene-culture coevolution isn’t a theory of genetic determinism.
“Reproductive strategy” has a specific meaning in sociobiology. You can take a genetically determinist position and say that “All morality and all philosophy and all ideology and all religion” are genetically determined or expressions of genes, but it’s just inaccurate and sloppy to say that they are a “reproductive strategy”.
Positing that culture is genetically determined or simply an expression of genes is another way of saying that what is commonly understood as “culture” doesn’t exist at all. That there is no such thing as “culture”, it is simply an illusion, etc.
[Reply]
Anne Emmanuel Reply:
February 4th, 2015 at 8:16 am
@Bob
I agree with your general point in a general way. Rigour is the very last thing you’d want to sacrifice in such circumstances. However, this…
“Positing that culture is genetically determined or simply an expression of genes is another way of saying that what is commonly understood as “culture” doesn’t exist at all. That there is no such thing as “culture”, it is simply an illusion, etc.”
…reads like nonsense. Positing culture as extended phenotype does not dematerialise it in any meaningful way. On the contrary, it provides a much more cogent expression of its origin and nature. Fire is not a gift from Prometheus. Rather, just as beavers build dams, humans build cultures. The actual illusion is not “culture” but “human nature”.
The caveat here being the fact that phenotype ‘determination’ is inherently a stochastic process. That offers us only so much wiggle room though, and it seems to me like you’re close to trapping yourself in what I would call a sui generis fallacy. Namely, that ‘unique’ occurrences must have ‘special’ explanations.
Bob Reply:
February 5th, 2015 at 3:02 am
Where did I suggest that it dematerializes it? Obviously positing culture as simply an extended phenotype materializes it in material pieces of deoxyribonucleic acid.
And doing so does imply that the traditional, common understanding of culture is an illusion since this understanding posits that culture is extra-genetic, non-material, freely determined, etc. This understanding distinguishes between culture and beaver dam building or any other aspect of animal ethology.
I don’t see how “stochastic” phenotypic expression is relevant here, since it still implies a genetic determinism at odds with traditional common understandings of culture.
Noble effort, but how is this any different than Hoppe’s “Democracy: The God that Failed?” His nine intro points seem like Cliff Notes for Hoppe …
[Reply]
Frog Do Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 6:33 pm
In the same way that Moldbug is a cliff notes Carlyle-Froude-Hoppe? Novelty is overrated if the presentation is good, and a non-Austrian school explainer of Hoppe might have value. Not that I’ve read it, 7 bucks for 70 pages doesn’t seem worth.
[Reply]
Kgaard Reply:
February 2nd, 2015 at 8:39 pm
Fair enough … though it does seem more value-added to re-package Carlyle than Hoppe. It’s a lot harder to squeeze the message out of the older stuff. Hoppe is just right in front of your face, in powerful, compact prose.
[Reply]
SanguineEmpiricist Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 4:16 am
Why rely on Anissimov’s presentation when Curt Doolittle actually knew Hoppe/All the Austrians from what it seems and has more accurately summed up his positions than Anissimov? Why even support megalomaniacs like him?
Do you all insist on sweeping up glaring inconsistencies under the rug? Do you want the self-appointed leader of NRx to be reposting diagrams from /pol/?
[Reply]
[…] Source: Outside In […]
Posted on February 2nd, 2015 at 6:41 pm | QuoteBriefly off chapter 1:
America was, and in many ways remains a Republic that extended the Franchise. But it hasn’t been Tocqueville’s Democracy in America since the New Deal. We have instead a government of technocratic administrators who once did what they thought was best and now do what they please.
Tocqueville wasn’t writing a polemic against Democracy in America, I wonder how many here have actually read him. Of course all one needs is Unqualified Reservations, the Koran of NeoReaction. I do mean Koran and not the Bible.
For that matter I doubt Assinimov has read Churchill, or he’d understand a bit more history of those of us who speak in English and what’s he’s up against.
I have yet to see any proof past Aristotle’s Greece about the 3 cycles of governance. Certainly not in History. His Greece alone is to provide the proof for all time. He was also kissing up to his Masters, put it in perspective. Sometimes as well 2500 years ago was indeed 2500 years ago.
Iraq is governable by the Strongest alone and always has been. It helps to be clever, but you must…must be a Killer to be taken seriously. As a Man, never mind government. I was there, and none of my Iraqi friends who are usually quite educated would gainsay me. This is a recent and well known failure, and I suppose we’ll never hear the end of it.
I’m not seeing anything here that can’t be laid at the clay feet of Human Nature.
I think we should recognize our challenges aren’t merely theoretical and we should work with what we have, not what we haven’t. We haven’t a King.
A conversation of 5 minutes with any of our Elites should cure one of any notion of increasing elite power to where they are the sovereign above the law…and we have that last part already. Are you enjoying the Rule of the Empowered Technocrats?
Well no, because the chief complaint of so many here is they covet their power and status.
The real grievance of the Banished Whites of Eve.
[Reply]
Aeroguy Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 1:17 am
What are your thoughts on the abolitionist movement?
[Reply]
Aeroguy Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 1:30 am
There’s a three step program for deprogramming Americans, each one harder than the last. Condemning FDR and the New Deal is step one. Condemning Lincoln and the Abolitionists is step two. Condemning Washington and the Federalists is step three. There’s plenty of other specifics to be deprogrammed from but learning how the three most popular Presidents each made a huge contribution in moving America forever to the left is important.
[Reply]
Urban IX Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 9:35 pm
What does an American have to tie him to any sort of tradition or history without those three? What is our Mythos then? I’m curious because I agree with your idea of deprogramming, but want to know what you think of reprogamming with.
Aeroguy Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 10:54 pm
Jefferson never considered himself an American, always a Virginian. The sovereign States under the Articles of Confederation can be thought of as a patchwork that failed due to insufficient mnemonic immunity. Much of the mythos would therefor be more local. The old gods can become the new demons. The present mythos of the civil war is that America had to bleed in order to atone for the sin of slavery. In the new mythos the civil war is an example of the unnecessary bloodshed that results from universalism. Maintaining the mythos of uniting in the face of common enemies would be maintained. The fact that Texas was entirely separate from the US but fought together during the Mexican-American war could be emphasized.
Hoppe already obviously knows about NRx(I think), in case you guys missed this
http://mises.org/library/aristocracy-monarchy-democracy
why even support Anissimov’s antics. When we actually have the public intellectuals come after us who legitimately matter they’ll burn him alive
[Reply]
Posted on February 3rd, 2015 at 4:28 am | QuoteHas he moved to Idaho yet?
[Reply]
admin Reply:
February 3rd, 2015 at 3:16 pm
Soon.
[Reply]
“Identitarianism” doesn’t really seem to signify anything different from nationalism. The term seems to be used for PR purposes, as “nationalism” has negative connotations in mainstream liberal discourse. Similar to how some nationalists adopt the label NRx.
[Reply]
Posted on February 4th, 2015 at 4:27 am | Quote