It’s called the ‘canary’ in the coal mine, because everyone is waiting for it to be canned. After the Derbyshire whacking, Mark Steyn became the obvious follow up candidate. Are we approaching the final wheezy chirp? (What a truly repulsive piece of clotted cowardice that magazine is.)
ADDED: Not to forget the other prominent word crime story of the week (the Left eating its own).
ADDED: At NRO, a line in the sand? Also.
ADDED: Handle has some suggestions to make.
According to the White Nationalist fraternity, the Dark Enlightenment tends to like civilized people even when they aren’t really white. I think that’s right (and Right), although — of course — it’s supposed to be a problem.
It’s certainly amusing that the only people who don’t think we’re Nazis are the Nazis. They recognize that “cognitive elitists” are inherently prone to race treachery — which could be pushed all the way out to species treachery (if I have anything to do with it). Optimize for intelligence isn’t any kind of key to racial solidarity, or solidarity of any other kind. Even HBD, they generally insist, isn’t them (it’s too attentive to PISA ratings and such). There are some seriously interesting controversies implicit in all this, although rage is likely to break them up before they get very far. It makes me realize that one thing I appreciate about the Neoreaction is its anger management, which is inextricable from its taste for irony (and probably also from its decadence).
At Amos & Gromar there’s some worthwhile comment, and commentators.
Boundaries should always be appreciated, whoever is drawing them.
Some foundational wisdom beautifully restated by Handle:
… the long history of progressivism in general is most quickly summarized by an enthusiasm to reject the old, time-tested social institutions originating in undesigned traditions as obsolete anachronisms and replace with them with new, more ‘enlightened’ innovations rationally constructed from first principles.
The Rightist view of human nature is often described as ‘tragic’ or ‘realistically pessimistic’. Whether one on the right sees man as ‘fallen and totally depraved’ or merely a ‘hairless ape’ makes little difference in regards to the conclusion of what is required to regulate such a creature’s behaviors. And that prescription, unfortunately but inescapably for most people, involved a certain amount of severity of consequence. There is pain, harshness, punishment, impoverishment, and so on, or at the very least an effectively salient terror of the credible threat of these things.
Reaction is not Neoreaction (but still Conservatism). Alain Finkielkraut explains to Spiegel:
SPIEGEL: What do you say to people who call you a reactionary?
Finkielkraut: It has become impossible to see history as constant progress. I reserve the possibility to compare yesterday and today and ask the question: What do we retain, what do we abandon?
SPIEGEL: Is that really any more than nostalgia for a lost world?
Finkielkraut: Like Albert Camus, I am of the opinion that our generation’s task is not to recreate the world, but to prevent its decline. We not only have to conserve nature, but also culture. There you have the reactionary.
[The entire interview says something about the unusual conversations that are beginning to break out.]
Guilt is basically a North-West European thing, argues Peter Frost. That would certainly explain the conspicuous abnormality of white ethnomasochism, which has a claim to be the social fact of greatest significance in the world today. There’s a certain type of fanatically universalist moral argument that — even when encountered anonymously on the Internet — indicates (absolutely reliably) that one is dealing with a self-hating pale-face. When someone tells you that some incontestable principle requires self-sacrifice without reservation to the wretched global Other, the obvious melanin deficiency almost sucks holes in the screen. None of this is seriously controversial (although more hard data would, of course, be nice).
Take one additional step, and hypothesize that the Cathedral latches onto white guilt as its sole natural territory. Much then follows. Clearly, whatever ‘globalization’ the Cathedral will ever achieve cannot be analogous to its domestic dominion. It is a plug that only fits the white guilt socket, so that every attempt to propagate it more widely encounters complexities. To a degree, this is initially masked by the fact that a racial revenge narrative sells well, even when its original moral axioms are entirely non-communicative. ‘Post-colonialism’ would therefore be expected to mark the limit of Cathedralist global contagion — a limit that has already been in large measure reached (or even exceeded). Nobody other than whites wants white guilt for themselves. Non-whites will, however, often be delighted that whites have white guilt, especially when this has metastasized to its self-abolitional phase, and this second reaction — under the specific conditions of ‘post-colonial / anti-racist discourse’ — is easily confused with the first.
If the progressivism-guilt plug-socket arrangement doesn’t travel racially, than Cathedralist globalization has to fall back upon far cruder mechanisms of power — of the “Red Foreign Policy” type. The experience of the last decade suggests that, in doing so, it is no longer remotely playing to its own strengths. Democratic evangelism, at home and abroad, are two very different things. Bloody international disorder is strongly predicted as the complement of its domestic New Jerusalem.
Just one more effort citizens, and the white race will have consummated its destiny as the cancer of human history.
While I expect frantic grief over the death of Nelson Mandela to be quite restrained on the Outer Right, it surely has to be admitted that — as Afro-Marxist terrorists go — he was a comparatively moderate type. He represented global Cathedralism well, accepted the unforced surrender offered by this guy with ceremonial dignity, and seems to have made no attempt to accelerate the genocide of the Boers to spasm phase. Things will probably deteriorate significantly with him gone.
Two posts in succession at Tyler Cowen’s Marginal Revolution acknowledge that libertarianism’s suicide-by-population-replacement is proceeding according to spontaneous disorder. Completely un-shockingly, mass low-IQ immigration from dysfunctional cultures that despise economic liberty has pushed libertarian ideas from marginality into complete irrelevance. So it goes.
Firstly, there‘s “Bad Demographic News for Libertarians” from Arnold Kling. It should probably be noted that this isn’t a story being told from an immigration-catastrophe angle, so anybody with advanced skills at mental segmentation can dismiss it as irrelevant. You need to check the final table of the source post, by Timothy Taylor, to connect the dots. Kling’s sober conclusion: “I am afraid that the number of households married to the state has soared.”
Secondly, Cowen cites this paper by Hal Pashler (a psychologist at UCSD), whose research “results showed a marked pattern of lower support for pro-liberty views among immigrants as compared to US-born residents. These differences were generally statistically significant and sizable, with a few scattered exceptions. With increasing proportions of the US population being foreign-born, low support for libertarian values by foreign-born residents means that the political prospects of libertarian values in the US are likely to diminish over time.”
I just wish there had been some sort of short-cut to self-abolition for these maniacs that hadn’t been routed through the destruction of America.
[Previous installments of Suicidal Libertarianism here, and here]
A genuine question for all the Internet logicians out there:
How can a Google search for
“nigerians china” generate 2,640,000 hits, when
“nigerians china prison” generates 16,000,000 hits?
Americans of Indian ancestry seem to be having a disproportionate impact on the horizons of ‘sensitive’ debates at the moment. Techno-commercial secession and eugenic immigration in a single week. Diversity clearly has an up-side.