Comments on: Chaos Patch (#13)

By: Lou

Lou — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 08:28:39 +0000

@Kgaard

I suggest reading On the Genealogy of Morals if you haven’t yet. Hinduism and traditional European religion (Asatru to some) are just two examples of religions that uphold the noble spirit and a natural hierarchy.

By: fotrkd

fotrkd — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 22:43:05 +0000

“It’s not about spelling, it’s about scatalogical incontinence.”

Do you remember… before?

By: fotrkd

fotrkd — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 22:41:33 +0000

Admin’s current Twitter feeds (for those of us who can’t fav or RT) :

By: C. Y. Chen

C. Y. Chen — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 03:30:30 +0000

I went to school for electrical engineering but have worked in software development ever since I graduated. Unfortunately, I detest both fields, and I’ve always been way more of humanities/arts kind of guy. I arrived at neoreaction through both the Ron Paul libertarian and palæoconservative/religious routes, the two of which I tried to reconcile during my college years.

Of course, I abandoned the libertarian/ancap side after having met plenty of them from college. If I had never been one of them, I don’t think I would despise libertarians as intensely as I do now.

By: Lesser Bull

Lesser Bull — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 20:04:34 +0000

Again,extremely interesting. You might have written the most productive pointer for further inquiry on the thread. What really needs resolved is whether you’re right that progressivism is a personal religion or whether I’m right that it was primarily concerned with social structures. I tend to think of Joachim of Fiore as the fountainhead, but he’s ambiguous. He is neither clearly one nor the other.

Here’s a thought you inspired–a progressive attack on mass democracy, the media, the academy, etc. They’re all inegalitarian. We should pick our rulers, our journalists, and our professors by lot.

By: Aeroguy

Aeroguy — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 10:19:06 +0000

I have to interject before going to sleep, I’ll have more in the morning. “the market – misconceived as an entity with wants and needs” While the market isn’t a single entity unless you think of it as an economic Brahman (which it technically is), it includes the sum total wants and needs of everything connected to the economic universe aka demand. Ethics is popular with the rich as it is a luxury that often comes with a high price and can be put on display for status or enjoyed privately for it’s own sake (there’s a reason background checks for security clearances begin with a look at the person’s credit report). Economic utilitarian thinking dominates real politic where countries threaten each other with mutually assured recession, posturing with real measured costs, 5th gen fighter jets, purchases for nationalism. Meaning, like happiness can’t be bought, but wealth sure helps in searching for them, at least as far as not being distracted by concerns closer to the base of maslow’s hierarchy of needs (wealth is necessary for the accumulation of philosophers). I can continue later but capitalism is best understood as a force of nature like evolution, a part of reality, something to be respected, even if you don’t like it. Commercialization is a whole other animal, I’ll finish later.

By: admin

admin — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 05:04:37 +0000

(“I realize this will be controversial around here …” — If only!)

By: nyan_sandwich

nyan_sandwich — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 04:15:01 +0000

You are correct in theory, Bryce, but certain kinds of knowledge are vastly easier to ground in good philosophy than others.

It is vastly less hairy to speculate “the last ten times we did X, Y happened, when we did not do X another ten times, Y did not happen, therefore to make Y happen, we will have to do X” than it is to build some long cantilever-logic way out into metaphysics. You need a really solid foundation and good logical engineering to do the latter, possibly better than anyone has access to, but the former can be build upon the sand, so to speak.

That said, there is a hell of a lot of very useful and nonobvious knowledge that is “fast and loose” in the sense that it can’t be quantified with “scientific” statistics or at least never was, but is nonetheless much less epistemically risky than most “scientific” knowledge.

By: nyan_sandwich

nyan_sandwich — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 03:48:36 +0000

No openings for lowly orcs in anything I’m doing, sorry.

More people need to be doing this, though: http://henrydampier.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/drafting-plans-for-the-thomas-carlyle-club-for-young-reactionaries/

By: scientism

scientism — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 03:48:02 +0000

Capitalism and progressivism feed on each other. It’s unsurprising since they both have the same source and share the same basic philosophical outlook. But progressivism probably would’ve withered on the vine if not for the fact that it strips people of everything except the need to work and consume. It’s part of the capitalist drive for “efficiency.” Ethics, nationality, meaning, race, families, etc; all must be dismantled so that the market – misconceived as an entity with wants and needs – can be satisfied. Anything not destroyed is commercialised.