Join the Queue

BurnUS00
Context.

Everyone in my twitter bubble seems impressed by the aesthetics, but the smart money is on ClarkHat getting to the finish line first:

April 13, 2015admin 18 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Images

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

18 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    As Plato would say, we need to look at the causes behind the effects.

    Why is DC so horrible it needs this Andrew McDonald treatment?

    Because the voters chose it. Because voters always choose illusion. Because egalitarianism encourages a removal of all standards, ESPECIALLY reality.

    What needs to burn in nuclear fire is The EnlightenmentTM, but it’s harder to blow up because it is not a tangible thing, merely a pervasive mindset.

    It is the AIDS of philosophy: subverts the immune system, spreads through demasculinization, and takes its time to manifest but ends by destroying all that it encounters.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    More rather than less Scottish Enlightenment would be welcomed by me. The Enlightenment of Rousseau, of course, cannot be eradicated comprehensively enough.

    Frederick II’s Berlin was a center of Enlightenment, wasn’t it? For NeoCams, sweeping denunciation isn’t really an option.

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    They tend to get grouped together for a reason.

    Much as Neoreaction has different tenets with different interpretations, forming what one might call a “mixed bag” of clear good ideas and some dubious ones, The EnlightenmentTM had the same, but they were unified by the philosophical change they wrought at its simplest level, which was validation of individualism.

    This did away with leadership and social standards, even if that is an unintended consequence.

    I think similarly of Nietzsche’s critique of Romanticism. It brought us horrors, yes, but also Frankenstein and Proverbs of Hell.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/national-wealth-and-iq/
    some evidence that whiteness trumps capitalism – consolation prize Singapore shines

    [Reply]

    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    I agree about the corrosive effects of egalitarianism taken too far, but I’d love another “Age of Reason” instead of rolling it back. Science is important to stay ahead in the game, and science is not about adherence to authority, but about making correct predictions. Going back to a society in which the church’s (or The Cathedral’s) orthodoxy is enforced over truth doesn’t appeal to me. But maybe I misunderstand you.

    [Reply]

    Orthodox Laissez-fairist Reply:

    The Church wielded the Truth as a memetic shield, and it semi-successfully shielded society from both leftist impulses and superstitions for more than a millennium. Science failed miserably, both in being true to the truth and in shielding society from superstitions, indeed, it has served as a main tool of the Cathedral, for Cathedral only need proclaim “science is settled” and the thing in question becomes new dogma – climate change, genderism, Keynesian economics, equality (or rather the non-existence) of races, etc. real science being proclaimed crank and fringe. We need both the official orthodoxy (memetic shield) and science, but two need to be kept separate, very separate.

    [Reply]

    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    > The Church wielded the Truth as a memetic shield, and it semi-successfully shielded society from both leftist impulses and superstitions for more than a millennium.

    Absolutely, as a metaphysical framework, and a shield against superstitions it is effective. It is however smothering to human enquiry when it claims to have the answers to worldly matters.

    The change in perception that happened during the enlightenment set into motion an age full of scientific discoveries, technological progress and art in the Western world. I see that as positive.

    And don’t overlook this small matter: if that had not happened we would eventually have been overrun by a civilization that did have an industrial revolution.

    > for Cathedral only need proclaim “science is settled” and the thing in question becomes new dogma

    Which was exactly my point, the enlightenment is effectively already in full reverse. If you don’t like free enquiry and aren’t particular in what inquisition will put you to death – historically people had little choice in that – the ship is already on the right course.

    Science is by definition never settled. There are theories that explain experiments. Other theories in the future may explain the same experiments (and new ones) better. Attempts of substituting science as a drop-in replacement for dogma are problematic.

    Science as a government dogmatic tool is as close to real science as the actors in white coats in commercials.

    jay Reply:

    ”The change in perception that happened during the enlightenment set into motion an age full of scientific discoveries, technological progress and art in the Western world. I see that as positive.”

    Disagree. The Medieval Scholastic Discipline and the idea of God being a rational being separate from all creation as well as being a being that does not arbitrarily monkey with the universe(In the Muslim Conception of Allah) laid the groundwork for Scientific Enquiry. Anyways I am not good at explaining it well considering that I am just an amateur historian. So I will direct you to a book by Rodney Stark “Triumph of Christianity” which from reliable sources he makes that case.

    Xoth Reply:

    Let us also draw a bright line between University Science and Government Science, roughly at WWII.

    Deogolwulf Reply:

    “The change in perception that happened during the enlightenment set into motion an age full of scientific discoveries, technological progress and art in the Western world.”

    Things are principally the other way round. Scientific discovery, technological progress, and artistic development helped to set in motion a change in perception that gained the name of Enlightenment — the name we give to the effects (which secondarily become causes). If we propose that such discovery, progress, and development stemmed chiefly from the medieval understanding (with roots in Plato and Aristotle) of an ordered world, we are still yet to account sufficiently for “the perception”, or rather, the bad interpretation — the “Enlightenment” — that followed. For this accounting, we must also cite bad philosophy, bad theology, the roots of which also run through the medieval era, though doubtless they can be traced much deeper.

    In Hume, the Enlightenment makes the most radical departure from the understanding of the world as a rational-intelligible order. Except for the extremes that follow upon it, it is hard to think of a philosophy less likely to lead to science than that of Hume: a world of “loose and separate events”, of ideas and impressions, etc.

    In view of the squandering of medieval rationality, alongside the elevation of late-medieval voluntarism and nominalism — a triumph then of irrationalism and subjectivism, the effects of which are yet to be fully played out —, you might want to consider saving science from the Enlightenment.

    “Science is by definition never settled.”

    It may be true that science is never settled, but it is not true by definition.

    [Reply]

    Mechanomica Reply:

    Considering the track record of Western military/intel officials over the past few decades, it appears that the preference for illusory victory isn’t limited to the common voter.

    [Reply]

    Rainer Chlodwig von Kook Reply:

    “Why is DC so horrible it needs this Andrew McDonald treatment?”

    What DC really needs is the Kevin MacDonald treatment.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 13th, 2015 at 3:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    He wants to get to it first he would probably get to it if ever in the middle of the pack.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 13th, 2015 at 5:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    Whenever I see this stuff, I’m always reminded of Nixon and the ABM Treaty. The Soviets put missile defense in Moscow. Tricky Dick put it in North Dakota.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 13th, 2015 at 7:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Yes in the Dan Brown version of History the Church suppressed learning.

    Thankfully the Protestants came along and saved Western Civilization.

    And Christendom.

    Now that the latter exists only in legend now and the former is in advanced decay and degeneracy can only be due to America and democracy of course.

    On the other hand if we in America burnt the schools, family courts and shot all our lawyers and intellectuals we’d have a much more peaceful quieter world.

    The Churches only mistakes was it didn’t burn enough heretics, and frankly in hindsight should have been a lot harder on Histories Trolls, possibly destroying them as a religion. <that was a huge oversight.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 14th, 2015 at 6:23 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Having seen how the media and academia lie about everything, I see plenty of reason to distrust the historical narrative.

    Did the Church destroy all the learning, or was it overzealous people trying to seize control in the name of the church?

    The problem with learning is that the real thing is unpopular. The fake thing — credentialism — is always popular because it’s mentally easy. But the real thing is not.

    Anything unpopular does not survive.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 14th, 2015 at 12:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Citadel Says:

    Hey! That’s our job!

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 14th, 2015 at 1:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • What is Neoreaction? | Amerika Says:

    […] people to protect them from themselves. It is worth repeating: as individual humans, our worst enemies are ourselves. Our desires, judgments and feelings mislead us where factual reality would help us, but we reject […]

    Posted on April 17th, 2015 at 3:57 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment