Comments on: Laundered

By: Aeroguy

Aeroguy — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:47:45 +0000

I’ve heard that Chinese leadership is starting to replace the engineers with social scientists…

By: Thales

Thales — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:34:31 +0000

Yes, it seems the clerisy was repurposed after Gramscianism.

By: admin

admin — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 07:28:16 +0000

China’s leaders tend to have engineering backgrounds. Ironically, they’re not typically ideologues, but are highly opportunistic about the use of propaganda. They actually align their interests with economic growth, infrastructure build-up, and social order. Rule by ‘community activists’ and their true-believer apologists is another thing entirely. When a Friedman (far from the worst of these creatures) sees the CPC he thinks: “Wow, if we had something like that we could really ram our religion down people’s throats.”

By: admin

admin — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 07:21:59 +0000

Isn’t this closer to Bell than Moldbug (and Kotkin)? The crucial distinction is the remarkable absence of technicians from the Cathedral, except as cowed functionaries in subordinate positions. The Cathedral is not (contra Bell) a technocracy.

By: peppermint

peppermint — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 04:46:44 +0000

The elevation of the Clerisy to unprecedented influence may prove this president’s most important “gift” to posterity.

…implying that Obamaism is remotely sustainable.

We will have change we can believe in. Thanks, Obama!

By: John Hannon

John Hannon — Mon, 20 Oct 2014 23:02:42 +0000

According to the article’s penultimate paragraph, there is –

“… a more authoritarian view among the Clerisy that democracy is too unruly, too determined by human passions and loyalties, to address the most serious issues. Former White House budget director Peter Orszag, for example, thinks we need to become ‘less democratic.’ New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, another key figure of the Clerisy, has praised the Chinese authoritarian system as better-suited to meet new challenges than is our clunky system.”

Encouraging at all?

By: VXXC

VXXC — Mon, 20 Oct 2014 20:57:51 +0000

Is it just possible that millions of chattering people in academia and media were noticed by others independently? Before 2007?

Is Angelo Codevilla also ripping off Moldbug?

But it’s good the Darkness is spreading.

By: Laundered | Reaction Times

Laundered | Reaction Times — Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:43:21 +0000

[…] Source: Outside In […]

By: Porphy's Attorney

Porphy's Attorney — Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:38:02 +0000

Yes; – well that’s where the “it’s just MM, laundered” falls apart because it remains firmly within the framework of the modern structure’s 3×5 card of analysis.

But still we like finding acorns out there and I’ll probably employ the link among more mainstream types as a gentle intro to the concept.

By: Nick B. Steves

Nick B. Steves — Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:19:11 +0000

A quibble (with Klotkin, not admin):

A recent Indiana University study found that barely 7 percent of journalists in 2013 were Republican, compared with nearly a quarter in 1971.

Dem/GOP breakdown of any group from 1971 vs today tells us practically nothing. The GOP was not always the “conservative party”. It only became reliably so during the lives of some of us here (well.. at least Land and myself).

There remain strong conservative outposts (largely the News Corp. empire), but a detailed UCLA study found that, of the 20 leading U.S. news outlets, 18 were left of center.

For Klotkin, it seems “strong conservative” is a synonym for GOP boosting.

Left unaddressed: that “center”. Where is it and which way is it moving?