Quote note (#258)

Curated history:

One of [Diana] West’s themes that she is developing is the necessity for reclaiming history, that is, we need to know what actually happened so the proper historical lessons can be learned. […] And the creepy part is when West relates going back in old newspaper files to research original accounts and finding that the one edition that she needs that will tell her what she needs to know is missing. Not the newspaper for the day before, and not the one for the day after, no, they’re all there, just the one she needs. That one’s gone, and nobody knows where it went, or what happened to it. As if somebody went back at some point and deliberately altered the historical record. […] I’m not sure how we can ever recover from something like that. The amount of historical “re-revision” that’s going to have to be done is extremely daunting.

June 13, 2016admin 24 Comments »
FILED UNDER :History

TAGGED WITH : , ,

24 Responses to this entry

  • Quote note (#258) | Alt-Right View Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on June 13th, 2016 at 4:00 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    Shock, horror, it is almost as if… communism was liberalism derived and nursed. As American as apple pie…

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    What’s liberalism got to do with it? The last feeble flickers of American liberalism (laissez-faire capitalism) had been extinguished by the progressives half a century previously.

    [Reply]

    Julian Reply:

    > American liberalism [is] laissez-faire capitalism

    No, no it isn’t, and it never was. There’s an ocean between them.

    [Reply]

    D. Reply:

    It’s now been more than eight decades since Franklin Roosevelt claimed the term liberalism for his political agenda, and as far as American political discourse is concerned liberalism is now irrevocably separated from its older meaning and is in many respects its polar opposite.

    [Reply]

    Tom Reply:

    The idea that egalitarianism (i.e. communism) is entailed by liberalism is a testament to how thorough and effective the revision of Western intellectual history has been.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    Egalitarianism in your use i think is a bad choice its associated with the American revolution [and putting aside the above argument whether to trace communism/multicultural redistributionism back to the 60s 30s cromwell or all the way back to Ockham or ancient genetics] It was meant as no legally recognized aristocracy equality before the law, Not for all men at the time all sorts of other barriers were recognized for all sorts of other types of humans slaves women and servants notably as well as what amounted to commoners or serfs.Its not clear what led to the present situation, frankly im skeptical democracy or egalitarian memes were more than a convenient path to what was inevitable. A case has been made that we could have or ought return to a state of landed aristocrats, That died out for good reasons bad effects aside.Keeping 90% of our fellow europeans in serfdom is not wise or acceptable or sustainable neither is 10% leaving for an island off newfoundland. An ethno states of discrete types of europeans or varied types europeans have proved to work well and only bringing in niggers and giving women the vote seem the issues that really changed things.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Progressives are the liberals. That’s the punchline. Lional Curtis, McGeorge Bundy, Alger Hiss, Nelson Rockefeller, Roosevelt, Henry Wallace… liberals all the way down. Liberalism ran its course. You see the outcome. You just deny it because you have reasoned yourself into concluding it *must* be correct without reasearch. Just read Curtis or Rockefeller and all the rest of the pragmatist/ science in *everthing* progressives, and I am sure you will find great agreament with them in almost everything. Just altering it with “screw people” is imparting a bigoted position blind from reality. Power, simply doesn’t work like that. The massive deviation from reality obviously calls for drastic measures to compensate (AI gov/ algo constitutions etc)

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If Hong Kong didn’t exist, I might take that slightly seriously. Given actual history, we can in fact see what real liberalism is (so I don’t).

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    I understand your split from MM regarding “feather hat” Caryle stuff, but you’re on the cusp of denying MM big thing, AIACC, Progressives are the mainstream Protestants? There’s libertine laissez faire built on unleashing communists against anything in it’s way (a poison pill) vs laissez faire built on wu wei. Lets not pretend laissez faire is a liberal invention, it’s not. Catalaxy is rooted in civilization itself, it’s far older and more primordial than you’re giving it credit by linking it to liberalism (feels weird saying that to you of all people).

    admin Reply:

    Sounds as if you’re wanting to free up ‘liberalism’ (the word) as a piñata for cheap collective abuse, which is the ritualistic norm, the world over. You really think that when the fascist mobs have finished spitting on the grave of ‘liberalism’ they’re going to head over to the shrine of laissez-faire to pay their respects?

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Social liberalism was a reaction against economic liberalism, in response to what the former perceived as the tendencies to social injustice brought about by the latter, usually in the form of wealth inequality. Economic liberalism on its own does not implement policy for the liberation of individual welfare, or seek redress for the discrimination encountered by private entities. Between social and economic liberalism there are two incommensurate notions of individualism. The latter is concerned solely with the individuals ability to engage in market contracts, or in the endeavor of a chosen enterprise, and governs in order to facilitate the maximum degree of efficiency in these pursuits. The former situates the individual in relation the economy as a whole, from which it derives a measure of justice as a fair proportion of distributed resources enjoyed by each constituency in the selection. Guiding social liberalism is a skepticism of the desirability of the efficiency of economic liberalism in its pure state, as exemplified by the modern liberal disapproval of classic Pareto equilibrium. This is expressed most clearly in the ideology of market failure, on which the social liberals blamed the Great Depression. Soc-libs (also known as shit-libs) reject the hypothesis that the Great Depression was exacerbated, and even caused, by the inefficiencies of central planning. This leads them to adopt decidedly illiberal economic policies, in the service of social justice and the liberation of the individual from the contractions of market cycles. This in turn alters the legal definition of both the economy and the individual, as neither are considered autonomous from the social aggregate. From here it is a short step to redefining the individual as a collection of attributes or characteristics that are shared in intersecting groups that relate to each other through various procedures of demand and dialectical recognition. That is the (short) transformation from social liberalism to progressivism proper. Historical proof is enough to show that economic liberalism does not entail identity politics as it is encountered in the milieu of modern progressivism. It is this redefinition of the individual to encompass external resemblances as constitutive of its relational properties, in a distinctly negative format, rather than the inherent dignity of executive management, that deforms the concept of an economic actor.

    Further, from my understanding the problem that Moldbug addressed regarding economic liberalism in his proposal for neocameral government was based on a specific crux of implementation. I believe it can be neatly summarized as a rejection of the notion of employment as a privileged economic arrangement. His example is a circular logic by which Rothbard attempts to formalize the legal nullity of a voluntary contract wherein an actor sells himself into slavery. This has to do with the inalienable rights of property, exemplified by the doctrine of self-ownership, as a responsibility that cannot be surrendered. Moldbug treats this as a microcosm for the principle of sovereign conservation, wherein the artificial limitations of an executive are revealed to be an absurdity. If “slavery”, as a voluntary commitment, depends on the will of the slave to fulfill an obligation of contract, it is contingent on their continued compliance, if not, it is no longer a contract, but an enforced obedience. Thus, slavery appears to contradict the resolution of economic liberalism, whereby any man can enter into a contract of his choosing, unless this contract limits his freedom, in which case it is illegitimate by default. It is an exceptional case, which explains its relation to the notion of sovereignty. Moldbug’s solution for this vicious cycle is to replace a contract of employment with one of shareholder equity, as alienated labor is a liability for the purpose of a SovCorp, which is to maximize return on investment. A SovCorp beholden to the interests of its employees is one that no longer treats its shareholders as customers but as livestock. It is the difference between rule by a managerial elite (bourgeois class) and the dictatorship of the proletariat. In effect, it is close to the abolition of alienated labor, which sounds like a strangely Marxist result, yet arrived at by near opposite means. Yet, if the scourge of improper conduct in government is derived from an insufficient formalism of power relations, exemplified by the paradox of voluntary slavery, then the thorough correction of this glitch in property rights would naturally lead to an alignment of incentive, and to a reset of superfluous and wasteful labor power toward a new mode of executive administration.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    When I speak ill of liberalism I mean even the classical liberalism hailed by libertarianism, I mean Whigs and all their monstrous spawn. To pretend jacobins and communists don’t inevitably spawn from Enlightenment concepts like Hobbes social contract, ignoring the dance of high-low vs middle. The whole concept of individual rights are just vapor hiding a cycle of patron and client demanding ever more lowly/base clients to sustain it. The entire project of containing power (enshrined liberties, rights, checks and balances) is as futile as holding back the tide, instead it serves as kindling for setting ablaze high-low vs middle.

    Admin, I respect your understanding of the danger of too much stability, how it was the Anglo-Protestant and not Sino-Confucian that birthed steam, but grappling with the phenomena of high-low vs middle is essential to addressing the thermodynamic engineering problem of expelling entropy, an engine can only run so hot without destroying itself.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    “If Hong Kong didn’t exist, I might take that slightly seriously. Given actual history, we can in fact see what real liberalism” then it behoves us to look at HK history. Was its success due to cybernetic republicanism, constititionalism or other “systems” or was it judgement from the executive? Start with Cowperthwaite. Then consider what he would have done had HK been under threat.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You seem to think it’s great that colonial governors could have destroyed Manchester Liberalism in Hong Kong. I think it’s great that they didn’t.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    But what about the poison pill? The fact that it had to ultimately be subject to demotic government and thus made palatable? “Promotion of peace on earth and goodwill among men” erected as end with policy are mere means, having to deceive to sustain itself, is it any wonder better liars would come along? As if I should accept it as coincidence that a small colony least subject to demotism by virtue of it’s subordinate status should be least affected while the Mother Country was swallowed whole. It isn’t qualms with libertarian policy that lead us to become post-libertarian, but grappling with the pertinent issue of holding power and accounting for the implications of such. Monkey politics may be transcended, but the game of power is a part of the primordial pantheon of dark gods, it can’t be transcended but merely accounted for. Libertarians pretend he’s irrelevant even as they sit in his bowels being digested.

    The gravest error is believing liberalism was an adult form, it’s a larva, it’s inevitable transformation is embedded in it’s essential nature. Liberalism is fundamentally humanist, first worshiping a crafted god made in the image of their best self before simply worshiping man directly in his base entirety, we’re fundamentally different, we worship localized order, child of catallaxy, sired by the thermodynamic forces that accelerate the production of entropy through the growth of our prize, localized order, wellspring of life, civilization, and intelligence.

    Posted on June 13th, 2016 at 4:16 am Reply | Quote
  • grahf Says:

    There’s a market waiting to be tapped for AI systems capable of ascertaining historical truths from the oceans of bad, corrupted and missing historical data. The key of course is in decentralizing and freeing access to such systems, allowing for a type of Golden Path escape from the context-filtering commissariats that patrol the grounds of Wikipedia and other such sites.

    Reminds me of an post I read on Less Wrong a while back, albeit related to filtering out bogus scientific research.

    http://lesswrong.com/lw/ajj/how_to_fix_science/

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 13th, 2016 at 10:44 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Typical Leftist agenda. Erase history, change symbols, distort language — anything and everything for the great illusion.

    Liberalism is Communism. Once you establish the idea that people should be able to do whatever they want, and this magically produces good results despite most people being bugs, you get terrible leadership that necessarily ends in Communism. This applies to laissez faire market systems as well.

    The failure in the West is one of leadership: We The People are nincompoops. And until we change leadership, nothing will change… whether we form breakaway communities or not.

    [Reply]

    Cryptogenic Reply:

    “GERTY … am I pwned?”

    http://media.tumblr.com/e058783e5708fedbfb698f9055d2de9f/tumblr_inline_mjqxuaCfRR1rvufq9.gif

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 13th, 2016 at 11:08 am Reply | Quote
  • EvolutionistX Says:

    Isn’t the more mundane explanation that particularly interesting newspapers featuring articles about important events are more likely to have been surreptitiously stolen by people who just wanted a piece of history, rather than folks maliciously trying to destroy evidence of the past?

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    certainly more mundane even probably the case sometimes but if you get to know liberals this is the type of thing they do its like graffitti to them with a decoder ring

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 13th, 2016 at 6:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    When Jim noticed that Darwin was being whitewashed via Lamarck (or vice-versa, I forget who was racist) I noted it would be a lot easier to simply destroy the relevant records. I was surprised they didn’t do that. Oh wait, they did. Or will. They should have been flaming hatefacts for decades, but instead they’re getting Pepe’ed.

    Another thing that’s likely to go missing soon: Earheart’s complaint about her ‘solo’ flight dragging her along like a cargo of potatoes. http://www.history.com/topics/amelia-earhart This is one of the few things La Wik will outright lie about.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    The neat thing about Darwinism is that although the theory itself has a historical development, the phenomenon it’s concerned with continually re-emerges in human experience – aggression, domination, struggle, the vain squeal of the weaker animal as it succumbs to Gnon. Part of the reason I take Darwinism as axiomatic is that it’s resilient to retrospective historiographical forgery. Darwin had some decent bantz on race but compared to the phenomena he rendered salient to us, whether that’s ‘whitewashed’ or not doesn’t matter.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 13th, 2016 at 7:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Johan Schmidt Says:

    @Dark Psy-Ops

    “an insufficient formalism of power relations, exemplified by the paradox of voluntary slavery”

    As regards the contradiction of “inalienability”, I just thought of an example the other day. For all intents and purposes the Prime Minister of the UK, in possession of a legislative majority, is an absolute legislative and executive dictator (barring some occasional speed bumps in the Lords). And yet the primary objections to his rule (under which, for whatever reason, he has found it necessary to yield) have regarded his ability to relinquish power, by transferring phenomena outside of the State’s purview.

    Of course, this has all been complicated by the recent counter-example of the (unconscionable) Junior Doctors’ strike, in which they tried to deny the State’s authority to set the price of labour in the nationalised healthcare sector. I guess the masses don’t like power being transferred to the merchants, only to the priests.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 13th, 2016 at 11:29 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment