Quote note (#328)

Formally, this isn’t a new ‘Boldmug’ argument, but it’s stated neatly here:

Whether you choose to think about it or not, I have a very simple explanation of Anglo-American success as it relates to democracy. […] If you see democracy as a pest, like Dutch elm disease, it makes perfect sense. Dutch elm disease originates in China. Therefore, Chinese elms are resistant to Dutch elm disease. But not immune! It’s still a crippling disease in China. But the trees live. […] The result of globalization: Chinese elms dominate the world. And hybrids. An elm does not live, anywhere in the world, unless its DNA is mostly Chinese. It would be a mistake to conclude from this that Dutch elm disease is good for elm trees, and the Chinese should export it to everyone. Unless they’re just plain evil. […] All we have to observe, to show that this is the case, is to show that politics in the Anglo-American tradition (don’t forget, Marx wrote in the British Library, and his column appeared in the New York Tribune), (a) frequently causes serious damage to Anglo-American countries, and (b) always or almost always has two results in other countries: it either causes massive, traumatic disasters, or brings the country under effective Anglo-American supervision, and/or both.

ADDED: Also, concisely reinforcing NeoCam basics —

Various kinds of elective monarchies have been tried, and worked reasonably well (as does hereditary monarchy). But there is a real qualitative difference between joint-stock governance and anything else. Which is why joint-stock companies kill all competitors which experiment with different operating systems.

The “monarchy” language is incredibly unhelpful to the communication of the central point being made here. How many times is it possible to say “the Neocameral CEO is nothing like a monarch as you understand the term” without utter exasperation? ‘Boldmug’ clearly has more patience on this front that I do.

ADDED: From another commentator, responding to the moron bite “[‘Boldmug’] is defending returning to some sort of racially-segregated nationalistic authoritarian regime.”

No. Mencius Moldburg advocates for neocameralism. Interestingly enough it is the same as Scott Alexander’s Archipelago. The difference is Moldburg has a mechanism to enforce things and Alexander never got around to elaborating one. […] In case you don’t want to bother looking it up, it basically means having a bunch of Singapore like city states with free movement and explicitly based political power. It is the exact opposite of ethno-nationalism.

ADDED: Augmentation from Information Processing.

February 6, 2017admin 151 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Democracy

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

151 Responses to this entry

  • wu-wei Says:

    I don’t think there’s anything new in that thread you won’t find on UR, or otherwise from comments dug up elsewhere. The whole thread is really kind of a compact review of much of what Moldbug’s written in the past (“compact” being very much relative). Anyone who’s read the Moldbug corpus, and understood it in sufficient detail, would probably be able to anticipate the back-and-forth responses with his interlocutors in real time.

    Man though – the the pure, unrestrained anger and vitriol thrown his way by a few of the commenters is remarkable, although perhaps unsurprising. Scott on the other hand takes the whole discussion quite candidly, so good for him I guess.


    Wagner Reply:

    I can’t recall which place because there wasn’t anything new in either but in his German interview or reddit appearance he claimed that he isn’t delving back into politics because he doesn’t have anything fresh to add to the discussion. Have to credit him for his modesty. But we should guard against his pre-Trump genius-brain’s treatment of post-Trump problems. As Spandrell noted on XS a little while back, “we were all wrong”. Times change, and as Krishnamurti said, one cannot fix reality into a prefigured system.


    Wagner Reply:

    I’m a chandala-nobody but the glaring hole I see in UR is in the caste-analysis of the US: MM misanticipated the latent shitlordism within the brahmins and vaisyas. Despite his grandiose narcissism he didn’t expect the affect he would have (NRx) nor did he bestow proper merit on the truth-reception faculty of the filthy proles (alt-right)–both these groups I must stress, against admin’s approval, being similar in kind in their partaking of the form of shitlordism (for lack of a better term), though they may be different in intellectual magnitude. Not like MM cares about “votes” but I vote that the revision of his caste-analysis be his first order of business as it’s crucial glue that keeps his system together. Probably best to ditch the system entirely and start from scratch in his new mansion’s garage but again who am I.


    wu-wei Reply:

    Spandrell is far too quick to jump to conclusions in this case. So Trump won an election. Big deal. The Optimate-Vaishya alliance plays the high-low tag team for the populist right, just as the Brahmin-Helot-Dalit alliance does for the left. IIRC, Spandrell stated something to the effect of: “we have a model for leftist victories; we have no model for rightist victories”.

    He’s wrong. Or at least, premature in his conclusion. The real test is to see whether or not anything significant results from Trump being elected, whether or not we truly have arrived upon the theocracy of Kek; or if, as Moldbug’s theories would seem to suggest, Trump just gets cucked by the permanent civil services and judiciary, official press, official NGOs, accredited universities, etc.; is hamstrung and rendered completely ineffective; goes down in ignominy and infamy, to be demonized by the next generation(s?) for being “on the wrong side of (whig) history”, just as another Enoch Powell, George Wallace, McCarthy, etc. Depending on the outcome, we’ll see if Moldbug’s theories really hold up or not.

    Until then, reports of the death of the Cathedral have been greatly exaggerated.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    It´s amusing that ‘passivism’ derives historically from a word referring to suffering. Cognate with ‘passion’ = suffering. As in passion of Christ.

    White people have been duped into otherwordliness, hoping for a “heaven” by helping brown people and uplifting women and amassing scatch-my-back gadgets.

    This is simply the flowering of Christianity, altho the genus predates it.

    Christianity is a Semitic religion that the Jews were wise to reject.

    Yet since the ideological infrastructure and the actual buildings are useful, we must recapture the Church.

    It´s a question of taming and harnessing the Great Whore, the Casta Meretrix, for a new Imperium to rise. It´s malevolently “autistic” to think of Capitalism or Industrialism any other way.

    That is what the Europeans did originally with the genus of Christianity, they Europeanised it.

    Kek appeared to put tumult into the system for us to catch the reins.

    It is Divine Intervention. The openings are already here.

    Now Thoth will help us write this thing into

    existence. Terra, terra forma.



    TexasCapitalist Reply:

    Pretty funny that you bring up passion in relating to passiveness. It sounds good at first but on closer explanation doesn’t this flatter admin a bit?

    Think about it, if you were alive back in the days of Christ you would be telling him, “Look this is our chance to revolt against Rome and regain power! You don’t actually believe in all these crazy ideas you’ve been spouting? Who cares about virtue and an ethical system, the masses want you to lead a political revolution against the Romans! Don’t be a wimpy passivist and just let them do whatever they want to you! If you do that you’ll just be killed and nobody will even remember your name and they certainly won’t care about your wacky thoughts!”

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Yes, I get your point, this is something I have thought somewhat about through the years.

    I´m not gonna deny Christ was victorious in his sacrifice, and succeeded in changing the ethics of the (Western) world.

    Because of Christianity they stopped their gladiatorials which were ‘really just’ human sacrifices for Pan or some god of lewd entertainment (unavoidably Gnon, too, because death is so bio-determinant). Later, in the Middle Ages, the church banned the jousting of knights (which some would argue was a step too far, but it was essential for alphas to turn to capitalism). It also banned infanticide, in Iceland e.g.

    There´s no need to go back to the worst of pagan times even though we go forward to a new incarnation of Rome. Nor the worst of Christian times. We´re in the third millennium. Time for Rome 3.0

    Jesus is obviously one of the gods. Even the bugfaced Bolsheviks couldn´t exterminate his reign with decades of totalitarian terror.

    But even Jesus is a subset of Gnon, otherwise he wouldn´t have had to blood-sacrifice himself!

    Hail Gnon. Hail Kek.

    Hail Thoth.

    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 5:00 am Reply | Quote
  • Space Ghost Says:

    In which leftists act like unhinged children, not only failing to substantively respond to any of Boldmug’s points, but also failing even to give any indication of comprehending them. It saddens me that someone like Aaronson takes their side – he at least appears to attempt to be intellectually honest, and because of that he’d be the first against the wall as a “Nazi collaborator” if the modern day Bolsheviks took over.


    Erebus Reply:

    Right. And, in keeping with this, their favorite tactic is the “no-platform.” Succinctly expressed by “quax” in comment #555:

    >”What Raoul Ohio #550 said, seriously why is anybody here engaging these dolts in any serious manner? You may as well argue birth control with a Jesuit.”

    (The irony here must be lost on him.)

    Even more forcefully, and comically, expressed by M.Araujo in a couple of earlier comments:

    >”Scott, I don’t think it is a wise thing to keep discussing with Boldmug. He is clearly enjoying your attention, and you are giving him a platform to spread his hateful ideas. Let him do it in whichever obscure corners of the internet he usually posts instead of in a famous and respected computer science blog.”
    >”If there is something that we should definitely not tolerate are enemies of liberal democracy. There are some ground rules to participating in our political system, and almost every country makes defending democracy one of them.”

    The limits of their tolerance are revealing. They are as priests denouncing heretics. They make a point of failing to comprehend or respond to what Moldbug is saying, as a matter of principle.

    Aaronson’s fucked at any rate. Shouldn’t it be obvious to him, by now, that the left doesn’t value intellectual honesty or fair-mindedness?


    admin Reply:

    I find it hard not to like him, but he has a truly terrible case of Divine Right Leftism. The idea that eternal left-of-center clerical government might have any kind of legitimacy problem seems impossible for him to process.


    Erebus Reply:

    He is indeed locked-in to one perspective. Common problem. When thumbing through Schopenhauer earlier today, I found another quote that seems appropriate:

    >”The Chinese can conceive of a monarchical government only; what a republic is they utterly fail to understand. When a Dutch legation was in China in the year 1658, it was obliged to represent that the Prince of Orange was their king, as otherwise the Chinese would have been inclined to take Holland for a nest of pirates living without any lord or master.”

    The tale referenced by Schopenhauer is from this book, and the specific incident is described on page 116. He didn’t embellish it.

    >”[The Chinese representatives] asked likewise after the government of Holland, and the power of those that had sent them; whereupon the ambassadors returned for an answer, that Holland was never governed by one single person, but by a select number of the chiefest of the country. They specified also the names of the Councils by which Holland was governed, and said, that besides these high councils there was yet another council […]
    [But the Chinese] commissioners could not well understand nor apprehend this form of our government. (Because the Tatars and Chinese know no other but Monarchial.) Neither could they tell what the name of Prince signified. The Ambassadors had no little puzzle to work them into a good opinion of our state…

    Aaronson is like those Qing functionaries, who simply cannot comprehend a form of government besides the one they live under.

    Despite his obvious talent as a logician in the domain of computer science, Aaronson simply doesn’t apply logic to human affairs more generally. (Which can make him seem stupid, naive, or incoherent, at times when he should know better.) This is probably because he knows that, should he endeavor to do so, he won’t like what he uncovers.

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    The irony here being that the Chinese were correct.

    wu-wei Reply:

    To be fair, can it be said that anyone was “converted” by Moldbug, just by reading a few comment threads? One has to be fairly open-minded to be reasoned into discarding essentially all of their received beliefs about government, but I think it’s also true that if you did so merely from reading one or two of Moldbug’s sprawling essays alone, and especially without reading any of the primary sources and books he suggests, you may be a bit TOO open-minded…


    wu-wei Reply:

    Hoppe and other authors are of course invaluable in this regard as well.

    Rreactionaryfuture Reply:

    @Erebus maybe the Chinese were right, and just couldn’t parse the bullshit of the Dutch. The key to classical liberalism and all such thinking is an utter total gibberish cloak which both hides the centralizing power, and burns competing centers to the ground leaving the state and the individual. Anarchism in effect is the official ideology of the modern state structure. Neat trick.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    The key to classical liberalism and all such thinking is an utter total gibberish cloak which both hides the centralizing power, and burns competing centers to the ground

    This is absolutely right. All the ideological autism that engulfed the West, intersected its minds—and much of it even pretending to be Right now—is just an other ploy in the eternal game of planet earth for genuses of life to rule over resources.

    This is the ritual grand theater of terra.

    Neophilism is just a cloak

    over the heads

    of ye!

    Blood still flows!


    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    It’s funny that you autistically screech about liberalism so much, when absolutism ( = your ideology) is the original liberal ideology. Liberals called for unlimited despotism and monarchs were only too happy to oblige…


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Got any more argumentative fallacies?

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    @G. Eiríksson

    “In France the kings have always been the most active and the most constant of levellers. When they were strong and ambitious they spared no pains to raise the people to the level of the nobles; when they were temperate or weak they allowed the people to rise above themselves. Some assisted the democracy by their talents, others by their vices.” – de Tocqueville

    From Hobbes and de Montaigne to Hume and Quesnay liberals liked despotism. They justified it in different ways, of course.

    But it was an Enlightenment TRAP.

    Patronage (of philosophes)

    Having liberated ‘muh peopul’ from the church and nobilty, and having set-up a bourgeois bureaucracy absolutists made themselves superfluous… bureaucracy now a purpose unto itself, no longer had a need for monarchs…

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Well I gotta say you exceed my expectaio. Well done, sir.

    The geniality of absolutism of course depends on who is “absolute”.

    Anyway, Mr. ReactionaryFuture presents very interesting feedback.

    But I think we can all agree that we want a chief executive officer yet one who is not permitted to pursue despotic cruel necessary tyranny.

    Saldim Reply:

    Indeed. History bares out the observation that in the West, what you call Absolutism goes in line with Prog antics. An even better example of this isnthe French Revolution, where despite the execution of the king and queen Napoleon’s rule was ultimately not weaker.

    Rreactionaryfuture Reply:

    Liberals want a *specific* form of absolutism, they want the Hobbesian formed version in which the start point is “anarchy is possible, and no one needs governance technically, but governance would be better, so let us all agree to have governance.” Filmer is correct in finding the logic of this to be flawed. 2+2=kangaroo level flawed.

    How about anarchy isn’t possible, there is always governance, it is always absolute.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    That anarchy is merely the apparition of another order is a point I´ve made here before. Anarchism — traditionally understood — is a form of nihilism, a simple revolt against the authority of government and hierarchy — against the absolute. It in a way similar to the rebelliousness against bad fathers, and their impotent authority, characteristic of ill-brought up teenagers : but in this case made into a political (pseudo-)philosophy against all fathers, all patriarchy and patriotism ; even the good ones. It is also a tendency inherent in the lower or perverted classes, which by history have not developed mentally into adults, altho they have done so bodily ; and which believe in absolute nothingness after the end of the process of death (this is called ‘annihilationism’) ; which is really the mirror image or simulacre of believing in some absolute “Heaven” after death (; which is about as meaningless as “nothing”). Both are absurdities on par with “anarchy”. Even “equality” makes more sense ; mathematical equality at least is a more common sense apparition of parity, as the practical usefulness of « 1 being equal theoretically to 1 ». “Anarchy” is not practically useful, except in the practice of the use of proverbs, because — I theorise, if they only had the logistic intelligence : what they actually mean to say and describe, is, : autonomy.

    Why is anarchism a form of nihilism? Because there is no absolutely neutral ground of an-archy. It defies logic. Hierarchy is absolute. There is a hierarchy, e.g. of intelligence and wills. Of drives, desires, needs, processes. There´s no anarchy anywhere except phenomenologically in your mind as a momentary useful proverb and a childish idea when nous cannot grasp the ordering it is witnessing.

    ‘Anarchy’ is only something that is to be used proverbially. It describes an apparent state of a system, i.e. an other type of order than is the norm.

    One could say that there is anarchy between States, but they actually follow relatively predict-able, determinant, determinable : even manageable : processes. Hence : all the sciences of history or political science and political economy ; and how some actors can game the system wittingly and transgenerationally.

    Anarchists are, for obvious raisons, often used as the unwitting fools of statist revolutionaries or statist (co)intelpros. At best Anarchism as a tradition is a study in autonomy or liberty and the praxis of it.

    Capital is a power-relations quantifications.

    Far more real than “anarchy.”

    More real than 0.



    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    “Why is anarchism a form of nihilism? Because there is no absolutely neutral ground of an-archy. It defies logic. Hierarchy is absolute.” – Yet we have to humor anarchism as a serious concept because of its value to power.

    Modern state: “no one should be told what to do!”

    Anarchist and liberals: “Hell yeah! burn the capitalist oppressors! smash the patriarchy! punch the racist ad nauseum… (funding flows from foundations and education institutes and civil service. Massive institutional infrastructures brought into being to further it all.)

    *Full believing logically coherent* anarchist: “Does that include you, the state?” *crickets*. no funding. Go sit in a room and keep whining, dickweed.

    Moral of the story. Don’t be logically coherently if you want to get along.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Yet we have to humor anarchism as a serious concept because of its value to power.

    Certainly, ‘anarchy’ has provisional use.

    Or as I was thinking, there´s a lot of good “anarchist” literature; and even some praxis.

    It´s just misnamed; it should be called and refer to itself as autonomist.

    That´s what they want ; autonomy.

    That´s what they have, if successful.

    They don´t want “anarchy”.

    Nobody actually does, long term, it´s not survivable. Having said that, in league with the contradiction of the world : « The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia », 2009, by James C. Scott (1936-) is good. What was his name had it right with his phrasing: Temporary Autonomous Zone.

    Peter Lamborn Wilson (pseudonym Hakim Bey; born 1945). One doesn´t have to agree with the rest of his shit, btw, to recognize that TAZ is a more accurate term for “anarchist society.”

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    Only Hobbes wanted Hobbesian absolutism, for Hume I am not sure. De Montaigne believed that monarch should have all power and rule by whim, because “it is better to have one master than many”, he didn’t believe in social contract theory. Quesnay too did not believe in social contract, he wanted to transplant China to France.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Niggas had it right in the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted 800/962–1806.

    The Doge of Venice was the chief magistrate and leader of the Most Serene Republic of Venice for 1,100 years (697-1797), too.

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    HREotGN wasn’t absolute. It was the poster child of fudalism. The title of emperor was merely an honorary one.

    Venice was Aristocratic Republic, which obviously means it was not a monarchy.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    We´re agreeing with de Maistre´s ratiocinations here, that all governments are absolute.

    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 6:29 am Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    The Dutch Elm disease is basically an update on his Upas tree analogy.

    Good one, though.


    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 7:17 am Reply | Quote
  • Reactionaryfuture Says:

    “The “monarchy” language is incredibly unhelpful to the communication of the central point being made here. How many times is it possible to say “the Neocameral CEO is nothing like a monarch as you understand the term” without utter exasperation? ‘Boldmug’ clearly has more patience on this front that I do.”

    Actually, see quote on comment 422 –
    ““Monarchy” just literally means a system of government with a single ultimate decisionmaker. Basically like every company. Probably, in reality,

    All governments are absolute. There is no necessary correlation between the organizational structure of a government and its policies on free speech, or anything else. Moreover, there is no reason, either a priori or a posteriori, to think a committee of men in robes will propound more liberal and open policies than one man wearing a crown.”

    So the monarchy language is actually very helpful for making his point, but its not the point *you* want to make. In fact, his point could be strengthened. In what sense do the committee make a decision? Is there not always someone in a committee who is de-facto in control/ or the committee is merely rubber stamping a decisions already made informally?

    Could the case not be made (as it was actually made by Filmer) that all government is in effect monarchical, the only variant is the obfuscation of the “formal” structure? Isn’t formalism at heart a recognition of this? as with Schmitt’s state of exception? and even Mosca and Robert Mitchel’s theories if you refuse to countenance small scale “democratic” decisions?


    admin Reply:

    No, I like that point, as long as it’s understood that “decision-maker” refers to an executive appointment, not a sovereign property holder. What I don’t like is the fact that it has to be painstakingly re-explained every time the word “monarch” is used in its Moldbug-sense, (since it’s a word that means — for pretty much everyone — a dynastic sovereign).


    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    “I like that point, as long as it’s understood that “decision-maker” refers to an executive appointment, not a sovereign property holder”

    Which seems to be a point of judo-flip into democracy. All you have to do is advocate shares be given to everyone, and hey presto, the people are sovereign, which means the press tells them how to vote, which means the universities tell the press… etc….etc. The attempt to route decision making into knots is obvious and leads us to bizarre thinking.

    The sovereign here then resides with the board: Some*one* on the board. This renders the board a kind of non-active sovereign (as per the Supreme Court maybe?) and the CEO the delegate of this power. The problem you have is that with secondary companies, this link is maintained by social norms and law. With a primary company, in reality only the norms would hold, because the CEO *could* take over, and the laws would not apply . Who will enforce them? – laws are dumb, and can we keep to non-Deus ex machina solutions for now? (no automated blockchain.) What is considered legitimate would be a binding process, because governance is actually a social role, despite classical liberal delusions regarding those in power.

    But this whole discussion is almost impossible given the significant variance in positions regarding property, law and the organisational possibilities of humans between what Moldbug is advocating (and implying without realizing it sometimes), and what the the mainstream/modern theories (libertarian, liberal, conservative, Marxist and even fascist) take as a given.

    moldbug Property= possession by sovereign, and then property as secondary delegation.
    mainstream/modern theories property= everyone can own property prior to the state and can be considered without recourse to the state/ laws.

    moldbug law=implies law produced by the state and subject to humans. people—>law—> norms
    mainstream/modern theories law = natural bubbling up process and/or laws can govern. norms—>law—>people or law—>norms—>people.

    Moldbug governance= always goverance. Always absolute. Always hierarchical.
    mainstream/modern theories governance= all based on Locke or Hobbes. Even the fascists and Marxists. People first, then all bind together like a herd to form government. logically all of them reduce to anarchism if followed coherently, which they never are.


    admin Reply:

    “Which seems to be a point of judo-flip into democracy.” It’s explicitly Moldbug’s position, which is why you reject Neocameralism (and head off into Fnarglocracy).

    PS. Did you note the point where ‘Boldmug’ described himself as a “good Enlightenment liberal”?

    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    @Admin Rhetorical ploy. Dishonest one, but one he obviously one he sees necessary to sell his argument.

    admin Reply:

    Which is exactly the move you always make when confronting disagreement.

    Leonard Reply:

    Does it ever bother you that people do have property in a state of anarchy? I know where my AK is hidden; you don’t. As such, it is “mine”. Indeed, I know the contents of my memory and can think my knowledge effortlessly; you cannot. Thus my thoughts are “mine”. Even Fnargl cannot change that.

    Your attempt at property binarization does not survive contact with reality.

    wu-wei Reply:

    I caught that too, but here’s the full quote:

    “As a good Enlightenment liberal, I am interested in all infringements on my liberties, whether or not they are implemented directly by men in blue. Should I treat official or unofficial assaults on my rights differently? If I do, that’s just a great incentive for tyranny to get its job done indirectly.”

    I’d actually have to agree that 1) it’s a matter of rhetoric against his interlocutors, and 2) what he’s essentially saying here is that he was raised in a Brahmin Universalist culture (as a foreign service brat no less), and therefore has Brahmin Universalist values. But taken in context, it’s obvious that he wants to apply those values as a matter of praxis, not ideological doctrine. (“It doesn’t matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice.”) Hence, there is no distinction between whether his “”rights”” are violated by informal criminals, acting alone or in gangs; or formal authorities otherwise doing the same.

    He’s a “good enlightenment liberal” in the sense that he shares enlightenment ethics; not the praxis. He’s always been pretty clear on this point. Or at least, it always seemed clear to me. Opinions differ here I suppose.

    wu-wei Reply:


    You may know where your AK is, but your government delegates that right to you at all times. If your government wanted to know if you had an AK, and where to find it, it could do so at any time. Good luck using your AK to protect that “right”.

    Even in a state of “anarchy”, there is certainly some gang or warlord who retains this function of government: sovereignty and effective control over some geographic territory (including where you have “hidden” your AK). There is never a true “state of nature”, for nature abhors such a vacuum.

    That’s just how people are. We’re power-hungry apes; coalition-building machines. Not in the sense of coming together to form a contract, but as dictated to us from powers above. People are wired to locate real power where it already exists, and conform to it. Everyone likes a strong horse.

    If you really can defend your slice of territory, including the location you have hidden your AK, against the government, then congratulations; you yourself are sovereign of your little plot of land, plus the AK. I’d suggest that those assumptions may be entirely fictional however.

    wu-wei Reply:

    [Boldmug]: “I may be an American nationalist. But I don’t think you are. Especially in the emotional arena of politics, thinking clearly and consistently is incredibly important.”

    So besides being a “classical liberal”, is he a nationalist now as well, then? Obviously not, at least in the conventional and historical sense. The whole “not believing in popular sovereignty” thing kind of kills that one.

    It’s not at all a stretch to suggest that he’s using the terms rhetorically, especially considering both the context of the thread as well as the demeanor of those types whom he’s debating.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    He probably meant he´s a patriot in the modern sense with saying he´s a Nationalist. Also appealing to demo-liberal rhetorically infused senses.

    If that makes any sense to y´all. Which I´m sure it does to Land.

    It doesn´t have to mean he´s a democraticist jacobinist.

    4.1 Risorgimento and Integral nationalism
    4.2 Civic nationalism and liberal nationalism
    4.3 Ethnic nationalism
    4.4 Religious nationalism
    4.5 National purity
    4.6 Left-wing nationalism
    4.7 Territorial nationalism
    4.8 Pan-nationalism
    4.9 Anti-colonial nationalism
    4.10 Racial nationalism
    4.11 Sports nationalism »

    Heck, I´ve even seen people use “Nationalism” in the sense of ancient Greek (tribal State) “Nationalism” here. It was our dear Mr. Stevens, who has since it would appear refined his rhetoric.

    Things really are afloat in this epoch of Nihilism. Epoch of dissolution.

    No wonder some people try to make even the demon of econo-numerification-industrialism as the chief spirit — “just to’ hold on to something that is more formal & concrete than navel-gazing or attempts to make racial trash and pseudointellectuals as it were equal with thoroughbreds.

    TheDividualist Reply:

    Well, the argument made by Mosca is that all government is aristocratic / oligarchic because no monarch can rule without loyal henchmen. That is true even of CEO’s. CFO’s, CIO’s absolutely do argue with CEO’s and often manage to convince him.

    True the CEO makes the final choice, but let’s not get obsessive about choices, the important part is the process leading to a decision, not the decision. Decisions can be revoked when the process – the arguments, the emotions, anything else – changes later on.

    The general idea is that the CEO can overpower ONE resisting manager. Not all of them, because if they would all quit or sabotage it would be very hard to replace them. This is the general idea in any sort of hierarchy, you can fire a few workers, if they all go on a strike you generally cannot afford to fire all of them.

    Thus every system has democratic-aristocratic elements. The CEO gets to make decisions because he usually makes decisions that affect one manager. Telling the CFO to take out this loan, the CIO to buy new software etc. In one on one, the CEO wins. But if a decision affects all and they resist, they will typically win.

    You could say everything is a weighted democracy, the CEO just has more votes. Not formally of course, formally he has all the votes but the CEO understands well that you cannot work with a demoralized, upset, resisting staff. You cannot replace many good people quickly either. So you work out compromises.


    Erebus Reply:

    Totally arbitrary. There are CEOs who rule their companies like absolute tyrants — even more stubbornly than most kings. Famous, successful examples abound. They tend to be called “visionary,” “dominant,” and so forth.

    In any case, there’s no need to get caught up in the trivial details of organizational structure. The main point is as the master himself put it:

    “In general, the monarchical form of government is that which is natural to man; just as it is natural to bees and ants, to a flight of cranes, a herd of wandering elephants, a pack of wolves seeking prey in common, and many other animals, all of which place one of their number at the head of the business in hand. Every business in which men engage, if it is attended with danger—every campaign, every ship at sea— must also be subject to the authority of one commander; everywhere it is one will that must lead. […] government must proceed from one central point. Even the solar system is monarchical. On the other hand, a republic is as unnatural as it is unfavourable to the higher intellectual life and the arts and sciences. […]The rule of many as Homer said, is not a good thing: let there be one ruler, one king.”
    (From Schopenhauer “On Human Nature.” Emphasis added.)


    collen ryan Reply:

    They tend to own controlling interest,they tend to be so integral to the companies progress that the company is nothing without them, and they tend to have been so successful thus far they can pay insanely well to buy intelligence to what would otherwise be untenable This all tends not to last.

    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    @TheDividualist Reply:
    February 6th, 2017 at 11:43 am

    “but let’s not get obsessive about choices, the important part is the process leading to a decision, not the decision.” Why? I don’t understand the logic. Who makes the ultimate decision, and who can ultimately revoke the decision is key.

    Also, what has any of the example you provided got to do with anything? what is the context you are providing here? It seems like you are using this as a stalking horse for liberal/Whig nonsense about revolution.


    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 8:02 am Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Neocameralism is orthogonal to ethno-nationalism, not an opposite.


    admin Reply:

    I agree “opposite” is excessively simplifying. Not sure about the actual geometry. The key is Patchwork regime-diversity.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    neocam is a thought-experiment. Transition to it, like that to the gold standard, is quite impossible. But it is a useful model for thinking through the questions of sovereignty in a language which is not at present polluted with manipulations needed to attempt security of power.

    If you had read and understood MM’s econ sections, you would understand how to use Neocameralism – the discussion of “neocameralism versus ethno-nationalism” is a discussion had in Voeglin’s “gnostic fantasies”; “if I were to imagine a state…” Shall we discuss therefore the difference between the gold and vanadium standard?

    Just as a gold standard is a blueprint for a working monetary system, neocameralism is potentially a blueprint for a working government. Compared to Aaronson’s ideas both are profoundly realistic; that is, they describe something that in fact could work, the only problem being getting there. I’m intrigued at the tendency of some to stop where Gentle Introduction begins.

    It is like rhetoric is not taught or learned in our time! But that cannot be so– there is so much trolling…


    TheDividualist Reply:

    Well… if the core problem is competition for power, one possible solution is engineering a form of strong ingroup solidarity that prevents this. When everybody is a patriot and feels very tribal, they tend to compete less. So in this sense both ethno-nationalism and neocameralism have the same goals.

    The problem with you Nick and also with Moldbug is tending to think interests and incentives overpower emotions. I suppose learning too much economics leads to this. But learning history tends to show the insanely strong power of romantic emotions. People always feel a bit filthy when motivated by something like money, while elevated when motivated by a Holy Cause.

    Most people are simply not so calculating… at least most people under 125 or so IQ not.

    I guess if you goal is precisely to form a 125+ IQ state and fuck the rest, going the calculating path is a good choice. If one rather wants to save the West as it is including the stupid… better engineer something emotional.


    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 9:02 am Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:


    1) ‘Anglo-American success’ is contingent on greater coordination between business, state & military.( “For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly” see 5))

    2) Anglo-American success was globalization: Anglo-American success still dominates the world.

    3) “[P]olitics in the Anglo-American tradition” frequently causes serious damage to Anglo-American countries; because it effectively militarises them, internally & externally; transforming every aspect of life into a cipher of military economy, and social existence into a perpetual Cold War ameliorated only by the increased commodity availability enabled by a militarised economics that exploits others.

    4) Anglo-American countries, through coerced export of their structures of militarised economics, whose overriding obligation is always to favour themselves, necessarily create conditions of exploitation inviting traumatic disaster to others, and effectively supervise those conditions, whether through direct colonisation, or through indirect military and economic manipulation.

    5) The preceding has been the case for the last 400 years:

    “It is interesting to note that Allan Ramsay likewise deplored “a friendly alliance between the camp and the counting-house” for exactly the same reasons (Letters on the Present Disturbances, p.34). Ramsay maintained that of the evil consequences of such alliance “the two last wars carried on by England against France and Spain, furnish a most melancholy illustration. To obtain the sole and exclusive commerce of the western world, in which the French and Spaniards were their rivals, was the modest wish of our merchants, in conjunction with our Americans. The fair, and truly commercial, method of effecting this would have been, by superior skill, industry and frugality, to have undersold their rivals at market: but that method appearing slow and troublesome to a luxurious people, whose extraordinary expences* required extraordinary profits, a more expeditous one was devised; which was that of driving their rivals entirely out of the seas, and preventing them from bringing their goods at all to market. For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly” (ibid., pp.32 f.).

    Knorr, K. E. ‘Ch02-Part2 British Colonial Theories 1570-1850’. In British Colonial Theories, 1570-1850. The University of Toronto Press, 1944.”


    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 11:29 am Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    Hey, I raised this before here: what if the Cathedral largely the remnant of the Anglo psy-ops used formerly against e.g. Spain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend_of_the_Spanish_Inquisition later on basically hijacked and turned self-harming?

    Look at this story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cernov%C3%A1_massacre

    A not-huge police shooting at a remote and not very interesting place, that was rather obviously not motivated by ethnic hatred, is suddenly put in the limelight of the international media and politicians. In 1907. Doesn’t sound a lot like a Cathedral operation? Pick an even that is not representative but emotional touching, distort it, make famous people condemn it loudly and consider it representative etc.?


    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    That was Cathedral at its prime! Progressives absolutely loathed the Habsburgs.

    Wilson and his closest foreign policy advisors, George D. Herron and Colonel House, disliked the Germany of the Kaiser, the aristocracy, and the military elite. But they hated
    Austria. As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn has characterized the views of Wilson and the American Left, “Austria was far more wicked than Germany. It existed in contradiction of the Mazzinian principle of the national state, it had inherited many traditions as well as symbols from the Holy Roman Empire (double-headed eagle, black-gold colors, etc.); its
    dynasty had once ruled over Spain (another bête noire); it had led the Counter-Reformation, headed the Holy Alliance, fought against the Risorgimento, suppressed the Magyar Rebellion under Kossuth (who had a monument in New York City), and morally supported the monarchical experiment in Mexico. Habsburg – the very name evoked memories of Roman Catholicism, of the Armada, the Inquisition, Metternich, Lafayette jailed at Olmiitz, and Silvio Pellico in Briinn’s Spielberg fortress. Such a state had to be shattered, such a dynasty had to disappear.”


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Cathedral largely the remnant of the Anglo psy-ops

    Not only a remnant; it is an “anglo” (only the mutilated body remains of that people, having been snatched) psyop.

    The method is simple. Deploy chaos, harvest order. It´s simple physics.

    Just observe what the Bush adminstration did. It´s like the historical-outward method of freemasonry, of course derived of its hocus pocus regalia.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Deprived of its hocus pocus regalia*

    ——« Deploy chaos, harvest [a new] order. »

    If any one is in doubt of this, dude needs to study revolutions, activism and topplings — or simply military operations — and respect his intellectual superiors.

    It took decades of both homebrew and extraneously deployed revolutionary propaganda and praxis both in France and in Russia, for the realms to fall. These were not, as the passionate popular mind has been led to believe, “popular revolts” : they were not invented by, nor fecunded, fertilised, or lead by the common members of the populus.

    See the history of Nihilism, the term was used as late as 1829 in Russia. This is Fifth column activism.

    It is tragicomic, if not pathetic, how linking of any of this to the present day gets called “conspiracy theorising”, a literary device / defense mechanism if there ever was one : firstly 1) because there is nothing aberrant about conspiracy theorising in its neutral sense, as it is inherent to human social thinking; and secondly 2) because the mainstream media does conspiracy theorising, as it were, ‘all the time’ — and it is exactly Fifth column activity that the ‘mainstream’ lying press is accusing Trump and Putin now of as we speak.

    « The Nihilists were the generation of young, radical, non-gentry intellectuals who espoused a thoroughgoing materialism, positivism and scientism. …

    Despite their name, the Russian Nihilists did hold beliefs – most notably in themselves and in the power of their doctrine to effect social change. It is, however, the vagueness of their positive programmes that distinguishes the Nihilists from the revolutionary socialists who followed them. Russian Nihilism is perhaps best regarded as the intellectual pool of the period 1855–66 out of which later radical movements emerged; it held the potential for both Jacobinism and anarchism. »


    Why the Imperial and Royal governments hadn´t formed a security state control system to stamp this out, can, as it were ‘only’ be called dimwitted autism.

    In signum,

    Протоколы сионских мудрецов


    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 11:32 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    The comparison of democracy to a virus is most apt.

    Those who are infected can communicate better with others who are also infected.

    This creates a market force behind infection.

    Hereditary monarchy is effectively being a joint-stock owner; the founding families are given land and through that, own all of the large businesses or have jurisdiction over them.


    collen ryan Reply:

    OK fine we will start with me and my family , any objections? all reactionary monarchists opposed to the Ryan rule speak now or forever hold your peace, please include names addresses a pic and time you will be available for a beheading


    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    You need to start with an army, sire.


    collen ryan Reply:

    Yes I have made that critique of neoreactions monarchist ambitions but they seem to think all they need do is read old books to become worthy and Davos will call about their inauguration

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    —— «« Hereditary monarchy is effectively being a joint-stock owner; the founding families are given land and through that, own all of the large businesses or have jurisdiction over them. »»

    This is absolutely Right. Hereditary or not, the Aryan conception of a realm is every aryan adult male with a land and a wife, which they live off in peace and develop skills and products on in addition to enjoying finer pursuits (beer, what have you). The Atlanticist Vikings had ships as well, some of them (which could carry up to 1.500 men).

    Anyone who has been raised up in nature, or has been allowed to spend time alone there as a child, knows the value of this. Rather pure alone away from the scummy behavior of some street-kids, who typically compete in the latest ephemeral neophilic imitative monkey trends, the latter can be seen in its more developed form as the Ebonics of negroid ghetto culture and nowadays porn & video game culture.


    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 12:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    Boldmug #381: Didn’t you already point out in this thread that politics resulted in the murder of most of your and my extended families, within living memory? And is that not reason enough to care about it (as you obviously do, despite protestations to the contrary)?

    Couple of Jews Kvetching about how best to rule whites, Nothing to see here.


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    “Couple of Jews Kvetching about how best to rule whites, Nothing to see here.”

    There’s a bit more to moldbug but that could sum it.
    And blame it all on the WASPS – aka Puritans. LOL.


    Wagner Reply:

    aka “NOT US”

    How many screw-ups before a people loses its title of “chosen”?


    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 1:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    “Sure, Sir William Petty died in 1687. But if he knew how to govern England in 1687, when it took a man on a horse a week to get from London to Edinburgh, what would a new regime have to worry about in 2017?”

    All sorts of things.The larger a system you are administering the more responsibility you must delegate.Delegates get their own Ideas, which is both a feature and a bug.Delegates whether they be coutesans senators or chinese civil servants find ways to get paid.Its rarely the proles you have to worry about its the delegates.
    Ok so monarchy doesnt mean monarchy it mean CEO subject to bitcoin vote by shareholders to be determined.I think youre better off with hitler stalin or the king of england, The CEOs overthrown for political correctness, lack of political skill etc or legion.
    Which brings you back to the same old monarch problems, a good man is hard to find, one with as good a son is impossible.How do you transition westerners back to democracy.Even if you could what makes you think one man capable of ruling n this complex world. Ill give you Musk or Theil even and all you have to do is read them a bit to realize they also have some kooky ideas just on the topics they have been asked about who knows what they come up with, are either one of then capable of mass executions if need be


    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 1:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    youre looking for a unified theory of human government apes science, maybe you can do this for ants and antelope but of course they already evolved that works well for ant and antelopes. apes have one to its just more dynamic.And we want stability I get it it would be nice but this is what youre up against

    A single leader is inherently more unstable, until he effectively becomes not a single leader, and more of a team captain. The larger the team the more stable, and yes the less coordinated. And I have yet to hear a reactionary admit that european people might be different than other peoples regarding governance which seems really odd from the HBD political philosophy


    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 1:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:


    So multiculturalism will work as long as its administers by a king? let me guess Singapore


    Heres how that works out in the west jews and east Asians rule us and increasingly rule us not on neocameralist principles but on judaic east Asian interest principles.


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Yes it’s high time we stopped being governed for Tel Aviv on the Hudson – rapidly becoming Dubai on the Hudson – and started being governed for the benefit of Dubai of the Pacific.

    Or perhaps we can take Taleb’s sound advice and become a bunch of Switzerland’s.
    We mind our own business and look after our own interests.

    We are all localists now.


    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 2:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    While agreeing we shouldn’t export it we also shouldn’t try to import other systems but work with what’s available.

    OH and OTOH and BTW….

    a) frequently causes serious damage to Anglo-American countries, Any and all political systems either cause or suffer frequent damage..look at Chinese History for examples.

    In fact if I were a genocidal type with America as my target I’d try to import Chinese esp Maoist political systems.

    (b) always or almost always has two results in other countries: it either causes massive, traumatic disasters, or brings the country under effective Anglo-American supervision, and/or both. The way nations and history actually work bringing another nation under your supervision with nearly any amount of damage is a successful export.


    michael Reply:

    seems like the demotists in france Russia and china were quickly replaced with kings, it didnt help.


    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 2:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • yado Says:

    those who have the bravery to speak openly, shamelessly, and publicly against the authoritarian arbiters of leftist dogma will be doing the single greatest service possible (at this time) for the future of humanity, and will be administering a psychological and intellectual cure to the system at large… simply by challenging dogmatic assumptions and showing that the Emperor wears no clothes, this helps others to recognize that the cult no longer has any real legitimacy, and with each public challenge the virus becomes weaker, until at last the virus is simply overwhelmed and can be peacefully flushed out. identify those sacred symbols of leftism and openly mock them, question them, and show that they do not hold any real authority. in doing so, the cult no longer can hold psychological sway over the minds of the average person, the spell is lifted, and people will find the truth on their own.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Two other aspects remain to be considered: the social promiscuity, or egalitarianism, and ‘Amazonism’. Bachofen, among his other merits, has that of bringing to light the ‘telluric’ and matriarchal origins of the so-called doctrine of natural right. The original premise of such a doctrine is precisely that all men, as sons of the Mother and beings also subjected to the law of earth, are equal, so that any inequality is an ‘injustice’, an outrage to the law of nature. Hence the connection that antiquity shows us between the plebeian element and its mother and chthonic cults and the fact that these ancient orgiastic and Dionysian feasts, which, together with the most extreme forms of licentiousness and sexual promiscuity, were meant to celebrate the return of men to the state of nature through the momentary obliteration of any social difference and of any hierarchy, were centred precisely on feminine divinities of the ‘telluric’ cycle, more or less directly derived from the type of the Great Mother of Life. As for ‘Amazonism’, Bachofen looked upon it as a variant of ‘gynaecocracy’. Wherever the woman does not manage to assert herself through her maternal religious element (‘Demetrian’), she tries to assert herself vis-a-vis man through a counterfeiting of the virile qualities of power and combativity.


    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 3:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Synthetic with Democracy — Monarcho-Capitalism is what G. Britain has.

    Why they decided the let their nation be flooded by previous colonial subjects, i.e. be reverse or intra-colonized in turn by savages, can be discovered by a close examination of the (occult) history. The spirits of putrefaction got mixed in to the previously germanic anglo power-lines.

    Drown drown leads only one way: down ↓

    It begins with the commodification of people. “Heck, these people are no worse than our people! Give them legal rights, let them have office!”


    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 3:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Says:

    Don’t get hung up on the new-fangled language regarding the Royal Family – look, believe whatever you want to believe about it; that it is something other than “who shall be the master” and the master is one guy. Responsibility mechanisms are hard. Joint stock is untried; this is not the place to reveal or conceal the weaknesses in the model, for that is not the purpose of the model. If you’re hung-up on the model, in particular the *capitalistic* element of the model, you’ve missed the train. Get on at “Hapsburgs” and ride for awhile.

    If you’re preaching neocameralism to us, in particular, you’re barking up the wrong tree.


    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 4:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • devcarrier Says:

    The resurfacing monarchy language can be tempered better – if you like it paleo – with the Hobbesian covenant. Sovereignty needs to be based in contract. You’re real problem is with escrow, if we’re trying to avoid trusted third parties.


    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    >Sovereignty needs to be based in contract.

    As Lysander Spooner has demonstrated that doesn’t really work, because you can always say “What contract? I signed nothing!”. Sovereignty based on subjugation is honest, because that’s how things really are.


    devcarrier Reply:

    >Sovereignty based on subjugation is honest, because that’s how things really are.
    Quite right, because contracts subjugate. We’ll get to Spooner, but first some pro-institution clarifications from the 1600s:

    1. The Sovereign does not make a contract with a multitude;
    2. The Sovereign does not make several covenants with each and every man;
    3a. A Sovereign is [horizontally] appointed only by contract of one to another, and not [vertically] of Him to any of them.
    3b. Sovereignty granted by way of precedent covenant is in vain (cf. social contract): “I didn’t sign that! Did you?”
    4. A Sovereign is, when elected, absolute: the boss with limited power is not superior to those that have the power to limit him; if he is not superior then he is not Sovereign.

    >As Lysander Spooner has demonstrated that doesn’t really work, because you can always say “What contract? I signed nothing!”.

    By “I signed nothing!” I assume you mean those who literally did not sign a contract, as opposed to “I promised to execute this contract, but…” [if so: a) I’ll do no deals with you, Madam; b) the blockchain begs to differ]
    Mr. Spooner: “[the constitution was] a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing […] the language [of the constitution] neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their “posterity” to live under it.”

    The arbiter here in this argument is mortality. Yarvin opts for a singularity approach on the posterity question by way of Richard Filmer: don’t ask why it’s in charge, because it just is – “the rule is arbitrary”. Before this monos-arkhein, the alone-to-rule, arrives from the future in the form of the eternal DAO, with corporate personhood reaching its zenith as Skynet (or whatever), we have the right of succession, lest order collapse in every age. Disintegration is fine, mind [although it is potentially hard to now justify hardcore secessionism on this train of thought if a contract limits rather than infers Exit], but disintegration does not mean collapsing into the zombie multitude for want of an heir or because the year is 2017 rather than 1787 when one checks the calendar.


    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    Social contract theorists are full-of-it. Meanwhile, reactionaries are a bunch of filthy hypocrites. “Might Is Right” conveys the same thing the likes of Filmer are trying to, but, without using euphemisms and lies, rather Ragnar Redbeard is honest about it. Redbeard >> Filmer

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    This is autism. What really rules is caudillismo.

    Modern caudillismo disguises behind and employs lawyers, governments, LEOs, businesses. Trump is a caudillo somewhere in the hierarchy, the Bush dynasty are caudillos.

    This will never change so long as we remain organisms.

    Which we will, forever.

    devcarrier Reply:

    Caudillismo in the ‘modern’ sense you use it would imply what we already have: separation of powers. A Caudillo like de Rosas, however, was invested with the sum of public power. A “caudillo somewhere in the hierarchy” is impossible, surely (but I’m picking up the Gnon vibe here). Interesting stuff, though. My weekend reading list is growing.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Yeah, it was really just Gnonism. Study enough of history with a traditional lense and everything becomes as it were “caudillismo” — i.e. ; or rather ; chieftainism.

    What I was really hoping to point at was that « In the world of Tradition the most important foundation of the authority and of the right (ius) of kings and chiefs, and the reason why they were obeyed, feared, and venerated, was essentially their transcendent and nonhuman quality. »

    This can seem confusing. Nonhuman? Does Bush the Eldar have a nonhuman quality?

    First, we have to define human. The human is a subject. It is subject to historical processes, i.e. trends that he receives.

    Could this mean that a gamer like Bush sr. is woke about historical trends and can game concepts so as to control armies?

    « This quality was not artificial, but a powerful reality to be feared. The more people acknowledged the ontological rank of what was prior and superior to the visible and temporal dimension, the more such beings were invested with a natural and absolute sovereign power. »

    It goes on to say that the root of this is in metaphysical power.

    Now that is confusing to many. Wtf, is even metaphysical?

    It really simply refers to ideas. Like, you can write ideas down and hold them in your mind. That they appear in your mind is really what is meant by metaphysical.

    That you can translate them from your mind to other people, is amazingly what is meant by “calling down the powers of heaven.”

    Very similar to what Nick Land´s trope calls hyperstition. I.e. Presencing.

    « Traditional civilizations, unlike those of decadent and later times, completely ignored the merely political dimension of supreme authority as well as the idea that the roots of authority lay in mere strength, violence, or natural and secular qualities such as intelligence, wisdom, physical courage, and a minute concern for the collective material well-being. The roots of authority, on the contrary, always had a metaphysical character. Likewise, the idea that the power to govern is conferred on the chief by those whom he rules and that his authority is the expression of the community and therefore subject to its decrees, was foreign to Tradition. »

    This is gonna seem contradictory to many. What it really is saying is that by cultivating ideas, you can game a more intelligent-powerful people into being.

    Sounds like an arbitrary explanation by me, but I will be able to elucidate.

    It´s all about images. What this whole ‘metaphysical’ “nonsense” is referring to is images.

    Mental images. Peter B. Roberstion no i mean Jordan B Peterson will be helpful in understanding this as per his lectures on Yt. https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos

    All the mumbo-jumbo about supernatural, metaphysical, gods, etc all refers to holding ideas in your mind and cultivating whatever comes through when you venerate these images.

    Cultus. We already do this. Like, say Lovecraft presents certain mental images of beings through text, so his readers get images of these beings in their minds through reading his texts. Now years later after having read a novel of his you still have an image of his god in your head.

    You can create a song, e.g., based on that image and play it and an other person will recognise the image of the god when he hears the song.

    This is metaphysical transference.

    What does this have to do with onto-caudillismo?

    It refers to humans as vessels, carriers, of images. « Man was created in the image of God ». A chief is a very potent carrier of images. Which actually are more than just flat images but are in a sense living beings.

    Wagner Reply:

    “Wtf, is even metaphysical?”

    I would like to hear Nicholas Land’s answer to this, though anyone else who wanted to pipe up I wouldn’t mind either since this blog is so lacking in expounding on metaphysical presumptions.

    Alrenous Reply:

    Read your Friedman, or at least be able to fake it. Security in a free society is granted by subscription. “I didn’t sign a contract!” You did, but okay, service terminates on the last month premiums were paid. Problem being, if you haven’t paid for your security, I hope you’re a Vinge-ian armadillo, as otherwise you have no rights.


    devcarrier Reply:

    @Alrenous Totally agree with this. The third world “I didn’t sign this!” rebuttal to notions of contractual integrity pops up a lot. Of course you signed it: it’s on the public ledger, time stamped and everything.


    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 4:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rreactionaryfuture Says:

    @Leonard Reply:
    February 6th, 2017 at 3:39 pm

    I would say you are conflating possession with property. They don’t always correspond, and this is where libertarians and Marxist get into a love cuddle over their inheritance from Locke (“I infuse my god magic/juju into something and make it property blah blah blah.) This is a problem, and is endemic to modern (political) thought. Legal thinking that deals with property on a day to day basis is less deranged.

    Property is a social institution, and depends on norms (long ago laid out by monarchs, not magic/ spon order) and legal institutions. Those property transfers and agreaments not under direct legal cover are done in their shadow. Sure you can “possess” the AK but if it is illegal, then what?

    It is anouther good point that Moldbug managed to realise that the issue of sovereignty ties in with property. I don’t think he carried it through fully given his references to Hobbes.


    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    >and is endemic to modern (political) thought.

    “Thou shall not steal.” is a modern thought? The concern about legitimacy of property far predates the modern period.

    >laid out by monarchs

    Because all authority in the Natural Order flows from above, monarch cannot receive his authority from anywhere else but from God. Because God owns all, people can only ever be stewards (in a differing degrees) of property, never absolute owners. Thus, an unchrismated monarch is nothing but a great robber. Because of this, Christian monarch can never really be an absolute monarch, because he is merely a servant.


    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    >because he is merely a servant

    Should say “for he is merely another servant.”


    michael ryan Reply:

    Sure you can have title to that property but if i have all the AKs Im going to possess it along with the courts and judges


    wu-wei Reply:


    With regard to Moldbug on the:
    Locke Hobes Filmer scale;
    I’ve come to interpret him as believing in Hobbes for the 140+ IQ types; Filmer for everyone else.

    Not in the sense of primary versus secondary property rights; his position on that clearly mirrors your own, eg. 100% Filmer. What I mean is, I think Moldbug basically believes that the high IQ types such as himself are at least in some sense capable of “escaping” their tradtion (if not their received ethics, then at least their received non-metaphysical beliefs), they are basically cartesian minds; thus, Hobbes. But for everyone else, Filmer applies: their pragmatic beliefs about the world are always received from some Cathredral or another.

    In a world of “Patchwork”, it’s the Hobessian free minds like Moldbug for which the various sovereign states compete for as “customers”. For everyone else, well, they’re born on the farm and stay there.


    Rreactionaryfuture Reply:

    @wu Wei
    Well, I would say he is deeply confused on the issue of traditions. On the one hand he talks often of “sub specie aeternitatis” and treats the like of Mises and other libertarians with respect, and on the other he applies cladistic analysis which *asserts* genealogy even for liberal theory, and which refutes the idea of escaping tradition. You obviously see the discrepancy.
    Any IQ140+ who thinks (or claims) they can escape tradition is selling themselves a big bag of nonsense and is not as smart as they think they are (or lying). Even the very words being used to think enshrine thought processes from the past. Like my favorite example – religion.


    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    But you reject economics outright! It’s one thing to dislike von Mises’ liberalism, but quite another to reject his science. The founders of Austrian Economics weren’t liberals, they were Austrian statesmen, like Menger, von Bawerk, and von Wieser. Read von Wieser’s “The Law of Power”.
    BTW von Wieser said: “Chaos (classical liberalism) has to be replaced by a system of order.” How very Carlylean don’t you think?

    You can’t escape tradition, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t change (which is functionally the same). That’s the point of memetics. But, of course, in addition to economics you also reject the evolutionism, so the point is lost on you.


    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    @Michael Rothblatt Reply:
    February 7th, 2017 at 9:33 am

    I reject wholesale that anything can be conceived external to a tradition (again see the rejection of Kant.) I also reject Hume, Smith and Kant’s ethical projects as nonsense. Doing this means that you have pretty much dismissed Mises before you read anything he put down, because he really doesn’t deviated from them (especially Smith and Hume) at all. Would you take Smith and Hume as “science”? because all he did was formalize their ethical system (which is wrong.)

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    Well, Hume, Smith, and Kant have got nothing to do with Menger, von Bawerk, and von Wieser. They’re Thomists/Aristotelians (and as the founders of Austrian School they predate von Mises).

    As for von Mises, people agree that Kant is a problem, which is why you should take a look at this.

    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    @Michael Rothblatt Reply:
    February 8th, 2017 at 11:42 am

    Haven’t had time to read it all yet, but the essay is interesting. I keep pointing people to McIntyre on this point:
    “why should we believe our form of intuition and categories of the understanding fit reality? :The best answer it leaves us with is a thoroughgoing pragmatist one: they work. They enable us to survive. As to why they work, it seems we still have a mystery on our hands.”

    Switch “survive” for “flourish”, and you pretty much have the MacIntyre epistemological system derived from Aristotle.

    The same goes for Mise’s whole action axiom as being instigated by unease. It is clearly derived from Smith and Hume’s ethics. MacIntyre meanwhile working on the virtues from Aristotle and Aquinas would counter this by admitting that, yes, action is instigated by what Hume would call passions (unease in Mise’s account) but the human agent is able to apply practical reasoning and control and develop these passions so they have the right emotions, at the right times, and for the right reason. (There is no “natural” and “unnatural” passions as per Hume.)

    Actually, thinking about this, didn’t Rothbard go down a neo-Thomist route?

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    Rothbard liked Aquinas and Aristotle immensely (he liked Aquinas enough to have trashed the first draft of his “Man, Economy and State” which was utilitarian, to include Thomistic insights instead) but in the end, he, like von Mises, went in the opposite direction of the founders of the school. In fact he went much further than von Mises for unlike von Mises who was staunchly anti-anarchist

    “Peace—the absence of perpetual fighting by everyone against everyone— can be attained only by the establishment of a system in which the power to resort to violent action is monopolized by a social apparatus of compulsion and coercion and the application of this power in any individual case is regulated by a set of rules—the man-made laws as distinguished both from the laws of nature and those of praxeology.”

    Rothbard deontologized Locke, and being a deontologist, Rothbard therefore supported anarchy not because it would, or would not work, but because he thought it just (indeed, had he believed in labor theory of value, he would then necessarily have to be a believer in Marx’ exploitation theory; Hoppe himself went from Marxist to Rothbardian once he found out that labor theory of value isn’t true). So we see that von Wieser for example, who was a reactionary Habsburg statesman, was quite the opposite thing from Rothbard the anarchist. However, had he lived longer, Rothbard might have recanted, because as he aged he moved further and further to the right, and people who knew him expected him to convert to Catholicism. After all, the original founder of anarcho-capitalism, Gustave de Molinari already had all the “Moldbuggian” insights about divided power (he explains it quite nicely in the very work where he first introduced anarcho-capitalism), and himself abandoned anarcho-capitalism for reactionary positions later in his life (for example, he wrote that vast majority of mankind was unfit for liberty and is therefore to be subjected to the condition of “tutelage”).

    So, long story short, no he was close, but he didn’t. Had he lived longer he might have actually went the neo-Thomist route.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [reactionaryfuture] “Haven’t had time to read it all yet, but the essay is interesting. I keep pointing people to McIntyre on this point:
    “why should we believe our form of intuition and categories of the understanding fit reality? :The best answer it leaves us with is a thoroughgoing pragmatist one: they work. They enable us to survive. As to why they work, it seems we still have a mystery on our hands.”
    Switch “survive” for “flourish”, and you pretty much have the MacIntyre epistemological system derived from Aristotle.
    The same goes for Mise’s whole action axiom as being instigated by unease. It is clearly derived from Smith and Hume’s ethics. MacIntyre meanwhile working on the virtues from Aristotle and Aquinas would counter this by admitting that, yes, action is instigated by what Hume would call passions (unease in Mise’s account) but the human agent is able to apply practical reasoning and control and develop these passions so they have the right emotions, at the right times, and for the right reason. (There is no “natural” and “unnatural” passions as per Hume.)
    Actually, thinking about this, didn’t Rothbard go down a neo-Thomist route?”

    {AK}: Proceeding always according to ‘survivalist unease’, begets the characteristic paranoia of Protestant culture, particularly in the USA. It’s a self-fulfilling and self-justifying reality! A cage, that throws up epistemologies of perceived expediency as its bars, and encodes all emotions according to corollary calculations of those incarcerating, barred necessities.
    “Prison planet”, of passions, indeed!
    This is the ever-guilty hallucination of gratuitous exploitation.
    Is it any wonder that the phrase ‘Occidental androids’ comes so readily to mind! lol

    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    @Michael Rothblatt Reply:
    February 8th, 2017 at 4:33 pm

    Am I reading this correctly? the article is not clear if it is Rothbard writing

    “I would deny, as an Aristotelian and neo-Thomist, any such alleged “laws of logical structure” that the human mind necessarily imposes on the chaotic structure of reality. Instead, I would call all such laws “laws of reality,” which the mind apprehends from investigating and collating the facts of the real world.”

    Seems Rothbard was taking libertarianism in a Thomistic direction and attacking empiricism quite forcefully. The whole premise of working from action, and then asserting that desires must be ranked ordered in line with the goal of the action is like a truncated version of Thomistic ethics. If you also flip the motive for action from a negative one (unease) to a positive one (pursuit of goods) then the discussion changes drastically( I think. The subtleties of the philosophical issue of intellect versus will in Thomism is not a expertise of mine.) @Artxell Knaphni Reply:February 8th, 2017 at 6:06 pm has clicked onto this issue as well.

    So, whereas St Thomas can assert the following:

    “Now we are prepared to answer the question posed at the beginning of this section: what actions are those we can designate as human? The answer is this: human actions are those over which one has voluntary control (ST IaIIae 1.1). Unlike non-rational animals, human beings choose their actions according to a reasoned account of what they think is good. Seen this way, human actions are not products of deterministic causal forces. They are products of our own free judgment (liberum arbitrium), the exercise of which is a function of both intellect and will (ST Ia 83.3). When discussing what it is that makes an action “human,” then, Aquinas has in mind those capacities whereby one judges and chooses what is good. For it is through one’s ability to deliberate and judge in this way that one exercises mastery over one’s actions (ST IaIIae 1.1).”


    Mises is stuck with the animal only.

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    Yes that is Rothbard writing, and there you see his rejection of utilitarianism I wrote of. But the reason I don’t call him neo-Thomist is first because he was an atheist, and secondly because of his moral relativism (both of which, fundamentally, weaken his supposed positions, for without God there can be no inherent rights and obligations). If you want actual libertarian neo-Thomist check out Edward C. Feser. He’s very critical not of Rothbard’s economics, but of Rothbard’s philosophy.


    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    @Michael Rothblatt Reply:
    February 9th, 2017 at 12:02 pm

    Firstly, if that is Rothbard, then he is calling himself a neo-Thomist.

    As for Fesser’s post, I have a great deal more sympathy with Rothbard than I do Fesser there, and having read a lot of MacIntyre recently, I am beginning to understand why he is so critical of modern Thomists. I even did a post on first principles from a Thomist direction, which Rothbard is more in line with than Fessers! I mean, Fesser actually says:

    “Now it is also true, as Casey says, that it is a logical solecism to argue for an axiom or first principle.”

    I can even find commentary from St Thomas which contradicts this:

    “In our study of the principles we must carefully examine not only the conclusions and the premises from which the argument proceeds but also the considered views of others.” Commentary on the ethics lec. XII.


    “Likewise, we must not seek causes equally in all matters but in some it suffices to establish a fact. This is the case with the first principles of a science since a principle is a starting point. Now, we understand some principles by induction, some by observation, some by custom and others in other ways.” Lec XII

    This is odd, until you take MacIntyre’s criticism on board from WJWR, especially page 175, where he complains that:

    “So in the construction of any demonstrative science we both argue from what we take, often rightly, to be subordinate truths to first principles (commentary on Ethics), as well as from first principles to subordinate truths (commentary on Boethius De Trintate). And in this work of coming to understand which premises it is that state what is the case per se, in such a was as to function as first principles, we continually deepen our apprehension of the content of those first principles and correct misapprehensions into which everyone tends to fall
    Yet of course there have bee notable Thomists in the last hundred years who would have disagreed with this account of first principles as strenuously as any Humean or Kantian, ascribing both to Aristotle and Aquinas a belief in a set of necessarily true first principles which any truly rational person is able to evaluate as true. For this kind of Thomist the rational superiority of Aquinas’ overall system of thought does not lie in its having transcended the limitations of its predecessors, while preserving from them what had withstood dialectical objection, and in its since then having not similarly been transcended by any successor system of thought, but instead in its argumentative ability to encounter its modern rivals on their chosen ground for debate.”

    So Fesser would come under the category of one of those “notable Thomists” while Rothbard would be more Thomist than him.

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    >Firstly, if that is Rothbard, then he is calling himself a neo-Thomist.

    Yes he is, but I ask you how Thomist can a morally relativistic Jewish atheist be? If he had argued that humans have inherent rights because of Imago Dei and Incarnatio Verbi Dei, instead of arguing self-ownership then I could call him a Thomist. Sure enough, you can call him a methodological Thomist, or some such thing, but certainly not an orthodox Thomist.

    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    It is there, in black and white. As to how he could conceive of himself as such, I am not sure, I don’t have his writing on the subject. Most likely he is vastly misunderstanding the issue, maybe not. However, there is no such thing as the modern first principle that can be admitted by all rational agents regardless of context etc. its a mythical thing, more extreme than any fideism.

    Also, you have to appreciate that both Aristotle and St Thomas present systems of ethics based on deduction of first principles from reasoning based in experience. They attempt to present an ethical system rooted in action (both derived from Will and Intellect) and experience, which is understandable from a greater system within which the actor acts. Aristotle had the Polis as the setting, Aquinas placed it in a theistic setting. If they are right in what they present of human action, then we should be able to see actors in many different cultures engaging in the same process of practical reasoning to order the goods as that outlined by both Aristotle and Aquinas, and MacIntyre makes the claim that this is the case. So even the most ardent atheistic, relativistic and modern individual will engage in practical ethical reasoning by default and in spite of his/her philosophical position. We just do it. The only time we don’t is when we are placed in situations which enshrine modern ethical concepts which are done by modern institutions, and/or work from modern philosophers who were deranged and patently wrong such as Hume, Kant and Smith (who could be argued are also results of those self-same institutions.)

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    —— « Even the very words being used to think enshrine thought processes from the past. »

    This is exactly one of the best ex-amples of the omnipresence of traditionality.

    We´re literally nothing without tradition.

    Our words are tradition.



    wu-wei Reply:


    For whatever it’s worth, after reading your blog cover to cover, I’ve had to conclude that your ideas really are in the intellectual tradition of “Moldbug-ism”, if fully taken to their logical conclusion. I think Moldbug himself has stopped short of reaching this conclusion however. I can only speculate, but I suspect he might have done so, as I have as well concluded, that if your theories on anthropology and the role of traditions toward are capacity to reason are indeed correct, then given how history unfolded in the last several hundred years, we are all most likely irrevocably screwed.


    Leonard Reply:

    “Possession is nine-tenths of the law.”


    wu-wei Reply:

    “Possession is nine-tenths of the law.”

    Effective control over the security forces is 100% of the law.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    « And there was war in Heaven …. » Rev. 12:7

    Effective control over the security forces is 100% of the law.

    This is absolutism.

    This is why religion has war-gods at top, or at least war-approving gods. & Even Christianity has battle-clad angels.

    Security is the law, and the law is security.

    « Dumézil maintains that Jupiter [Optimus Maximus, the king of the gods] is not himself a god of war and agriculture, although his actions and interest may extend to these spheres of human endeavour. His view is based on the methodological assumption that the chief criterion for studying a god’s nature is not to consider his field of action, but the quality, method and features of his action. Consequently, the analysis of the type of action performed by Jupiter in the domains in which he operates indicates that Jupiter is a sovereign god who may act in the field of politics (as well as agriculture and war) in his capacity as such, i.e. in a way and with the features proper to a king. Sovereignty is expressed through the two aspects of absolute, magic power (epitomised and represented by the Vedic god Varuna) and lawful right (by the Vedic god Mitra). However, sovereignty permits action in every field; otherwise, it would lose its essential quality. »

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    ‘My view is that the concept of limited sovereignty is self-contradictory and informalist.’ said Mencius Moldbug in The magic symmetry of sovereignty on May 19th, 2007.

    Or as the Wikipedia article on Jupiter Optimus Maximus says: ‘sovereignty permits action in every field; otherwise, it would lose its essential quality.’

    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 5:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Reformation101 Says:

    Some quick thoughts to follow. (I won’t provide “quotes” for specific claims, but can if pressed. I think the thread will repay rereading, which I intend to do later.)

    1: Epistemic bubbles of Scott and co. Moldbug brings up that there is a two order problem here. First, the particular issue in question (left v right); secondly, the second order problem which is putting it in its historical, political and structural context.

    2: Cognitive dissonance. You see this when they resort to snark, exaggeration and non-sequiturs.

    3: Scott is a hypocrite. He claims to be a free-speech loving liberal, yet towards the end he says that if he ever does this (open thread) again he only wants to read comments about how to stop Trump, which is to say he does not want to hear any criticism.

    4: Scott also practices the very common trope of “yes X is imperfect, yes my side has done wrong…..but but reform or return to “classical liberal values.” I used to have this trope in my thought. It is very common, and it prevents clear, logical thinking. It prevents people from actually pushing the contradictions to the logical conclusion.

    5: Tribal politics (tautology). Scott has an identity as part of the tribe – the liberal science tribe – and his emotional (and self-interested) attachment to that will prevent him, like so many others, from really engaging in disinterested analysis. (That’s a big challenge for persuasion – how to get these Brahmins to look at the matter in a cool, disinterested fashion, without losing face or status.)

    6: The Pinker “decline” of violence trope came up a good bit. I think it got some good pushback from Bran and Jim and Moldbug. It is, however, going to be a major plank in the left’s argument. This plank is their “theodicy”; and it needs to be systematically ground up. The problem – intellectually, not politically – is the basic, implicit assumptions of the claim that “violence has declined.” On different assumptions, it is clear – very clear – that over the last century violence has never been higher!

    7: Moldbug calls out Scott for political naivety. Notice, that Moldbug states that the number one book for political analysis of “real” politics is James Burnham’s The Machiavellians. I agree with that. Burnham lays out a number of principles of how Political Science ought to be done. This book, after Democracy God that Failed, was the first Moldbug recommended book I read. I had read my Machiavelli and was well aware of Thucydides and “realism” and accepted; however, the internal contradiction in my head was that I was still attached to “Formal” meanings and analysis. During my introduction to this slack, when I said “Moldbug answered my question” I was referring to why the left does what it does. The answer is for power, for prestige, for pre-eminence.

    8: I mention these principles here as central to “reactionary political science.”

    9: Moldbug (again) brings up Mosca as one of the most important political scientists of the 20th century who is greatly overlooked. In a forthcoming work on Moldbug, I present textual arguments that Burnham, Mosca and the concept of “political formulas” “Real V Formal” meanings are central to understanding Moldbug’s work.

    10. Finally, the irony of Scott accusing Moldbug of wanting to return to the past while he claims he wants to have “classical liberal values”.


    Alrenous Reply:

    Disinterested analysis reveals Scott wants to be part of ‘us’ and not ‘them,’ and is willing to lie like a rug to remain in ‘us.’ He defects on civilization, but apparently civilization only rewards defection.


    Steve Johnson Reply:

    4: Scott also practices the very common trope of “yes X is imperfect, yes my side has done wrong…..but but reform or return to “classical liberal values.”

    You can see what Moldbug is trying to do in that thread and it’s just not taking with Scott. He’s trying to get him to consider “classical liberal values” as means of achieving an end of good governance and then trying to get him to see that those values are both insufficient and unnecessary to that end; but that is a very tough sell without extensive consideration. In the longer writing on his blog Moldbug softens the blow by letting his readers initially define good governance as one that achieves classical liberal values but once they go that far they end up in a place where classical liberal values don’t look like such a great idea as a means or an end any longer.

    6: The Pinker “decline” of violence trope came up a good bit. I think it got some good pushback from Bran and Jim and Moldbug.

    The other side has a point on this one – but they still miss the forest for the trees. The question isn’t actual incidences of violence per se but what the reaction to widespread criminal violence has been and the costs of that reaction (more social than economic). There’s no crime in a completely abandoned building – that doesn’t mean that it was a natural change that caused the building to be abandoned – there was a lot of crime and violence and the threat of more of it. Moldbug tries to point out the Guiliani reaction to the 1970s and how it’s running out of steam and looking to be reversed but no one on the other side even really acknowledges that the reaction to the disorder of the 70s is what curtailed the disorder.

    7: Moldbug calls out Scott for political naivety.

    Scott addresses this:

    Scott Says:
    Comment #380 January 31st, 2017 at 10:36 pm
    Again and again in his comments here, Boldmug has advanced a dark but interesting thesis. Namely, that the philosophy of classical Enlightenment liberalism that I cast my lot with, the one that’s obsessed with science and free speech and error-correcting processes and democratic norms, is always just a Trojan horse, a prelude to a power-grab by violent radicals. On this view, “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” is inevitably just a warmup act to the Reign of Terror, as the Russian Revolution is to Leninism, the Iranian student revolution to the takeover by the mullahs, the Arab Spring to violence and chaos and military dictatorships, etc.

    I see the situation differently. For me, building a robust liberal democracy is a hard and complicated engineering problem—not unlike building a transistor or a plane. Even if you know what to aim for (which is already nontrivial), if you get a tiny detail wrong you could fail. Your plane will stay aloft for a few seconds and then careen out of control; your material will either conduct electric current or not, but surely not conduct only if a smaller current is applied to its surface. Likewise a violent overthrow of a despotic regime, without extremely careful thought about what comes next, will almost certainly lead to an equally bad or worse regime filling the power vacuum, which is indeed what we’ve seen again and again.

    But I’d say we’re fortunate that these observations didn’t dissuade the Wright brothers, or Bardeen and Brattain and Shockley, or the American revolutionaries! In each case, even if an engineering problem has the character of balancing a pencil on its tip, a solution might be so self-evidently desirable that it really does make sense just to work on it more and more and more until the pencil stands. Even then the pencil probably won’t stand forever, but after it falls we can do a careful postmortem, and try again to rebalance the pencil for an even longer time. What else can we do?

    To me, this is insanity. Scott is really willing to argue that “classical liberalism” is that much better than alternatives that winding up with the Soviet Union every once in a while is perfectly fine if it gets rid of the Romanovs?

    Moldbug makes another point on that thread that should be included in that list – that by absorbing talent from everywhere on Earth it has created a scientific monoculture that is vulnerable to systemic error. As far as I can tell, Scott never really acknowledges this argument.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    —« “classical liberalism” is that much better than alternatives that winding up with the Soviet Union every once in a while is perfectly fine if it gets rid of the Romanovs »

    Shiet. If this isn´t the modern free muh Sonic view.


    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 10:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Apparently de Maistre uttered that phrase before, « All governments are absolute. » which is where Moldbug no doubts repeats it from.

    It was written as a footnote. Here´s the “whole” thing: « Recently, at the opening of the republican Lyceum of Paris, a quite remarkable truth was expressed: “In absolute* governments, the faults of the master can scarcely ruin everything at once, because his single will cannot do everything; but a republican government is obliged to be essentially reasonable and just, because the general will, once it goes astray, carries everything away with it.”

    * It would be necessary to say arbitrary, for all governments are absolute. »



    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    Filmer made an even more hardcore argument that all government is not only absolute, but all is in effect equivalent to monarchy. There is always a government, and there is always a head of that government, which is an argument which dovetails with Schmitt’s state of exception.This nukes discussion on democracy. There is no democracy. Period. You merely have rule by monarchical structure with varying levels of convoluted structure, varying security and varying ideological justification.


    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    >Filmer made an even more hardcore argument that all government is not only absolute, but all is in effect equivalent to monarchy.

    The more correct statement however, would be that no government is absolute.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    No, it is absolute because it´s an image of the world. Like ur brain supposedly governs your body.

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    The usage of the word ‘absolute’ was wishful thinking on the part of the monarch, and a useful tool in the hands of their propagandists. Blasphemous scribblings of absolutists and their hacks ascribe quasi-divine status to monarchs. As Keohane comments “[Louis XIV] is not content to compare himself to God; he compares in such a manner that it is clear that it is God who is the copy.”

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    naw bro, government is absolute because it is an irrevocable fact.

    the world is a government, is the traditional 5.000+ year view.

    de Maistre was a Christian traditionalist, he sees the human world as the mirror of the spiritual. ie. as above so below. this is in all the traditional religions and mythologies.

    even if you have a back of bandits, they are ruled by the principles of the eternal hierarchy.

    it´s not about humans being omnipotent as it were, but hierarchy being omnipresent.

    you´re confusing ‘absolutism’ as a political theory with absolutism as “chief ruler makes his own law” with absolutism as a transcendent law. it´s a subtle difference.


    what me, de Maistre, Moldbug and ReactionaryFuture are providing is connected with ‘absolute idealism’ and ‘moral absolutism’ in that Wikipedia list.

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    >de Maistre was a Christian traditionalist

    De Maistre was a freemason. He referred to God in the fashion of Enlightenment Deists, as Supreme Being.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Freemason or Christian, both have the traditional image of the world: hierarchy.

    Which means government is absolute.

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    God is Absolute. Government is an equilibrium of what it can get away (wheter they do it via controling minds, or via controling men with guns) with and what subjects can get away with, even DPKR has black markets (providing they don’t catch you).

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    No, that is separating god away from the world.

    God is government. Hierarchy.

    It´s a gnostic idea that god is separate. It´s the virus that Christianity was the carrier of to the West.

    God is sacred order. Government.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Government essentially means that which governs. That is god. You´re right, god is the absolute, but the absolute cannot be separate from itself but only identical with itself. (I am that I am.)

    When men govern, they are doing as in the image of god.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    There is always a government, and there is always a head of that government, which is an argument which dovetails with Schmitt’s state of exception. This nukes the discussion on democracy.

    This re-appearance of Moldbug has certainly reinforced my image of the world and history.

    This absolutely matches physics. There is always some dog in the pack which makes the first move.


    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    Absolutism requires a state religion where the emperor is a god? Ergo Christianity is inherently incompatible with absolutism?


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Christianity is yes schizophrenic, which is why we worship Gnon here but not Jewsus as our central image.

    But people were apparently able to synthesise Christianity with absolutism or emperorship for quite some time. Altho the relationship between the “Vicar of Christ” and Emperor wasn´t always dandy.

    Admittedly, if we are to believe popular-Cathedral history the Roman Catholic Church has lasted longer than any Empire.

    The question becomes between Papism or Neu-Ro-manism ; but prophesy is on our side:

    A Holy Roman Empire Rises

    Posted on February 7th, 2017 at 12:01 am Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    The analogy is brilliant. I love it.

    But… it’s not a good argument for neocameralism. Dutch elm disease *has no cure*. Who says democracy has one?


    wu-wei Reply:

    Then we are probably all doomed, and shall die drowning with no-one to save us.


    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    Pretty much, yeah. When has there ever been a successful restoration this long after revolution? All in all, dissident ideologies such as libertarianism, reaction, etc. are just intellectual masturbation. Gradient of change will be toward decay until we hit rock bottom. But looking at it on the bright side, after that, there will be nowhere to go but up!


    Posted on February 7th, 2017 at 1:21 am Reply | Quote
  • Boldmug Says:

    Nick, I’ve been meaning to say this the last few months: you are wrong, and michael and Wagner are right. About everything. Peter is having them flown to California at the end of this week to begin participation in our think-tank full-time. Wagner himself has earned a free ticket to a cryogenic freezing so that he may feast in Valhalla with the AI gods forevermore; I suggest with all solemnity you heed the words he has been speaking as if he were a prophet.


    admin Reply:



    wu-wei Reply:



    collen ryan Reply:

    Nick cant be wrong he wont make a stand


    Posted on February 7th, 2017 at 3:21 am Reply | Quote
  • Steve Johnson Says:

    These comments were both left by Scott:

    For me, before 1948, Zionism meant the belief that the tiny population that had produced Einstein, Bohr, Born, von Neumann, Bethe, Ehrenfest, Cantor, Jacobi, Noether, Hadamard, Minkowski, Hausdorff, Tarski, Erdös, and Ulam, but which the rest of the world tended to murder at every possible opportunity, should probably have a place to protect it from being murdered

    Fair enough, right?

    How about this reason: because the science and engineering communities, which are what I care about, have over the centuries created a large fraction of everything that’s worth having in his sorry world—both in the obvious sense of what keeps us alive and healthy and fed, and in the higher sense of what enlightens us about the universe and makes us humans rather than beasts.

    Cute – and I bet he’s blind to the evasion there.

    Jewish scientists and philosophers are Jewish to him – but most of humanity’s progress was made by “the science and engineering communities” – of no specific race or ethnicity and fails to see why someone could feel the same way about the white race as he does about his tribe.

    I agree with the first part – but the second part is a lie if he leaves out that science and human improvement has been mainly a white endeavor.


    Wagner Reply:

    I wonder why he would have said this:


    A real chin-stroker. (His caps not mine).


    Steve Johnson Reply:

    That was Scott Alexander.


    collen ryan Reply:

    @Steve Johnson

    Heres how it really is we will start with the top one. Well lets see how well the jews do when instead of being parasites they have to also maintain the infrastructure of a nation. And lets be honest we have given them a 1200 year head start.

    But in fairness this also applies to all of the cogelites they can not do their thing without the rest of us. As much as appreciate their contribution we are dependent on each other.


    Xoth Reply:

    Protect my people and my class, the rest deserve nothing.


    Wagner Reply:

    I don’t think “muh people” really holds water as an argument, call me a race-traitor I guess. For me the crux is: if we all become mulattoes the next Renaissance isn’t going to come for a loooooonnnnggggg time. Dear perfidious jews, McDonald’size your own genes first and let us know how it goes–my bad, y’all don’t exactly have a knack for sacrificing yourselves for others, do you?


    Posted on February 7th, 2017 at 8:44 am Reply | Quote
  • Michael Rothblatt Says:


    What’s your take on this essay?


    Posted on February 7th, 2017 at 1:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    On the question of an NRx/alt-right synthesis, Land, I have a QED for ya:

    What’s going to be more successful, a “cuckpatch” or a “noncuckpatch”?


    Posted on February 7th, 2017 at 5:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Protocols of the Elders of Zion were heavily plagiarized by this 1864 Political Satire against Napoleon III, the agents of the Orkrana [Tsarist secret police] used it.


    It’s not the Jews it’s our own weakness. We need to run our own countries not blame others for taking advantage…and frankly filling the vacuum at the top.

    And now the middle.

    That doesn’t mean we can’t tell the chosen to fuck off when the bash our people, just that Nazism isn’t necessary. Unless and until it is, and in any case to be a Nazi you have to be a fucking man first.


    collen ryan Reply:

    I knew about this curious what brought this up. I was slumming on some racist site i came across that had a lot of quotes from people like Washington and Franklin about the JQ I wondered if these were real or not, the odd thing about anti Jew propaganda is it rings true because on some level it is. I wish it were not most of my NY friends are Jews [the only whites left over 40] For what its worth it seems the east Asians are going to be a bigger problem because so many more. I dont see how we survive a meritocracy with non white competition. I could be wrong but I think we survive as a white nation in competition against other nations but not as a multicultural nation. This is my problem with land he seems to be a multiculturaliist. Yeah sure in theory some elite multiculturalist patch founded as such might work thats much different from running existing nations as such, Land cares not about such nations or their people. On the other hand a white USA or french France are almost as far fetched at this point in time. I think this is the appeal of nazism its a way to imagine a way back to america or france in 1950, because otherwise Brazil.


    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [collen ryan] “I dont see how we survive a meritocracy with non white competition. I could be wrong but I think we survive as a white nation in competition against other nations but not as a multicultural nation.”

    {AK}: Not being able to “survive a meritocracy with non white competition” suggests not being able to ‘play fair’. In any scenario, where cheating, sorry, ‘innovation’, isn’t available, there seems to be an inability to win. The ‘Goto’ compensation is always military action, and forked tongues of course, lol. It just confirms the quote:

    “The fair, and truly commercial, method of effecting this would have been, by superior skill, industry and frugality, to have undersold their rivals at market: but that method appearing slow and troublesome to a luxurious people, whose extraordinary expences* required extraordinary profits, a more expeditous one was devised; which was that of driving their rivals entirely out of the seas, and preventing them from bringing their goods at all to market. For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly” (ibid., pp.32 f.).

    Knorr, K. E. ‘Ch02-Part2 British Colonial Theories 1570-1850’. In British Colonial Theories, 1570-1850. The University of Toronto Press, 1944.”


    Wagner Reply:

    collen, you’re not allowed to disagree with Land. Do you want to be dismissed as a populist or something???

    Erikson, you weren’t having a lucid dream a few hours ago were you? I talked to you in mine and told you we were in a dream, but Idk you seemed like a robot of my imagination. Just checking. Crazy that people report having shared lucid dreams innit?


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Funnily enough, I usually don’t remember my dreams. But I had awoken from a dream when I first saw this comment.

    I didn’t remember you being in it. By now I have virtually no memory of it at all.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I actually like not dreaming. I don’t like having a second life.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Funny enough, I had ingested a 50.001% RDA dosage of B12 vitamin, which is probably why I remembered having dreamed that day.

    The first time I ingested B12 supplement, a dose of 16.667% RDA, I had a rather lucid dream. Or at least very unusually vivid.

    I dreamt I was in a RPG-like world with a dragon n stuff.

    I thought of making this comment as I’m watching Westworld.

    I’ve sometimes gotten the feeling that we’re AI characters in Dr. Land’s simulation.

    Wagner Reply:


    “Williamson is an old sparring partner with Plant, Land and CCRU, having had several public fights with them at various academic events. The author of Consuming Passions: The Dynamics of Popular Culture, Williamson belongs to an earlier, Marx-influenced phase of British cultural theory, so the clash between her and CCRU is partly generational. Recalling a famous spat in the bar of London’s Institute of Contemporary Arts, she recalls finding it “spooky that Nick Land and all these people spoke as one. You could not get 20 of my postgrad students in a room and have them agree with me. I find that scary–that messianic quality, like they’ve got the message… A lot of what they say reminds me of tripping experiences, where you have that feeling that everything coheres and makes sense.””


    Land wrote “Shamanic Nietzsche” – methinks someone could write “Shamanic Land”

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Riiight, the all-powerful multi-tentacled tsarist Secret Police, which O so successfully ran counter-revolutionary counter-intelligence security state and propaganda operations … and let Russia be a revolutionary hotbed for a century before the Jewish-dominated communist internationalist materialist* revolutionaries shot the royal family in a basement?

    * dare I say ‘buero-economist’

    Of course, if a document is written and a Cathedral apparatus holds a trial and deems it fake, nothing in that document whatsoever can match anything happening in the real world?

    Anyone who considers Jews … which incidentally have in mainstream encyclopedias dozens and dozens of documented biographies of communist revolutionaries, and hundreds in books available in your next Barnes & Nobles, even written by mainstream academics, or the Jewish revolutionaries themselves … anyone who considers them to have had even a modicum of interest in influencing international affairs is a Nazi!?

    Why would the Jews, having been unjustly persecuted, according to them, by Christian royal and Imperial governments, have any interest in toppling said governments?

    They would have no reason to revenge even though they had suffered pogroms in Russia. Heck, why would Jews who escaped to the New World so-called, — America, have any interest in funding revolution in Europe to revenge for what they did to their proverbial, or be it, actual grandpa?

    Why on earth would Jewish revolutionaries have any interest in writing masterful political science tract? Something similar in some regards to later seen ideas from the Jewish German philosopher Leo Strauss!!?

    Just coincidentally, as can be seen in his collected writings at marxists.org, the bug-faced Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known by the alias Lenin, wrote of the importance for the revolution to destroy all small businesses and banks to collect them under one Central Bank?

    One would think, if the “Tsarist” secret “police” were such top tier authors, why did they not write more? Is there a compendium of “Tsarist police” political science tracts to be found somewhere, perhaps?

    And Lev Davidovich Bronstein, aka. Trotsky, just appeared in Russia and thought one day of toppling the government there btw. He worked as a janitor meanwhile?

    Just happens to be Jewish too. And a freemason. And a revolutionary.

    And an atheist. And a nihilist. And bug-faced.

    Like he´s straight out of


    And just because someone does pattern recognition on these strains biological entities, one must, (yeah right) be blaming all da J00z?

    Anti-Semitism is a trite overdone Cathedral cliché. While certainly there are people who irrationally blame Jews, there are also people who are rationally against communist Jewish revolutionaries ; and organized crime. This concept has been sentimentalised beyond as it were all recognition, sort of like ‘racist’.

    Neutrally, ‘anti-Semitic’ at base just refers to being against historical Semitic values, which can be discovered by comparing peoples in history. ‘Racist’ refers to employing the data of races for whatever purpose. It is Cathedralism to approach these concepts, and historical entities, sentimentally, akin to “virtue” signalling.

    I personally have made friends of people of “all different creeds & colours” in my life.

    Even just using BBC affiliated materials to do so : it becomes obvious that the Soviet Union was somewhat an Anglo-Semitic project. And a successful one. It became more influential than the Russian Empire ever was, conquering deep into central Europe. And just look into the industrialisation and list of inventions. Heck, why would technocrats in the U.S.A. want to see rather “stagnant” & stable Russia become a grand technocratic scientistic experiment?

    This is what you do if you are ruthless. You have the Anglosemitic American power, which has as its opponents the reactionary Russian Empire and the reactionary German empire.

    You foment revolutions in these places to gain control over them. Which is exactly what happened, Jewish names never had as much power as after taking down the Russian Empire and the other reactionary European states. And technocrats never as much technocracy.

    This is exactly what I would do if I were a ruthless Soros-like figure who hated said Christian empires for having suppressed muh peoples for millennia.

    Now considering how brutely dumb the goyim are, I have begun to wonder if I am not a Jew myself. Incidentally, my grandfather who is an electrical engineer, always thought very highly of Mossad.

    As some intelligent have already declared : we are all Jews now

    At least the smart ones of us are. So, O dear fellow Jews,

    like J.J. Abrams who did the new Star Wars movie

    which I btw liked a lot ); please do not try

    to make Africans of us all.

    Fight your demon



    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    ▬ ‘ I do not share Marx’s great enthusiasm about capitalism. If you read the first pages of’ the Communist Manifesto it is the greatest praise of capitalism you ever saw. And this at a time when capitalism was already under very sharp attack especially from the so-called right. The conservatives were the first to bring up these many criticisms, which later were taken over by the left, and also by Karl Marx, of course.
    In one sense Marx was entirely right: the logical development of capitalism is socialism. And the reason is very simple. Capitalism started with expropriation. This is the law which determined the development. And socialism carries expropriation to its logical end and is therefor in a way without any moderating influences. What today is called humane socialism means no more than this cruel tendency which was started with capitalism and went on with socialism is somehow [as it were] tempered by law.
    The whole modern production process is actually a process of gradual expropriation. I would therefor always refuse to make a distinction between the two. For me it is really one and the same movement. [A body needs to move left and right legs to move “forward.” — G.] [Marx] is the only one who dared to think this new production process through—this process which crept up in Europe [like a Scorpio], in the seventeenth, the eighteenth, and the nineteenth century. And so far he is entirely right. Only it is hell. It is not paradise that comes finally out of it. ‘ See Melvil Hill (ed.), Hannah Arendt: Recovery of the Public World, St Martin Press, New York, 1978, pp.334-35.


    Revelation 9:3 |
    And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

    ▬ [The corrupt provisional mid-revolutionary-government was losing power to the Bolsheviks.] ‘ At around six o’clock the principal of the Artillery Academy in Mikhailovsk ordered his cadets to leave the Winter Palace. The Cossacks also left. The Winter Palace was simply surrendered to to the Bolsheviks. The Provisional Government had in fact no authority left. Theater performances continued that evening, and the restaurants remained open. Nobody noticed that anything unusual had happened. Trotsky confirmed on 7 November that the Provisional Government no longer existed. At 10 o’clock the Soviet Congress proclaimed: “Government power lies with the Military Revolutionary Committee!” The Red Guards waited for a while outside the Winter Palace despite the absence of guards at the side door. There was no storming of the Winter Palace. Everything proceeded calmly. No blood was spilled. The Red Guards just waited until it was time to march in. They waited until 1:30 in the morning. When the Bolsheviks had coolly walked in through the unguarded entrances, they strolled about in the halls and the corridors and greeted the “defenders”—”defenders” who did not resist—in a friendly manner. The member of the Military Revolutionary Committee and friend of Trotsky, Vladimir Antonov-Ovseyenko [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Antonov-Ovseyenko ] and his Red Guards reached the Malachite Hall just before two o’clock and waited behind a door leading to the council chamber of the Provisional Government. The government (without Kerensky) had, against all reason, gathered there. Why? Antonov-Ovseyenko just stood looking at the clock. Red Guards and sailors also stood waiting for Antonov-Ovseyenko’s signal. They waited there for about ten minutes. At 2:10 Antonov-Ovseyenko said “It is time!” (“Para!”) to the Red Guards. He opened the door and said something very cryptic[?] to the ministers: “Gentlemen, your time is up!” A closer astrological investigation reveals that the sun was just then in the precise center of the sign of Scorpio (14°58). ‘

    ▬ ‘ And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,” the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. ‘

    ▬ ‘ The scorpion is the symbol of both wisdom and self-destruction. It was called by the Egyptians the creature accursed; the time of year when the sun entered the sign of Scorpio marked the beginning of the rulership of Typhon. When the twelve signs of the zodiac were used to represent the twelve Apostles (although the reverse is true), the scorpion was assigned to Judas Iscariot—the betrayer.

    The scorpion stings with its tail, and for this reason it has been called a backbiter, a false and deceitful thing. Calmet, in his Dictionary of the Bible, declares the scorpion to be a fit emblem of the wicked and the symbol of persecution. The dry winds of Egypt are said to be produced by Typhon, who imparts to the sand the blistering heat of the infernal world and the sting of the scorpion. ‘ (Manley P. Hall.)


    Wagner Reply:

    “An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,””

    I’ve never heard that name. And I have a strong suspicion our administrator would prefer if I hadn’t. Something I’ve realized is that Land writes between the lines in order not to be blackballed by the Cathedral, and I can’t fault him for that if he wants to secure a position in the USG, but what he doesn’t and probably can’t see is that the Cathedral writes between the lines of his soul. A company man, til the bitter fuckin end.

    Posted on February 7th, 2017 at 9:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    TheDividualist said —’ Thus every system has democratic-aristocratic elements. ‘ Bravo. Clearsighted.

    TheDividualist said —’ People always feel a bit filthy when motivated by something like money, while elevated when motivated by a Holy Cause. ‘

    This be why even the ‘money-masters’ engulf themselves with symbolic regalia.



    Posted on February 8th, 2017 at 9:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    I keep thinking back to the discussions of sovereignty here and I’ve refrained from piping up because my position can easily come off as lowbrow cretinism but I think sovereignty is A LOT simpler than you guys are making it out to be. When the sovereign speaks, you listen. The definition is as simple as that. All this theorizing is nice and all but at the end of the day it’s quite meaningless. For instance, when Boldmug says

    “I may be an American nationalist. But I don’t think you are. Especially in the emotional arena of politics, thinking clearly and consistently is incredibly important.”

    You just know that he is “the Dude,” “the One,” etc. LOLOL

    However you want to call it, some people “carry” the Tao, “possess” Mana, the Will to Power, the logos, etc. You don’t need to think about it, your human intuition registers it, that they are King. Homer (naturally) had this concept down-pat a long time ago:

    “In the Iliad and the Odyssey Homer uses the phrase “ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα”– literally translated as “he/she spoke forth winged words”–124 times, making it one of the most common of the poet’s repeated, formulaic phrases: 55 occurrences in the Iliad alone.

    – Zeus “winged Athena on with a flight of orders” (4.69 [81];
    – Thetis’ “words were winging pity” (18.72 [84]);
    – Hecuba’s “words pouring forth in a flight of grief and tears” (22.81 [97]).

    In the sample, the most striking instance of this is in 24.517 [604]: Achilles “spoke out winging words flying straight to the heart.” There is no basis in the original Greek for “straight to the heart.”

    Fagles sometimes supplemented his use of “wing” or “fly” with a term to indicate the urgency or other quality of the speech, such as “burst,” or “urgent.”

    Lombardo described words as “winged”, “feathered” or “feathery.” He said words “flew” or “flew fast.” Once he said “Zeus winged these words to Athena.” For the first occurrence of the phrase in the epic, he put: “Words flew from his mouth like winging birds.” (1.201 [211]). For the final occurrence, Achilles speaking to Priam: Achilles’ “words enfolded him like wings.” (24.517 [556]).”

    I like Homeric epistemology. If someone’s words have wings they’re speaking the truth. Let’s not get lost in convoluted BS.

    Land was chipping away at the Cathedral when I was crapping my diaper (few know this) and his words had wings:

    “Pessimism, or the philosophy of desire, has a marked allergy to academic encompassment. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Freud all wrote the vast bulk of their works from a space inaccessible to the sweaty clutches of state pedagogy, as, of course, does Bataille.”

    The sweaty clutches.

    “University philosophy polices itself as part of its sordid flirtation with state power… What is transcendental to academic debate is submission to socio-economic power.”

    Its sordid flirtation.

    “The most perfectly distilled attack upon institutional philosophy is probably that found in Schopenhauer’s Parerga and Paralipomena, in its section entitled ‘On University Philosophy’.”

    Schopenhauer was a proto anti-Cathedralist who spoke (sang?) winged words:

    “It never occurs to a professor of philosophy to examine a new system to see whether it is true; but he at once tests it merely to see whether it can be brought into harmony with the doctrines of established religion, with government plans, and with the prevailing views of the times. After all this he decides its fate… If there is to be philosophy at all, that is to say, if it is to be granted to the human mind to devote its loftiest and noblest powers to incomparably the weightiest of all problems, then this can successfully happen only when philosophy is withdrawn from all state influence. […] University philosophy is nothing but a paraphrase and apology of the established religion. Accordingly, for those teaching under these restrictions, there is nothing left but to look for new turns of phrase and forms of speech by which they arrange the contents of the established religion. Disguised in abstract expressions and thereby rendered dry and dull, they then go by the name of philosophy.”

    Need I quote the winged segments?


    Posted on March 21st, 2017 at 4:25 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment