Quote notes (#53)

Why the Left lies:

Cathedral leftoids loathe the idea that they might give aid and comfort to their non-leftoid enemies. In this scenario, they know the truth on some level, but refuse to acknowledge it (despite any journalistic ethical strictures commanding them to do so) because they believe acknowledging it will embolden and gird the spirits of those they consider horrible, no good people. To these leftoids, the prospect of Heartland Joe (Votech, Class of 1975) beaming with satisfaction that his intuition about the way the world works was right all along drives them insane with rage. Even worse, the thought that a sadistic demon like me would take an eviscerating scalpel to their egos armed with their de facto surrender papers keeps them awake at night in terror.

(The entire post is highly recommended.)

January 4, 2014admin 17 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations , Pass the popcorn

TAGGED WITH : , ,

17 Responses to this entry

  • VXXC Says:

    That capsule summation was masterful.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 4th, 2014 at 11:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hypothetical Says:

    If a leftist doesn’t perceive herself as loathing and terrified, does that mean she’s just ignorant?

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 5th, 2014 at 12:41 am Reply | Quote
  • henrymarsau Says:

    How did the global warming became a point of political contention? It is clear why racial IQ/HBD are contested science, or why economics is, however climate science is closer to natural sciences like physics and chemistry. So how come there this liberal/conservative divide exists? Seems a bit strange to an outsider.

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    Watermelons

    [Reply]

    henrymarsau Reply:

    Even the actual tomatoes could stand ideological intervention into natural sciences for so long
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism#Application_outside_of_agriculture
    One thinks watermelons would have learned something from their nightshade brethren.

    [Reply]

    Erik Reply:

    In a nutshell: it looks to me as though global warming became a point of political contention because the proposed actions to take in response lean strongly liberal, and because it became a signalling issue.

    To expand on the first point:
    Suppose we consider the proposed remedies for global warming as though they were taking place in a vacuum – or to phrase that more cynically, suppose we consider first who benefits and that global warming is a post hoc justification.
    One conservative proposal that comes to mind: immigration limits, in order to stop “uplifting” third-worlders to first-world emission levels, and that response is demonized as racist, hateful, bigoted, xenophobic, discriminatory, etc, etc, etc.
    One fairly neutral proposal that comes to mind: replacing coal power plants with nuclear power plants. This is demonized too – the large environmental organizations like Greenpeace are strongly anti-nuclear.
    But a lot of liberal responses come to mind: Westerners must shut down factories, Westerners must use more bikes and less cars, Westerners must become vegetarian, etc.
    In principle, political contention is irrelevant to the practice of natural sciences, and it’s eminently possible that there would be a problem whose solution requires liberal policies. But in practice, it looks a bit suspicious that global warming, one of the great moral crusades of our day, just happens to require solutions that coincide so strongly with liberal interests, and as any cynic will tell you, there’s no guarantee that “targets of great moral crusades” is uniformly selected from the pool of “major problems in natural science”.
    Combine that with the Homestuck Effect (given sufficient scientific publications, there will be a scientific paper supporting any given position – there’s even a scientific paper showing that listening to certain music makes you younger p < 0.05) which helps partisanship to pose as natural science, and you get an even worse mess.

    To expand on the second point:
    Liberals who do know something about global warming say "this is a liberal issue and you must concern yourself with it" to liberals who don't know anything about global warming.
    Then, liberals who don't know anything about global warming say "this is a liberal issue and you are bad for not concerning yourself with it" to conservatives who don't know anything about global warming.
    Then, these two sets of ignoramuses (no slight intended – it's not their job to know anything about it, and I can hardly fault them for ignoring a political-looking issue) get into a feedback loop where global warming isn't seen as a science issue, because neither of them know much about it, but a political issue, with one side being For and the other side being Against.
    One's position on global warming, here, becomes a way of expressing one's political affiliation. It's not a fact-based debate any more than "states' rights" is a fact-based debate. It's a signalling contest where most invocations of "science" are largely incidental. Invoking "science" is a way of asserting high status: http://boringasheck.com/2013/10/21/science-for-the-epic-motherfreaking-win/

    [Reply]

    henrymarsau Reply:

    Thanks for the detailed explanation. It’s a signalling issue, agreed, but what confuses me is why they’d choose as one of their signals something that can embarrass them as easily as seen in this Antarctic ship accident.

    If I understand correctly your first point, global warming alarmism seems like a way to introduce more government controls onto a free market , and to financially hurt the traditionally right-wing oil industry. Seems myopic on the part of the warmists, as the most emissions and pollution comes from industrializing China which probably doesn’t give a flying f about these things (if they don’t care about pollution in their own cities, why would they care about arctic ice).

    Strange times. At least more vegetarians riding bicycles is not entirely a bad thing.

    [Reply]

    Mike Reply:

    The reason why the watermelons chose global warming is because success would give them veto power over fossil-fueled energy.

    You’re correct in observing that it’s a high-risk strategy, as the Antarctic icebreaker incident (inter alia: the AR5 embarrassment, Climategate etc) is showing. But common sense tells us that high-risk strategies are pursued when there’s a high reward. So what’s the reward of success at this strategy? The reward is: control over allocation of fossil fueled energy, a huge reward.

    Handle Reply:

    There has been environmental / population panics in the past that have served as liberal signalling issues, but their predictions were all in the short or medium term and, when proven to be chicken-littles instead of Cassandras, the issue was just dropped and everybody moved on.

    But I submit that there is something unique about a panic that cannot be falsified because the predicted impending catastrophe will occur a century in the indefinite future, yet always with ‘signs’ all about.

    Handle Reply:

    And related to what I wrote above, global warming is the flipside of childhood intervention.

    For global warming, if we don’t do something radical right now, bad things will happen in the indefinite future no matter what we observe today – totally unfalsifiable.

    For universal pre-K, we should do something radical now, but don’t judge the results quite yet, because they will be positive and awesome, just eventually in the indefinite future. And if they aren’t, we didn’t do it quite right, so we’ll try a new twist, and wait for another indefinite period.

    Posted on January 5th, 2014 at 9:01 am Reply | Quote
  • Little Hans Says:

    Environmentalism has a very special role, it’s for the part of the left who need a full scale quasi-apocalypoto-cult to submit to. It performs a structurally necessary role for attracting people who want to make a serious libidinal investment, so the (truth in the) cause is almost irrelevant; ten years ago it was ozone and CFCs, before that CND or SWP. As long as there’s a crisis and a crusade, the content isn’t important.

    Once that kind of fervent belief has been etched, it’s not easy for someone to retreat from it.

    If you aren’t broken enough to get into some serious grievance studies, its the only game on the left.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 5th, 2014 at 11:46 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    @admin,

    We must find their Poland.

    And we must closely examine their bankrupt and parasitic finances as the USSR’s economy was examined.

    QE and all the other Fed and Central Bank Fiat nonsense are basically MeFo’s or make believe Trade Money to keep the machine going. The Arms Races of the 1930s were often financed by inflationary methods or Trade Money, the most outstanding example being Germany with the MeFo. In our case the Finance Race is funded entirely by make believe and a threat of Mutual Assured Discussion that isn’t credible, for Finances MAD destroys their world as opposed to all life on earth.

    This meets the criteria of an exploit begging to happen. The Financial weakness must be examined and exploited. With such High Equilibrium it’s quite feasible for a small group to find a Hetronic String and unravel the entire organization Remember the Progs are an Army always marching, and an Army marches on it’s stomach.

    And again find their Poland [a group of people chafing for their lost freedom and sense of self and pride].

    I can suggest a potential Poland…guess who… 😀

    https://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-75.pdf

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 5th, 2014 at 11:53 am Reply | Quote
  • Igitur Says:

    See, this skirts a line (doesn’t quite cross it yet, but risks it) between “official truth rejection” and “populism”.

    There’s a good summary of received wisdom/PC pseudotruth that goes against the very grain of the facts. There isn’t however, much of a critique of this received wisdom. Instead, we get this very tired appeal to coastal elites vs. Heartland America that falls flat to anyone who lives most of his time outside both.

    Going a bit off-topic, re: Hegelian dialectics (in last post’s thread). I don’t think I’m either incisive enough or annoying enough to get at you, but I’m sorry if I did. I’m a great admirer of Fanged Noumena; I sure get in a Socratic “fly in the ointment

    [Reply]

    Igitur Reply:

    ” mode, but that’s my own path into this “alternate Enlightenment” of yours.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    @ Igitur — If you’re “getting at me” it’s in a deeply appreciated way. All of your provocative interrogations deserve a more involved response than they have received so far — they’re certainly not being shelved for deliberate amnesia. (The Hegelian question, for instance, gets complicated very quickly — in part because there was a sustained attempt to ‘cyberneticize’ the dialectic on the multi-decade road out of communist culture, producing a remarkable flourishing of still-usable ‘systems theory’ in the Soviet Union and command-economy China. My sense of these developments is that they were a camouflaged escape mode, masked by officially-approved linguistic codes, but the inherent ambiguity of ‘the dialectic’ makes this case necessarily tortuous.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 5th, 2014 at 2:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Igitur Says:

    See, this is the kind of place where intellectua

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 5th, 2014 at 6:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Igitur Says:

    Jesus man, this comment box.

    See, this is the kind of place where intellectual provocation works pretty well for “rubber-ducking”. (Ever heard the story of programmer-managers who have their programmer-underlings explain their code to a rubber duck before bugging them about bugs?) Thus the hypergraphic method (pore out/pare down) — and the problem with this comment box submitting provocations midway.

    This is where I’m coming from. First, I’m not an American; the specific issues of American metapolitics sometimes work out (Moldbuggian Inner Party/Outer Party are one metanarrative to the evolution of alliances in non-common-law pluripartidary democracies, but not the only one; other things plain don’t work, because we don’t have an American South and a Lost Cause). Sure, I’ve been some sort of post-libertarian since before it was cool, but a lot of the n+1-point plan for NR doesn’t work out exactly as intended.

    Race realism — what, race is literally a social construct where I come from, local blacks and local whites have been shown time and again to be more similar than african blacks and loccal blacks, or european whites and local “whites”. But the cathedralist narrative of race is here, enough that we have affirmative action, enough that same-egg twins have been declared white and black for university admission purposes.

    Tradition? I’m beginning to explore this, as I’ve finally been persuaded of the absurdity of reason as ultimate conqueror. But I realized at some point as a quantitative professional working at a core Cathedral institution that answer-computing reason doesn’t matter nearly as much as question-synthetizing theory. Conan the Barbarian is on to something when he praises “fleet flacon, the open steppe, the wind in your hair” as the good life.

    That’s how I get to neoreaction. Not exactly some right-wing instinct — although basic instruction in econ does set you in the direction towards becoming some sort of libertarian — but out of a nomadic kind of commitment to immanence. Now, I’ve read Moldbug in early 2008, before the Crash — when both my reading list and my workload exploded. I remember getting to his early, timid discussion of what he then termed “HNU” (human neurological uniformity), and while appealing at some base level, that does not really survive some of the real critiques of reflective reason we have — Lakatos, Latour. I haven’t seen much better from anyone drawing “HBD” blood. But naïve overexposure of whatever studies they can find is no real answer for naïve (and the point of the Cathedral construct is that there’s a consensus that has no real root of conspiracy) suppression.

    Of course, it may be an effective answer; just as naïve libertarianism isn’t much to go with in the way of economic policy but it might be enough to get charter cities started. And here comes the issue of a political program — I can see glimpses of what you may be trying to do in the way of forging alliances between the N different subprograms that seem to congregate here, and I haven’t got much to say here. There is some very interesting intellectual content in the process of this cat-herding, particularly in the comment section. Enough that I feel compelled to rubber-duck some thoughts — I might not be moving to praxis yet, and what I may intend to do in years to come may not look like present-day NR at all (it’s a very different reality, to begin with), but I’m an overintellectualized type that’s just beginning to understand this wrangling of sympathetic interests into something with a higher degree of coherence and complexity.

    That said, I was fascinated with cybernetics for a while, even ressurrecting system dynamics tropes for my applied work, but it did eventually come to me that ultimately cyberneticians are improperly deriving a philosophy from their models (Stafford Beer, Jay Forrester) and pop-philosophers were using cybernetics as a plot device, as if “dynamic modeling” and “feedback relationships” had just been thought of for the first time in the history of mankind — and moreover, as if a handful of simple feedback diagrams were enough to span the entire plane of immanence. I’d never gotten to the abstraction of Hegelian absolute contradiction as a basin of attraction, but then, I’ve never seen anything interesting that actually derives some theory or philosophy from nonlinear dynamics, chaos and catastrophe theory.

    Other than A thousand plateaus, of course. But that’s like asking a man if he’s a Christian believer or something.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 5th, 2014 at 7:17 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment