Comments on: Quote notes (#59)

By: admin

admin — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:23:47 +0000

Indeed.

By: Rasputin

Rasputin — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 15:34:32 +0000

Which is a very different position to that of Moldbug: don’t support the outer party, don’t vote, if you do vote vote for the party most likely to win (which is usually whoever the media says it is), effectively build a government in exile untarnished by democracy/politics, which were it subsequently to achieve power would already have contaminated it, hence the separation of plinth and that which comes after it… i.e. What you are arguing is much more conventional right wing politics armed with NRx insights/analysis, which is therefore a massive step backwards from MM’s Exit strategy as outlined in a GI.

By: Golf Club

Golf Club — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:39:37 +0000

Ok, I see what you’re saying. I think NRx has potential precisely because most of it’s adherents are young (between 16 and 40 seems common) and it refuses to dumb itself down to redneck Fox News level. Of course, if it becomes an echo chamber intellectual circle jerk it faces the same problem that plagued the European New Right and all the other rightwing Gramscians that focused purely on writing philosophy journals instead of reaching out to mainstream parties. You can keep your smarts but sell propaganda to the unitiated. I say do what the New Left did to the Democrats, what CATO did to the Tea Party and the Neocons did and to the rest of the Republicans: join the mainstream center-right party in whatever country you are in, and tip the scales from within.

By: Golf Club

Golf Club — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:16:29 +0000

Spot on. I’ll take inequality. It reminds me of a story about Mitt Romney visiting Papa John Schnatter’s mansion and saying something along the lines of “A Democrat looks at this place and says nobody should be allowed to live like this. A Republican looks at this place and says everyone should have an opportunity to live like this.” Substitute Dem for Leftist and Rep for Neoreactionary and I think it rings true.

By: Rasputin

Rasputin — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:23:27 +0000

“Most of the ‘poor’ have it better today than many rich people had it less than a hundred years ago.”

But why? Obviously things have become cheaper as a result of capitalism/mass-production, but isn’t it also the re-routing of capital via state redistribution that has enabled “100% of poor households to own a refrigerator”?

Obviously, you can get rid of public voice (or at least it’s feedback effect on government) much more easily than eradicate inequality (well, you could kill everyone), but in terms of persuading people who may be receptive to NRx ideas of their superiority, neither of those options are immediately helpful – what is needed are rebuttals so simple and concise they can go viral, like the above video did.

By: admin

admin — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 05:43:55 +0000

“the rightwing defense of inequality will never be popular” — so either inequality or popular voice has to go.

By: admin

admin — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 05:42:04 +0000

‘NRx’ has been locked in by twitter-format (#NRx is a functional thing there). It’s an improvement upon ‘NR’ because it cannot be confused with New Right or (*shudder*) National Review.

By: Golf Club

Golf Club — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 03:22:09 +0000

That’s too easy: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty
Most of the ‘poor’ have it better today than many rich people had it less than a hundred years ago. But this will never be a popular thing to say because the rightwing defense of inequality will never be popular.

By: Rasputin

Rasputin — Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:04:06 +0000

This may be a completely horrible ad for the injustice of inequality, but it is the kind of thing that NR (where did the ‘x’ suffix suddenly appear from btw?) needs to address much more directly if it wants to persuade the unconverted that “America is a communist country”, or even that socialism has achieved “effective supremacy of the demotic state over distributed economic interests”.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ehzfQ4hAQ

If this kind of thing can be addressed succinctly and persuasively, I think it would be a very useful weapon in the NR arsenal when the prime-time media exposure finally arrives.

By: Golf Club

Golf Club — Sun, 16 Feb 2014 22:11:35 +0000

I’ll take off with a less dickheaded and more neoreactionary approach: as has been indicated before, the ethno-nationalist always suspects the techno-commercialist is a race traitor, just as the techno-commercialist suspects the ethno-nationalist is a closet communist. From that perspective, the fascist and the national socialist will always be ‘socialists’, there is a point at which the techno-commercialist has gone so far right that the bonds of community have been surpassed in favor of a greater inequality among men. I think that’s perhaps where the disagreement lies, but I could be wrong.