Quote notes (#64)

Multiheaded’s horror:

… what’s … terrifying to me is that [Mencius Moldbug] is a sign of things to come; certain objective processes within the early 21st century Western society have actually produced “neo-reaction”, and these processes have no reason to abate. … the world just felt very wrong all of a sudden.

February 25, 2014admin 43 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction , Pass the popcorn

TAGGED WITH : , ,

43 Responses to this entry

  • Mike Says:

    “Material conditions.”

    (Discuss with particular reference to Bryce’s “antibiotics is its probiotic” comment.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 25th, 2014 at 7:18 am Reply | Quote
  • pseudo-chrysostom Says:

    >although neuroscience is developing better and better tools for identifying them. Personally, I’m hopeful for a day when non-consensual social dominance is considered symptomatic of a disorder, and compassionately treated/cured.

    from later in the thread, the terminal unreflection of a solipsist.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It’s not mind-control, it’s (compassionate) neuro-therapy.

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    I’m fully prepared for this to become the next government-granted R&D boondoggle – bigger even than the global warming or closing the education gap imperatives.

    Through some combination of a cocktail of psycoactive drugs, psychological ‘treatment’, and womb-to-tomb conditioning thought-control, we will finally find a cure for X.

    With X starting at racism, then moving on to sexism, then political opposition, and finally all human imperfection according to Ialdabaoth and company.

    Time to get ready for my future as a doped-into-compliant-progressivism dalek.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    You mean like this?

    Even then there shall be a Resistance, a neo-reactionary movement requiring everything from bad-ass action heroes to poetry readers, so…

    Kevin C. Reply:

    I noted that th comment, and the one it is in reply to — who “only regret[s] that this particular boot is not stomping on their faces hard enough” — outline the spectrum of the Progressive attitute toward non-Progressives: either we are poor, benighted souls dwelling in error who need compassionate “treatment”, more “tolerance training”, exposure to the “benefits of diversity”, and so on until we see the Light of the One True Way that is Progressivism; or we are irredeemable monsters to be crushed utterly. In short, Convert or Die. Nowhere is their room for us, on the “wrong side of History” to remain as we are; for those on “the right side of History” to allow sinners racists to persist in their sin bigotry is to shirk their great commission of Progress; to the (fanatical) true believer, failure to fight evil is itself an evil (as Mr. Chu seems to be arguing).

    This is one major reason why our current elites will never allow peaceful secession/breakup; allowing us to go our own way is to allow us to persist in our evil, non-Progressive ways, and that will never be acceptable to them. If we do succeed in convincing them that we cannot be converted, cannot be made into good Progressives, then we will have succeeded only in convincing them fully that we must be destroyed utterly. Convert or Die is all they offer, all they can offer, and all they will ever offer.

    [Reply]

    Jack Crassus Reply:

    “exit” is largely a pipe dream, dependent on the good will of these people not to crush your seastead. Peace through exit is impossible. Peace through winning might seem harder, but it is actually easier. It is easier to steal power than to convince the person with all the power not to stomp on you.

    [Reply]

    Kevin C. Reply:

    ““exit” is largely a pipe dream, dependent on the good will of these people not to crush your seastead. Peace through exit is impossible.”

    This is exactly what I’ve been saying for a while now.

    “Peace through winning might seem harder, but it is actually easier.”

    This, however, is wrong, because “winning” is out of our reach. The Cathedral has the advantage in weaponry, in money, in the megaphones, that is simply insurmountable. There is no way for us to “steal power” from them.

    DB Reply:

    Probably correct, but seastead-type exit is potentially useful for iteratively testing and demonstrating the viability of social arrangements that would appear impractical/unreasonable at first sight, without requiring explicit consent from terrestrial authorities. One just needs to have a plan that involves moving beyond the seastead later.

    iParallax Reply:

    I think it was Jonathon Haidt who pointed out that “conservatives think liberals are nice people with wrong ideas, liberals think progressives are evil people.” It should be obvious which side is more willing to tolerate the other.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Kevin,

    Progs

    They’re 6% of the US. At best.

    At most 6% of them could wield physical power = Violence.

    I hate to burst the depression bubble, but I think you have it wrong.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 25th, 2014 at 9:28 am Reply | Quote
  • Hawk Spitui Says:

    I think Multithreaded is on to something. Moldbug certainly has some original insights, but I’d consider him more NRx’s catalyst than originator. What most interested me when I discovered his writing was that while he presented a more fully-formed critique of political reality than my own, I was certainly having musings along the same lines. I suspect that’s true of most of Moldbug’s advocates. Moldbug’s gift is that he’s able to give words and music to things that are merely hunches and vague discontents to many of us. But even without Moldbug, I suspect something similar to NRx would have emerged eventually anyway.

    So I more or less agree with Multithreaded – “certain objective processes within the early 21st century Western society have actually produced “neo-reaction”, and these processes have no reason to abate”.

    Where I differ is that I find this to be a positive thing.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 25th, 2014 at 10:53 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Democracy, as related to Liking FortinBrass

    When they engage you in debate, know that ye are being flattered,
    and worse ye are Hamlet invited to a pass of swords.

    To Reason and Sacred Democracy, I profer this Ring as Gift,
    and here drink to quench thy Thirst! Said Claudius, prince of Flattery.

    Note that Claudius is MONARCH. Or Claudius could be elected.
    Or Appointed Secretary of State, Or Chairman NY FED.
    Outcome is the same, Hamlet

    Hamlet agrees to the pass of swords knowing both parties mean him mortal ill,
    because Hamlet is in const’nt training. Hamlet was Vain. Was.

    As Hamlet was humbled and destroyed by his Vanity,so shall all be destroyed
    who agree to match Rapier Wit, or drink poison chalice of Reason.

    And dare I say the most poisoned of Chalice’s is Misplaced Loyalty.
    All betray Hamlet, even his mother – for he could not make up his mind.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 25th, 2014 at 11:59 am Reply | Quote
  • iParallax Says:

    Concur with Hawk. After the neoreaction canon was released, I wrote a short reflection and the gist of it was that after I discovered Moldbug in Dec/Jan, I recognized almost every thoughtcrime I’ve ever had in his writing!

    Friends had been urging me to write my ideas for years, and I began writing last October. When Bryce recently tackled the “Is neoreaction the same thing as neocameralism?” question, he described the Dark Enlightenment as the opposition to the doctrine of Progress, and that is exactly what motivated me to start writing. My angle was the observation that inherent contradictions within the Left (read any of my posts about The Revolution) will lead to its fragmentation…check out the current deal with “intersectionality.” The media is gleefully reporting the fragmentation of the Republicans, but I think the Democrats are in for rough times ahead as well. (Maybe. Ever since getting a “bigger picture” and realizing that progressivism has this way of always winning, I’m not so sure.)

    I believe this trend of people independently reaching our conclusions will continue. The Left has become to powerful it no longer even attempts to hide its goals. Dems saying it’s good the ACA will limit hours, because then people have the freedom to not work; Harvard editorial calling for the banning of research that opposes their ideologies; racial political correctness reaching ridiculous extremes (I suspect the Zimmerman affair will be viewed as a watershed event years down the line); and so on.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    I think you’re giving Progressives way too much credit for ideological seriousness and consistency. Michael Anissimov called it “ideological LARPing”. See also “fashion sheep” and “status whoring”.

    [Reply]

    iParallax Reply:

    I don’t understand your point…I think because maybe you misunderstood mine?

    Pointing out progressive ideological inconsistencies and the resulting infighting was one of the reasons I started blogging in the first place. It’s a phenomenon I labelled “The Revolution” as tongue-in-cheek shorthand among real life friends long before I encountered this community.

    The reason I’m starting to doubt that such infighting will lead to the collapse of the Left is twofold. 1) They are so good at doublethink already, why should more doublethink suddenly cause an aneurysm now? 2) Reading Moldbug led me to think outside of the here-and-now conflicts of ideology and realize that Progress seems to be an unstoppable force no matter what is going on. The Left need not maintain ideological coherence to maintain power.

    [Reply]

    Kevin C. Reply:

    “Progress seems to be an unstoppable force no matter what is going on. The Left need not maintain ideological coherence to maintain power.”

    Exactly this. Pointing out the ideological contradictions and incoherence accomplishes nothing; the train just keeps accelerating to that final, fatal collision.

    Handle Reply:

    I don’t know Peter – I’ve met quite a lot of deadly serious ideological progressives. That doesn’t mean they’ve perfected the logical machinery of their belief systems with coherent, no self-contradictions or unprincipled exceptions, or consistency over time.

    However, the ideological fashion-sheep and status-whoring tendencies do play a role in the direction of evolution of progressive ideological fashions – just like hipsters and actual fashion-sheep play a role in determining the direction of clothing fashions.

    The strongest belief systems is one that can change opportunistically without admitting its changing, pretend it is part of a continuous tradition without resembling even its recent forbears, and become absolutely impervious to criticism or falsification. Like a religion.

    I think the ACA-hours thing is a good example of what you see a lot of progressive writers do, and what Yglesias is particularly skilled at doing first.

    The pattern of any particular debate is:
    1. Progressives develop policy goal A, and implementation B.
    2. Opposition says that B will cause negative trade-off or unintended consequence C – that Progressives themselves currently accept as negative, or at least something that is seen by most of the public as negative.
    3. Sometimes the argument goes further and deeper with the Opposition saying anyB that is trying to accomplish A leads to C, there’s just no way around it.
    4. At first Progressives deny B->C. But that is sometimes falsifiable, or just a total howler.
    5. Then Progressives say, well, ok C, which is bad, but A is worth it. This is a matter of subjective valuation, which is why is it a dead-end for discourse, spinning around the same cul-de-sac forever.
    6. And if that’s not satisfactory, then someone like Yglesias notices the obvious solution to the problem which is just to come along and say, “Actually, C is a good thing, or at least it has a bright side which we’re ignoring and which can trump the negative side. Only stupid people caught in dead-ends don’t see this. We should have more C! The burden of proof should now shift to people who are opposed to C!” This is the ultimate in ‘spin’ – and ‘flipping the script’ is why we call it spin.
    7. And then everybody else suddenly realizes the immense power for winning the debate behind adopting a new set of beliefs where C is a good thing, and a day after Yglesias does it, I see a dozen other high-Alexa county writers repeat it. All of a sudden, the frame of debate shifts and the desirability of C is new dead-end, and the ratchet proceeds one notch at the expense of replacing a former progressive belief with a more useful new one – an adaptive mutation.

    An example is the recent minimum wage stuff: The CBO came out and said it would mean less jobs in the midst of a weak labor market for the low-skilled. Since the CBO is progressive gospel – they can’t afford to criticize the number and ruin the credibility of a source they constantly use as a weapon. And all sides agree fewer jobs in this situation is bad, right?

    And then, suddenly:
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/02/18/cbo_minimum_wage_hike_would_cost_jobs.html

    The outcome that the CBO is forecasting—an outcome where you get a small amount of disemployment that’s vastly outweighed by the increase in income among low-wage families writ large—is the outcome that you want.
    A minimum wage hike with a small but real disemployment impact is the minimum wage hike you want.

    Then it tweets and tumbls and reblogs all over the place. Now the question shifts to ‘what’s the ‘optimal’ number of job losses for a minimum wage hike to maximize ‘prosperity’, which, yeah, is kind of a fuzzy, manipulable notion, but what we were really always shooting for.

    Tyler Cowen pushes back against the avalanche here: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/02/the-cbo-report-on-the-minimum-wage.html

    This is a perverse kind of Bayesianism where the policy cart is driving the ideology horse. One begins with subjective ideology and an empirical theory of policy implementation. When the data proves your theory produces results that are ideological negatives, then you just switch the valence to positive in your belief system. The means become the ends. Raising the minimum wage isn’t good because it redistributes more wealth from capital to labor without causing unemployment or inflation, raising the minimum wage is good in itself, and if disemployment and inflation are the results then they are also now positives we should have slightly more of.

    Once you witness these progressivism adaptive mutation-cycles occur a few dozens of times a year (at least), you realize that change is the only constant.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Maybe we’re all saying the same thing in mutually incomprehensible language.

    I’ve tried to look at people on the Left as being rational but mistaken, but I can’t make that model work for more than a small number of people. That’s why I’m so enamored of evolutionary psychology.

    Rational models may work relatively well for high rollers (e.g. politician X is a fraud who’s just in it to line his own pockets), but not for the regular folk I rub elbows with.

    The way the degenerative ratchet works is this:

    1. Status whores make an effort to distance themselves from the common herd so they have a basis for feeling morally superior. The direction of travel isn’t important to the low-level status whores, but there is a bias towards directions that bring money and power to the high rollers.

    2. Status whores want to prove that they are powerful, so they demand that everyone else move towards their new position.

    3. Apathetic people go along, closing the distance between themselves and the status whores.

    Lather, rinse, repeat. But rational policy objectives are pretty much irrelevant.

    “…tired of the speeches and the way that the reasons keep changing just to make the words rhyme….” — Joe Walsh, “Turn to Stone”

    Handle Reply:

    @Peter:

    I see what you’re saying. I definitely agree with the role of status-whoring in the ratchet. And I agree with the distinction between ordinary people and high rollers.

    Most of those deadly serious progressives I know are attorneys, and while I wouldn’t go so far as to say they’re being perfectly rational, they’ve certainly mastered – or at least memorized – the Jesuitical or Talmudic progressive rationalization canon. They can go through the motions and get much farther in their arguments before they start running into trouble.

    But my question about your model is the whole ‘there is a bias towards directions that bring money and power to the high rollers.’

    How does that bias come about in what we observe in the status whoring? Which is the horse and which is the care? Why, if it’s all random, do I never see status-whoring in any direction that seems to go against the notions of social justice, oppression-eradication, privilege compensation, and absolutist egalitarianism?

    So there are two ways this could work that give rise to that bias.

    One is a kind of random / stochastic bottom-up model. Variation at the grass-roots level goes all over the place, certain random mutations are successful / adaptive / useful, the high rollers don’t create them but instead are constantly looking out for these things, pick up on them, notice their usefulness, and only then propagate them in a trickle down fashion. In this way, there is no bias in the origin of attempts at status-whoring – no consistent philosophical trend, for example in the direction of expanding equality – the bias originates in the high-roller selection process, and just happens to always look like it has that philosophical trend.

    The other way is that most of the innovations are concocted mostly by politically savvy verbal professionals as attempts to achieve more power for progressives and their traditional philosophical / sociopolitical prime directives, and then the successful versions of these entrepreneurial efforts trickle down to the masses through the usual distribution of information. Grass-roots normal people who are marinated in this trickling-stream of information their entire lives are able to pick up on the theme and what’s ‘hip’ in the intellectual fashions, and the more clever or well-read among them learn in which direction they’re supposed to push in order to status-whore.

    Do I understand you correctly that you favor the first explanation for the directionality of the bias?

    I find the second explanation of the bias more persuasive than the first, to be consistent with the Cathedral, and it has both the high-church ‘rationalization’ level and the low-church reflexive social-status whoring level.

    On the other hand, an obvious problem with the first explanation is that status-whoring is often self-portraying as fighting against what is popular in public opinion, but it might be easier to make money and keep power by siding with what is already popular instead of agitating for an unpopular position. For example, guns in the household has become much more popular for Democrats and Women in the last five years, so a good candidate for money and power – and yet I’d eat my hat if i started seeing Progressives agitate for more gun ownership. Am I wrong in being so certain? If I’m not – theory one hits a hard patch.

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    You are reading more thought into my “model” than I put into it.

    A clarification: High rollers get wealth and power from their political activity in addition to emotional gratification. The regular folk get only emotional gratification.

    I want to explain the “justice” you see in Progressive causes as partly due to evolutionary psychology (maladaptive cognitive biases) and partly due to the power of propaganda to keep the “bootleggers” hidden behind the “Baptists”.

    Is there really a bias in the direction of justice? I regard “social justice” as often as not as being a tool for promoting injustice. I regard “anti-bullying” as a style of bullying. People at my church have T-shirts that say “Standing on the side of love”, but if you read what some of them write on Facebook, you can practically smell the sulfur. Progressives always claim to be heroic underdogs, even when they are in uncontested control. It looks to me like a bunch of cognitive biases and propaganda.

    To rephrase your question, who usually comes first, the bootleggers or the Baptists? Your second explanation (bootleggers) sounds better to me than your first, but I haven’t given it much thought, and I don’t think it matters. Baptists are the tools that the bootleggers have to work with. So the bootleggers’ schemes are always couched in terms that the Baptists like, regardless of whether the actual results are at all what the Baptists say they want, or whose idea it was.

    Konkvistador Reply:

    This seem worth stating and exploring in its own blog post, it is very closely related to the problem of value mutation I’ve been talking about. If you aren’t writing one would you mind me quoting you on mine?

    Handle Reply:

    @Konkvistador: Fine with me.

    Randy M Reply:

    This is a good post you should expand to a full essay.

    Posted on February 25th, 2014 at 1:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anissimov Says:

    As soon as I read those hilarious lines from him, I knew he was playing right into our narrative.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 25th, 2014 at 3:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    I expect the anti-demotic aspects of NRx to be coopted by the elite (perhaps also some of the HBD aspects). Contrary to NRx expectations, I expect the results to be more of the same.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 25th, 2014 at 4:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aaron Says:

    The Left need not maintain ideological coherence to maintain power.

    Part of the problem is the sheer volume of information, which allows an esoteric priest class to declare the apparent contradictions are resolved at higher levels of theory. Most of the people that have trudged through a graduate school load worth of reading material on Intersectionality will tell you its entirely credible. Of course they would, who would possibly subject themselves to that without the possibility of a sinecure as a professional mau-mau-er on the other side.

    The incoherence and splintering into many camps may actually offer some advantages. For one,it multiples the volume of information. For another, it offers choices or at least something that superficially resembles a choice while staying safely within doctrinal boundaries. For example, I’ve had a couple of internet arguments follow along a similar track in which it was explained to me that X “isn’t really proper feminism” and that if really understood feminism I would probably realize that already was a feminist.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 25th, 2014 at 7:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • survivingbabel Says:

    From the mind of “Arthur Chu” in the comments:

    You’ll note as others have noted that I expressed admiration for John Brown and his plan to put the entire American South to the torch.

    Trust me, I try not to live my life around the emotion of hatred but the antidote to that is to get the people that I hate out of my life and out of my world to the best of my ability, not to learn to smile cordially at them.

    I suppose the “winning” thing to do would be to stop jawing about it and start ignoring you. So I’ll nip my own discursive debate-team impulses in the bud and start doing that now….. Okay, one more thing:

    Which one of you guys is sockpuppeting Progs? It’s not very sporting.

    [Reply]

    neovictorian23 Reply:

    Indeed. I spent the time to scan the whole comment thread and there certainly are a lot of tough-talking progs, the “fighting keyboardists” as it were, who babble on about fighting and winning. This Chu character most of all. I wonder how many of them have ever shot a deer, sliced it open and rolled the guts out? How many have spent a night on the ground?

    All of the tough talk is tissue paper between them and the “horror” that they can’t bear to think about; men not wounded, or deterred, by their ritualistic natterings. When words are all you have and no True Will behind them, such men are indeed a horror.

    [Reply]

    survivingbabel Reply:

    As rabbits (using Vox Day’s terminology), their idea of fighting isoutgrouping and social consequences, as they aren’t generally capable of physical violence. That’s not to say this kind of combat isn’t effective, it’s just that it’s really only effective against other rabbits**. Rabbits know the pain from outgrouping (probably from grade school), so they envision outgrouping as violence (see anti-bullying.) That others might not react to outgrouping with pain and penitence, or that outgrouping too many rabbits threatens to create a rival warren, occurs not to the “un-reflective solipsist.”

    **cf. Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars

    [Reply]

    neovictorian23 Reply:

    @survivingbabel Thank you for that link. One of the most enjoyable reads I’ve had for awhile, even if not exactly for the reasons the author intended.

    VXXC Reply:

    @neovictorian,

    LIKE

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Chu sounds to me like he’s threatening to move to Canada. Like he doesn’t really get the whole idea of speaking sincerely.

    There’s a quote about this, I would have sworn it was de Tocqueville but I can’t find it. I remember it as about the surprise he felt at what British men would say to each other in pubs, a fourth of which would cause them to come to blows in France. But the other British just didn’t take it seriously, it was all so much noise.

    And of course, when you know you’re not going to be taken seriously, you become free to say anything you like. Which just causes you to be taken even less seriously…

    [Reply]

    survivingbabel Reply:

    Arthur Chu and Jeopardy

    Well, I’m certainly adjusting my priors down on “this is real life.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 25th, 2014 at 7:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    Gotta love what preceded that:

    Arthur Chu says:

    I hate them [LessWrong] because there are people who are the closest thing we have in our civilized drawing-room world to pure evil and they invite them to their parties and shake hands with them and consider it very important to be polite to them. People like Mencius Moldbug and the “Neoreactionaries”, people like the “Manosphere” and the MRAs.

    … If you can’t draw the line before the MRAs and the reactionaries where the hell do you draw the line?

    … You cannot stand there shaking hands with the Devil and smiling and still be on the side of the angels. You simply can’t.

    … If MLK or Gandhi met Mencius Moldbug they would not enthusiastically read all his writings and then invite Moldbug’s racist stormtroopers to a garden party to talk over everything and earnestly convince them that supporting governments that quell dissent from uppity ethnic minorities with firehoses and batons is “irrational”.

    Oh the tears; oh my sides …

    [Reply]

    neovictorian23 Reply:

    Moldbug’s racist stormtroopers at a garden party. That’s almost too good to be true. This “Arthur Chu” is supposed to be some quiz show champ who studied “game theory.” I’ve studied it a fair bit, and I don’t think von Neumann himself could have put it in a way better designed to appeal to budding young reactionaries. Since the “rabbits” need no convincing, all that can come from this sequence is some net gain for our side…

    The actual post, on the other hand, is a dangerously persuasive brief for liberalism as Positivism. I have no idea why a prog would attack any portion of it, if they were supposedly Game Theoretical.

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    That’s the point; that’s how the mechanism works – they always have to be attacking something; there always has to be a cause and a way to demonstrate that I am holier than thou either in belief, motivation, or the willingness to relax the ‘Rules Of Engagement’ the moment one thinks he has the upper hand and it will redound to his benefit.

    The corollary of today’s Conservatives being yesterday’s progressives is that today’s progressives will occasionally be fighting the principles of yesterday’s progressives, which are still held sincerely by some of the contemporary older progressives who didn’t quickly adjust to the new program and don’t realize they’re now the ‘conservatives’.

    “Didn’t you guys get the memo that all that liberalism, tolerance, and civility stuff was cynical and opportunistic and only maintained as a kind of fraudulent hudna to delude the chumps on the other side so long as it was advantageous to our side both legally and in the court of public opinion? I mean, you didn’t really think we believe in tolerance, diversity of ideas, free speech, fair play, civility, and all that nonsense did you?”

    “Um, actually, I guess … I didn’t get the joke. I really bought into all that stuff at the time. I thought we were being sincere and genuine and that all we needed for our enlightened ideas to prosper was enough freedom in an open-society to spread our message and eventually our views would predominate because they would win in the open marketplace of ideas.”

    No. If you ever sincerely believed in any of that, then you were just a fool. And it’s never enough – the heretics simply do not disappear on their own! We only believe in winning now, and whatever means are necessary for eradication is what we must champion in order to march to our final victory.

    [Reply]

    Karl F. Boetel Reply:

    Rise of the New Abolitionists: We must free all Queer Women of Colour from mental enslavement by all white men everywhere through the unstoppable mindweapon of judgment — free them with fire and the sword, as ever. With Arthur Chu as the new John Brown.

    Posted on February 25th, 2014 at 10:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Why did you have to link there Admin? I was considering giving up Trolling for Lent.

    Just kidding.
    =======================================

    “Let us clarify our actual politics, as opposed to Progressive Religion and it’s detractors.*

    Our actual politics are Global Bankruptcy Settlement, with the USG playing Global Cop to the IMF’s (also part of USG) Global Slumlord extracting Rack Rents. Ukraine for instance seems not to have paid enough in 1994. Although the IMF was the worst thing for the Ukraine since Stalin, or perhaps Hitler. The Ukrainians are quite so mad at Hitler just right now. Then there’s your precious brown Brothers in Latin America. Not so precious they can’t be stripped bare. Our politics is a Bankruptcy Settlement, and while all these fascinating diversions are going on the Adults in the Government are stealing as much as they can before the final bubble (money) pops.

    These are our actual politics, not the Religions of Progressive Canon such as Social Justice. And we are not the ones robbing the world blind, you are. That’s your paycheck oh minions of the State. Your paystub was skinned off everyone but the 1% of the world, including in America. Who’s actual reckoning with Neo-Liberalism is about to begin, that’s why the Stanley Fischer gang is at the Federal Reserve.

    *NSA isn’t watching you, they’re watching all the rest of us. You are the State. NSA is watching everyone else.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 25th, 2014 at 11:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Prussian Prince of Automata Says:

    On a somewhat related note, the progressive war against science continues:

    From News.com, brought to my attention by iParallax, a darkly humorous article about the dangers of scientific research leading to “neoracism,” complete with a large godwin-tastic Hitler pic under the headline. My favorite line;

    “Many distinguished scientists in the United States recognise [sic] that race itself is not a biological variable, but they still buy into the notion that shared ancestry can impart certain biological characteristics, said Joseph Graves, an associate dean for research at the University of North Carolina.”

    How dare those racists! Sullying the good name of genetics with their heathen ideas of imparted characteristics as a result of shared ancestry. Good thing we’ve got (Dr?) Graves on the case, vigilantly watching UNC’s research for signs of evolutionist filth.

    Source: http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/experts-concerned-that-advances-in-genetic-sequencing-are-giving-rise-to-neoracism/story-fn5fsgyc-1226828291896
    iParalax’s blog: http://iparallax.wordpress.com/

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 25th, 2014 at 11:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Antisthenean Says:

    “… what’s … terrifying to me is that [Mencius Moldbug] is a sign of things to come; certain objective processes within the early 21st century Western society have actually produced “neo-reaction”, and these processes have no reason to abate. … the world just felt very wrong all of a sudden.”

    I’m so excited, and I just can’t hide it
    I’m about to lose control, and I think I like it

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 26th, 2014 at 3:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aaron Says:

    @Prussian Prince of Automata

    relevant: The Doctrine of Academic Freedom: Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 26th, 2014 at 6:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    @Karl F Boetel

    John Brown used a Broadsword. Personally. That type of Scotch-Irish guy.

    By all means I think we should encourage progs to get their hands dirty. yep.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 26th, 2014 at 9:48 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment