Quote notes (#77)

John Robb on the “the Neutron Bomb of Moral Warfare” (via @heresiologist):

The growing popularity of “check your privilege” and “white privilege” at Universities and in political debates is interesting. […] It’s not a force for progress or positive change, it’s a form of moral warfare. […] “Privilege” as a form of attack is going to generate an aggressive, non-violent counter response from those on the right, in the not too distant future. A response that will only serve to increase divisions and make the possibility of any meaningful debate impossible.

For the Outer Right, this outcome would, of course, be highly desirable.

May 1, 2014admin 49 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

49 Responses to this entry

  • Thales Says:

    Ah, a new rough triangle takes shape, albeit roughly…

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 1st, 2014 at 7:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stirner (@heresiologist) Says:

    One signpost that this is beginning to occur is the ongoing dispute between Vox Day and the Science Fiction Writers Association. Last year, Vox threw some elbows while accusing the major SF publishers and the SWFA as being actively opposed to right wing SF writers. His claims of bias were categorically rejected, and he was soon purged from the SWFA for making “racist” comments.

    Vox and other right wing SF writers recently escalated the conflict by getting some of their works put on the Hugo ballot in various categories. Behold the power of fan nominations. Now the “Pink” SF people are all up in arms about potentially awarding a Hugo to notorious crimethinkers.

    The point of the exercise was not to win the Hugo. The point was to trigger the prog SF thought police into publicly make their politicization of Science Fiction very clear and undeniable to all fair minded observers. Currently, the progs are in the end stages of moving towards over-reach in their rhetoric, but with huge numbers of right-wing military SF out there, they may wind up getting shut down by the publishing houses. There are lots of right wing fans of Science Fiction who don’t care about the politics of SF authors, as long as the books are good. But, if the SF community gets turned into explicit left/right factions, the right wing SF fanbase has a great amount of punitive purchasing power in reserve.

    Although Vox Day rejects “Neo-Reactionary” as anything particularly new, he is sort of in the same camp as Bruce Charlton as fellow travelers in the broader Dark Enlightenment.

    This flap with Vox Day is one of the first occasions where Neoreaction takes on the prog mainstream at a time and place of our choosing. It is an interesting conflict to watch, and hopefully turns our a model for successful future conflicts.

    [Reply]

    Porphy's Attorney Reply:

    @Stirner (@heresiologist)“The point was to trigger the prog SF thought police into publicly make their politicization of Science Fiction very clear and undeniable to all fair minded observers.”

    Of which there are exactly 0 in positions that matter (meaning: Cathedralite positions).

    [Reply]

    Commat Reply:

    Stirner is clear enough that being in an institutional position is not the power implied, but consumer power is, in this case. Analogic extensions could be made to other cases. In general, guerrilas and rebels can and must fight from alternative stances when inside positions are not available.

    The fair-minded observers buy SF books, and that is something here.

    [Reply]

    Porphy's Attorney Reply:

    Because consumer power has made other mass-media much more congenial to the right. . .

    Porphy's Attorney Reply:

    . . .and not an arm of the Cathedral at all. . .

    Posted on May 1st, 2014 at 7:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • northanger Says:

    That last P in OPP is always a sticky wicket.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 1st, 2014 at 8:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Quote notes (#77) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on May 1st, 2014 at 9:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    There’s something downright threatening about the idea of ‘white privilege’ to most people who hear it. It really has a powerful tendency to piss people off and cause discord. I once met a couple grad students who were in a practicum, where they taught a required composition course for freshmen. They were meant to teach the original essay on white privilege, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” by Peggy McIntosh to their students. It was kind of hilarious hearing them get angry/frustrated about how their students so brutally and ham-fistedly rejected the essay’s premise. One of them told me that a particularly recalcitrant student started systematically trying to disprove every instance of privilege one by one, but thankfully, the guy stopped that terrible student and said, “Hey, man, don’t try to disprove this essay point by point, that’s not what this is about!” (Incidentally, I think he’s right! That’s really not what it’s about!) Another one told me that she tried to do some stupid exercise where she drew an imaginary line, lined all the students up, and tried to say, “Now, cross the line if you think that you don’t [she names something that constitutes a privilege].” The students came damn near close to open revolt! The third grad actually made some headway by showing his students the movie trailer for “Eat, Pray, Love.” He also admitted that “class privilege” was also a real thing. Smart. But he was a gay guy. He understood the psychology of the theater. He basically helped win the essay over not by logic, but by simply deferring the point and appealing to the students’ prejudices, thereby associating the essay with fuzzy thoughts and warm feelings.

    As ludicrous as I found the whole situation — that is, trying to convince a bunch of 18-year-olds from a fairly conservative area about privilege in a directly confrontational manner — I nonetheless wish that only confused proles and youngsters had this sort of angry, contrarian response to the essay and not NRs, WNs, paleocons, alt-righters, or whoever else. It might be nice to know that those students saw the propaganda for what it was, but they took its bait all the same. I say: let the mainstream conservatives fall for that nonsense — not anyone of any real sense. I’ll try to explain why, but not without another anecdote. I saw a debate on Huffington Post video about white privilege starring Jared Taylor, some young white power dude, Tim Wise, and I think two stooges for tolerance. Jared Taylor said, “No, no, of course whites are not privileged! They are doing badly!” Tim Wise said, “Yes! They are! I wrote a whole book about it, see!?” But beyond the doofiness of Wise’s whole persona, I think that he completely mopped the floor with Taylor, to be honest. The liberals definitely won that debate. By the time they got into stop & frisk territory, it was clear that there was just no contest.

    The genius of the ‘white privilege’ claim is that it attempts to force *all* right-wingers into a defensive position. They have to implicitly admit that the mere presence of equality is an injustice. As soon as they say, “No, we are not privileged, we are disprivileged!” they’re already losing, because they’re implicitly acknowledging the moral evil of privilege. And it works on young people in college, because although they almost never swallow the premise of privilege, they *do* wind up reinforcing the idea in their own minds that privilege is wrong.

    I’ll say it right now: white Americans are pretty privileged! I found myself reading that Peggy McIntosh essay and nodding along with a bunch of her examples. Interestingly, a whole bunch of them were to the effect of, “I can associate with anyone of any race that I choose, but solely as a choice and not as part of a situation I am forced into” or “If I want a well-paying job, I’m able to only talk to people from my race and not talk to others.” So far, I have not found a single person who has bothered to point out the implications of this. She’s basically saying that ethnic self-preference is an ingrained part of any person’s mentality. I don’t know anything about the woman or if she’d admit that her points betray that fundamental truth, but I certainly can’t disagree with the obvious implication.

    I can understand why any run-of-the-mill Fox News conservative would jump through this fairly meaningless moral hoop, but it confuses me as to why someone as intelligent as Jared Taylor would bother to argue the premise of such a claim. Yes, Whites are privileged in Europe and America. In any civilization where your ancestors basically developed its propositional ideas, wrote its philosophies, thought up its religious views, invented most of its necessary machines and devices, discovered most of its groundbreaking scientific formulas, created all of its longstanding artworks and cultural products, built and designed most of its buildings and infrastructure, etc. etc. etc., then yes, you’ll probably be privileged, even if you have some distant fears related to fertility rate, a concept most people can’t even grasp. Learn to love it, folks. Even when whites are a minority, they’re going to be (rather accurately) accused of privilege.

    [Reply]

    Hearst Reply:

    Nobody goes to Japan,Israel, or Kuwait and demands forced diversity to end Japanese, Jewish, or Arab privilege. This only occurs in White countries. The whole “White privilege” campaign is actually a psychological warfare action which is part of the larger program of White genocide. White humans are the only people on earth who are denied spaces and institutions specifically for their own interests. The people who claim to be “anti-racist” are actually just anti-White.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

    [Reply]

    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    >who are denied spaces

    Whoops. You just conceded the agency frame to the anti-whites.

    Everything you said is true, but irrelevant to the point.

    The point is yes, we are in fact privileged, and debating that point is going to make you look like an idiot. That is its power; leftists wield it as a weapon, but if you defend yourself from that weapon, you look like an idiot.

    The solution is the Rearden Gambit, ie agree and amplify/deny the frame/flip the script:

    “Yes I am privileged, and my heritage and situation offers me certain advantages and a better life. However, I refuse to concede that I am thus somehow guilty of something or that I need to pay reparations to those less fortunate. My privilege comes at no one else’s expense; for example, that my father taught me the value of hard work and supported me through school has nothing to do with the fact that some other kid did not have a father. Further, if you were serious about the existence of hereditary privilege, why are people like you so focused on destroying it instead of creating more?

    [optional, depending on context] What’s really going on here is that you are just engaged in selfish class war against people like me and are attempting to weaponize our capacity for empathy against us. I reject your right to do that.”

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    Or — if only for brevity’s sake — “Privileged??? You say that like it’s a bad thing!”

    “Who wouldn’t be happy for the good fortune of his brother in our global human family?”

    etc.

    Addendum: the passage in the OP that reads: “They have to implicitly admit that the mere presence of equality is an injustice” should amend the word “equality” to “inequality,” in case anyone was wondering if I was schizophrenic.

    Hearst Reply:

    I didn’t deny anything (you might want to read my post again), I pointed out that only Whites are attacked for something that other peoples have in their historical homelands (Japan,Israel,Kuwait).

    But how can Whites be considered “privileged” when we’re the only people on earth that are forbidden spaces and institutions for our own interests?

    Only Whites are being targeted for extinction over “privilege.” Not Jews. Not Asians. Not Arabs.

    This is genocide.

    Africa for the Africans. Asia for the Asians. White countries for everyone! That’s NOT privilege. That’s genocide.

    JPOutlook Reply:

    Good job, “Hearst” I also post the Mantra and realise that it’s our moral high-ground. It’s a spiritual battle and we’ll see those who can’t hack it exposing themselves more and more. Good post!

    Best regards,

    J.P.O.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 1st, 2014 at 11:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • neovictorian23 Says:

    “Privilege” translates to “private law.” The word has been (deliberately) perverted from its meaning by leftists (as have so many other nice, useful words).

    Privilege applies to nobility, who are subject to a different “law” than the lower classes. In some places at some times, they could get away with murder.

    If we really want to drive progs to heavy drinking, we should make one little tweak. Say, “There really is a phenomenon such as you’re describing, but ‘privilege’ is a poor choice of words. It’s really White ‘advantage.’ It’s true Whites have ‘advantages’ in Euro-American societies…”

    Get them discussing the nature of those “advantages.” I trust you can see what a different direction this leads.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Neovictorian23 beat me to it. Yes. Nowadays, whenever I hear the word, “privilege”, I immediate think, “Ah, here comes a fallacy of ambiguity.”

    [Reply]

    E.Antony Gray (RiverC) Reply:

    “Yes, we possess advantage. It is partly natural and is partly due to cultural inheritance. If a football team has a superior player they do not seek to hinder that player just because he has advantages. Instead, they find ways to allow him to utilize his talent for the better of the whole team, if they want to win. Any team which spends its time trying to equalize all of its players is a team that will do a lot of losing. It is a team that will find it hard to keep the best players.”

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    Not quite.

    If you were to buy their theory of human disparity, the use of the word is more defensible. What they would ask is, “Well, what is the more proper word for ‘privilege’ when it is implemented de facto instead of formally written down de jure?”

    They would say, “It’s still a form of privilege when you are treated preferentially solely because of your race – whether or not its the law – as when the law treats you preferentially because of your inherited class. It’s still a form of socially-implemented heritage bias.”

    ‘Privilege’, as they use it, means not just ‘Advantage’ (obviously we would talk in terms of differential inborn gifts) but ‘Socially Unjust Advantage’ which explains all disparities of outcome in terms of discrimination of various types and origins.

    There are two major categories of this social injustice. The first is the 100% nurture theory of development. This isn’t a proper use of ‘privilege’ in the classic sense, but I think it had come into fashion a long time ago to use it as shorthand for ‘a wealthy and privileged upbringing’ which really just means ‘without being raised amidst cognitively crippling underclass social dysfunctions.’

    The second type is more apt, which is the theory that nearly everyone – in every encounter or personnel selection event – will treat a white person better than a black person.

    Their classic example is with encounters with the police. This is where, IIRC, the term first came into vogue, when it was used in the context of discussions about criminal law. A cop pulls over a car with four black teens speeding, and they all get arrested. The car with four white teens gets off with a warning. The black kid got with some marijuana outside the convenience store gets thrown in jail. The white kid going to the rave only gets his stuff confiscated and then is sent back home to mama, or maybe he gets a little fine and no permanent record.

    You can see how, if you think the above paragraph describes a real phenomenon, that it supports a perfectly proper use of the phrase ‘white privilege’ – an agent of the government will treat you with more leniency than others only because of the difference in yours respective heritage and status.

    Some clever defense attorneys tried to prove the existence of ‘white privilege’ to show that the state was failing at its duty of equal protection and non-discrimination. In the criminal context, it didn’t get very far. But the phrase definitely took on a life of its own, and now just means, “Shut up white boy. You don’t’ get to talk here because your opinion is worthless, uninformed, as it is, of the experience of struggle that the rest of us have faced, and must face on a daily basis.”

    Well, not quite just ‘shut up white boy’, but ‘shut up white boy’ in the particular context of trying to argue against the exaggeration of the explanatory value of the unjust-discrimination theory of disparity.

    [Reply]

    E.Antony Gray (RiverC) Reply:

    I am always amused to point out that if extant, this de jure ‘white privilege’ seems to have existed before our present system, even in the absence of living white populations. Take for example, Cortes. Thus to claim that anyone is consciously or institutionally favoring whites is incorrect; they are naturally favoring the lightness, which is a human tendency deeper than a system of law. Thus the law itself is helpless against it because a tacit law, like that of ‘heteronormity’, undergirds its formation. Resisting the law is like legislating against gravity.

    The only way around this is massive genetic engineering and completely trying to reverse the inherent meanings in the universe. No wonder leftists are nihilists.

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    T-Shirt slogan: “Progressivism: Legislating Against Gravity, EST. 1517”

    E.Antony Gray (RiverC) Reply:

    “Gravity is a law, and there ain’t no law the Supreme Court can’t strike down.”

    Posted on May 2nd, 2014 at 12:57 am Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    Outside of university and tumbler “privilege” is a joke. It’s a self inflicted parody. That some proles take it seriously and get angry, should prove amusing. SJWs are their own worst enemies. Progs keep them around for the same reason Obama keeps Biden, they’re embarrassing but they make you look good in comparison. Smart Progs maintain a healthy distance from them even if they agree with them. I think some on the left regard SJWs as their junkyard dog, but for practical purposes they’re more like a chinchilla with rabies. Fun way to troll the left would be to convince the proles that the SJWs own the Progs and not the other way around.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 2nd, 2014 at 3:43 am Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    The assumption is that success is the result of privilege rather than vice versa.

    [Reply]

    MW Reply:

    Privilege is just more neo-prog bullshit. “Unearned advantage”: as if every good thing in your life has to come from ceaseless toil.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 2nd, 2014 at 12:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Henry Dampier Says:

    @Aeroguy

    Really? We have to deal with it, downstream, in corporate America. Social justice isn’t just a joke. It’s an effective way for them to capture corporate earnings through moral piracy.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Enlarging their share of corporate earnings is small potatos and has already reaching saturation thanks to AA coming to close. I have yet to hear of corporate meetings where white males are prevented from speaking in the style of OWS drum circles. They can whine about not enough women in STEM but so long as corporate money isn’t gov money they can’t impose the equivalent of title IX (they’ll change the laws so they can but we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it). SJWs have far more potential to do damage in the military than corporate world. The service academies which have resisted much of the worst garbage drowning the universities have never the less been fatally infected by the cathedral, entryism from the top down. The Air Force first and worst followed closely by the Navy until even the Marine Corps is assimilated.

    Privilege is just a tactic and a rather lousy one we can exploit, like the Japanese banzai charges in WW2. The dongle incident resulted in the SJW also getting fired. The Mozilla incident has done more to galvanize the right than left as you have written about it yourself. The left will continue their advance through evangelicalism and SJWs hurt their evangelism efforts. SJWs are the whimpy trans equivalent of the Nazi SS, known for their fanatism and loyalty not fighting skill compaired to the rest of the german fighting men. It was the nazies behaving like nazies in places like Ukraine where they were welcomed with open arms untill being systematicly butchered forcing the Ukrainians back into the arms of Uncle Joe. Nazies behaving like nazies was a major factor that caused them to lose the eastern front. If the left wants to behave like nazies I say let them, as Napolion said, “never interupt your enemy while they are making a mistake”.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 2nd, 2014 at 12:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Porphy's Attorney Says:

    “‘Privilege’ as a form of attack is going to generate an aggressive, non-violent counter response from those on the right, in the not too distant future.”

    – That’ll be the day. The mainstream right is hapless and hopeless and, like a puppy beaten by its master but not understanding why, it always first cringes, and then comes back to lick the hand, just hoping to be liked.

    Judging by the latest series of events (Nevada Rancher, NBP), in 5 years or so mainstream conservatism will be tut-tutting “White Privilege” too, and agreeing that, yes yes, it needs to be stamped out, it’s just the left is too abrasive in going about this vital task.

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    Perhaps the revulsion is more likely to come from intelligent leftists who haven’t yet been fully robotised. It’s hard to believe anyone with a modicum of self-respect would take this lying down.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 2nd, 2014 at 1:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Porphy's Attorney Says:

    typo: “NBP” should read “NBA”

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 2nd, 2014 at 1:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Robb a fascinating character. Tragic in some ways. He wishes to be an architect, earns manna as analyst, attracts arsonists.

    Of course Robb understands what he’s talking about.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 2nd, 2014 at 2:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • northanger Says:

    The legal implications of the one-way traffic to America did not escape Francisco de Vitoria, who once remarked that an Indian “discovery” of Spain would not have justified Indian Sovereignty over Spain. But he lost the argument. (The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire, Francis Jennings)

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 2nd, 2014 at 2:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    “Privilege” is also guilty projection of Progs. They project like clockwork. Gravity even.

    In this case they either have it or covet it. It’s…our fault. Our being non elite whites.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 2nd, 2014 at 3:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Robb has an interesting relationship with PTB. He quite understands them, despises them, and had to earn his living being this generations John Boyd for them, them being what we call the Cathedral.

    His blog commenters bear witness to his Tragic professional fate I outlined above.

    Robb reached a similar conclusion about Exit, although I don’t find him using that term. I’m certain others here have read his proposals. He is actually doing his best to live just that way..but..mmm…it’s quite difficult.

    This is why I from time to time remind people that wherever you go, there you are. Augustine himself never approaches this level of insight. He simply fled reality.

    Robb would love to exit. The problem is ..where? When I think about this problem the best I can come up with is say New Zealand. However if anyone realizes during collapse that New Zealand exists unmolested…they will come. New Zealand’s soldiers BTW are perhaps the worlds best. But is that enough..and so on?

    Then I’m also not New Zealander. If the white’s pretend not to notice the Maori will.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The Maori will usually be too stoned to notice.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    What I get from looking at the NZ military [when Rommel says the best soldiers he ever met, that’s a recommendation and hard hitters praise them to this day] from what I see they may have synthesized Maori warrior customs into the NZ military. Like the death dirge dance/ritual. Warriors are like that, and it means they basically have some respect for the Maori.

    The other issue I’m pretty sure NZ will close it’s borders as will AU. Sensibly enough.

    [Reply]

    D Reply:

    @VXXC, I was in the Australian Army, and met several NZ soldiers both on operations and through unit postings (soldiers from both countries can be posted to either Australia or NZ, not en masse of course, but on a single solitary basis. Similar to the way US or British soldiers/officers are posted to other western nations).

    Anyway, that Maori warrior culture is definitely there. I was even taught their little “secret handshake,” which consists of a quasi-headbutt while shaking (behind the scenes in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the actor Viggo Mortensen — someone who seems to personify some of the warrior culture — talks about this, and even managed to get Orlando Bloom headbutted by a Maori stuntman). Other Pacific nation militaries are similar. The Fijian military has a similar warrior ethos. As a counter-example the Papuans are a complete cluster fuck though, so I have no idea what happened there.

    Rommel was also talking about the Australians from memory as well (both Australia and NZ).

    I think there is more to ANZAC skill at a tactical and operational level than the warrior culture though. Here are some things off the top of my head that seemed to play into this skill:

    (1) Back then many of the individuals conscripted were from farmer backgrounds. Even today, many of the best soldiers I’ve come across, were country boys. They learn to shoot at a young age. They are taken on hunting trips from a young age and learn to silently stalk large prey (like bush pigs, which are can grow to a massive fucking size). They are outdoors a lot, and deal with backbreaking hard labor. Now you could say that these personify some aspect of warrior culture, which I might agree with.

    (2) The Australian-NZ military has a love-hate relationship with authority figures. This goes back to WW1 where the British were in control of our armed forces, and made a complete fuck up of it. In fact, the term “bull” was originally from Australian soldiers in WW1 in response to British military bullshit (see chapter 16 of Dixon’s On the Psychology of Military Incompetence). So in a way, at a lower level there was a premium put on performance, and less on rank, titles, and other things that don’t mean shit in a gunfight. It is not like this much anymore, but back during WW1 and WW2 it was. In a way the Aus-NZ militaries were closer to the German way of doing things (not micromanaging tactical decisions, and leaving it up to the troops via “commander’s intent”). We still have a fairly relaxed military tradition comparative to other nations though, but the bullshit has managed to solidify over the last 50 years.

    (3) At a cultural and operational level there is a premium on deception. The ANZAC legend itself was founded on a retreat. Many modern-day actions-on contact with a superior force (either in number, or weaponary) are forms of tactical retreats. This is something you see in the German military and Asian military (a’la Sun Tzu) traditions (to some extent the Russian military has elements of this as well). The rule: Live to fight again another day. From this rule follows various deceptive practices. Depending on your warrior tradition will depend if you see this as cowardice or not. Jackass, glory-seeking gong-hunters who think they are modern day knights will think so.

    Even if there exists some aspect of Maori warrior culture, I don’t think that’ll be enough come some exit. The NZ government had their intelligence and military liasons severely curtailed after the NZ government wouldn’t allow a US nuclear submarine in the nation. In a way the NZ ruling elite are pretty Cathedralized (Australia to a large extent is as well, the writer for the Stuff White People Like blog called Melbourne the most whitest city on the planet. Large amounts of Sydney are a crime ridden shithole, and there is white flight happening as we speak. If you were to move to Australia, move to Queensland or Western Australia, preferably outside the capitals).

    It is interesting how Maori warrior culture has exemplified itself in other ways unrelated to the military. Outlaw motorcycle gangs here in Australia are now made up of large numbers of Islamic and Maori dudes. Whites are a dying breed within OMCGs. White warrior culture probably now only exists in special forces units, law enforcement, and maybe some MMA gyms. I don’t know how it is in other parts of the world, but that is my general take on things here.

    Also, as an offsided comment about John Boyd and Robb, there is an interesting slide in Boyd’s Patterns of Conflicts (a slide that anyone interested in war should read) on Moral Warfare.

    Here are the essences of Moral Conflict according to John Boyd:

    Create, exploit, and magnify:

    Menace: Impressions of danger to one’s well being and survival.

    Uncertainty: Impressions, or atmosphere, generated by events that appear ambiguous, erratic, contradictory, unfamiliar, chaotic, etc.

    Mistrust: Atmosphere of doubt and suspicion that loosens human bonds among members of an organic whole or between organic wholes.

    Idea: Surface fear, anxiety, and alienation in order to generate many non-cooperative centers of gravity, as well as subvert those that adversary depends upon thereby magnify internal friction.

    Aim: Destroy moral bonds that permit an organic whole to exist.

    Now on Slide 124 Boyd suggests the following counterweights to moral warfare (that John Robb didn’t talk about).

    Harmony is a counterweight to mistrust.

    Adaptability is a counterweight to uncertainty.

    Initiative is a counterweight to menace.

    The aim of counterweighting moral conflict is the following:

    build-up and play counterweights against negative factors to diminish internal friction, as well as surface courage, confidence, and esprit, thereby make possible the human interactions needed to create moral bonds that permit us, as an organic whole, to shape and adapt to change.

    Boyd says that if you want to wage Moral Warfare you should be doing the counterweights at the same time. Now, are the left diminishing internal friction through those counterweights? It doesn’t look so to me. I think that is what Robb is hinting at as well.

    Was Occupy Wall Street courageous? What about twitter/tumblr SJWs? Are they filled with esprit? In a sense there is some esprit there, but the left have to seriously deal at a strategic level with that internal friction aspect. If they don’t, and Boyd’s strategic thought holds true, then they cannot win at a moral level, as they’ll not only tear themselves apart, but also fail to attract others. Boyd has a large amount of slides on Soviet Revolutionary strategy, and Guerrilla Warfare (slides 67-108 in Patterns of Conflict). It is pretty interesting to compare those to the contemporary left’s strategic behavior.

    Posted on May 2nd, 2014 at 3:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • neovictorian23 Says:

    Let us return to the last, impactful line of this post:

    For the Outer Right, this outcome would, of course, be highly desirable.

    Let us remind ourselves on a regular basis that only by getting much worse than they are today can things be better tomorrow. A thousand Jason Richwines and a million little Brandon Eichs, mandatory reeducation for heteronormative cismales at Ivy League universities, ritual group confessions on the order of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

    People with minor but annoying aches do nothing; people with a hand cut off take action.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Um no. People with a hand cut off will die of loss of blood, hypovolemic shock or infection unless professional medical aid shows up. They will have at best – in a full up functioning society – a nice prosthetic and the partial return of function months later.

    Now that’s battle. Now if you got your hand cut off in battle you’re already ahead of the game survival and who’s boss wise.

    If you were blithely posting away on the internet waiting for someone to come cut your hand off before you think it’s serious you will probably die shortly thereafter. In any case your passive nature will condemn you to be the cripple who never looks at your master cross eyed again. Or grumbles on the internet.

    I can’t condemn this wait for collapse mindset enough. Nor do I respect it, this is sub-juvenile at best. NO YOU WON’T EITHER. You won’t maintain an ironic stiff upper lip on the way to the scaffold. I think this is all talk and nonsense. When your hand is near the block never mind off, all snark will flee.

    And that’s all Enjoy the Decline is – snark.

    yes I realize it’s a metaphor. It’s still nonsense. You’ve never had to knock on wood.

    Now if anyone here actually you know has done this..say Bosnia or Argentina ..and maintains this aloof, detached, ironic air throughout and after the ordeal and recommends it still, do tell.

    Bullshit. Not even Bluffing. Delusional.

    Start thinking how you’re going to cut their hands off first. Or..farewell from the gene pool.

    [Reply]

    neovictorian23 Reply:

    @VXXC: The hand thing is, as you note, metaphor. I don’t know how, from there, you infer that I, personally, am “wait[ing] for collapse”, much less enjoying the decline. I have a nine-year-old son, and “Enjoying the Decline” is not in his future.

    However, to once again refer to the original post above. “meaningful debate” is rapidly becoming impossible, people are losing their jobs (but not having their hands cut off, yet) and that can only help speed the day of reckoning, of separation and Exit.

    Here, inhale some cognitive dissonance: Black man who replaced sodomist as commencement speaker placed on leave for non-PC statements. I mean, not only did he criticize homos, he called Disney a Dark Empire of superstition and witchcraft.

    Therefore, he shouldn’t be allowed to supervise restaurant inspections.

    Expect more of this, and THAT’s what can only benefit the Outer Right. Forget severed hands.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    I’ve signed more than a few screeds with enjoy the decline and have been following Aaron Clancy since before he coined the term. His description starts with this “The purpose of the sign-off is to emphasize that the decline of America is really unstoppable and that you might as well enjoy the decline while you’re here on Earth.” Link here for context
    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/search?q=enjoy+the+decline
    This was in 2009. He first signed off with the term in May of 2007, right about the same time Moldbug first started blogging and before writing his open letter. I would argue that acceptance of the decline of America as being unstoppable is part of the essential foundation of the DE. Personally I see the whole world going with it, it’s a global system and it’s the global system that’s infected.

    Understand the audience it is written for, it is written for people who are still attached to the outerparty, who still believe in political solutions, and who think the present so called society is worth protecting (and thus preserving). It tells them to snap out of denial and accept reality for what it is. To not man up and marry the “born again virgin” single mommy and climb the corporate ladder to provide for a child that’s not yours is part of what we mean when we say enjoy. Please don’t conflate it as an endorsement of the hedonic treadmill, think of it more as a rehash of when life gives you lemons make lemon-aid. It’s written for the middle brow, it’s not at the level of Moldbug.

    We don’t have an exact timeline for how long the decline will take, what I know is that the PTB are working tirelessly to extend that time and I have little to interfere with that other than declining my productivity and leaching off the system rather than supporting it. I don’t know if you’re one of the older guys who wants to die before SHTF but I’m only 28 so I want to see it happen sooner so I can have more time being productive postSHTF. Women tend to smother their own infants when SHTF for their own good, part of why I’m not having kids and feel bad for those that already do. For me enjoying the decline doesn’t mean not preparing for SHTF, it means not investing in a system on the verge of collapse. Enjoying the decline means that I’m not running off to join my friends in startup land on the left coast working the long hours in hopes of the big payoff. Instead i don’t work the long hours, I have time to work out, to read, to spend time with the people I care about, and to continuously improve myself, preparing myself for what’s to come. This is how I can say I’m enjoying the decline.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 2nd, 2014 at 5:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • Homosexuals Have (Officially) Replaced Blacks at Apex of Victimhood | Neoreaction in The Diamond Age Says:

    […] All of this was sparked by Nick Land’s post: […]

    Posted on May 3rd, 2014 at 12:23 am Reply | Quote
  • E.Antony Gray (RiverC) Says:

    http://amultiverse.com/comic/2014/05/02/perc-and-mikes-bogus-journey/

    Heh.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Too true. On the same topic, Glenn Reynolds linked to this today:

    http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/the-economics-of-political-correctness

    “PC-brigadiers behave exactly like owners of a positional good who panic because wider availability of that good threatens their social status. The PC brigade has been highly successful in creating new social taboos, but their success is their very problem. Moral superiority is a prime example of a positional good, because we cannot all be morally superior to each other. Once you have successfully exorcised a word or an opinion, how do you differentiate yourself from others now? You need new things to be outraged about, new ways of asserting your imagined moral superiority.”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That’s a persuasive argument, I agree.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 3rd, 2014 at 1:31 am Reply | Quote
  • Jack Crassus Says:

    A t-shirt slogan suggestion for our host: White Males are the new “niggers”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’m somewhat reluctant to feed anyone’s victim complex.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 4th, 2014 at 5:03 am Reply | Quote
  • Neodymium Says:

    NRx outbreak @ Princeton or wut?!

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05/06/check-your-privilege-has-social-medias-favourite-debate-stopper-started-to-falter/

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 8th, 2014 at 3:41 am Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    @Neodymium

    “Check your privilege,” Mr. Fortgang writes, is a phrase that is “handed down by my moral superiors, descends recklessly, like an Obama-sanctioned drone, and aims laser-like at my pinkish-peach complexion, my maleness.” He went on to actually “check” his privilege, he wrote, and described his family of hard-working Holocaust survivors for whom he would never “apologize.”

    hahaha…. I dunno about all that…….

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 8th, 2014 at 2:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bill O’Reilly and idiotic point-missing culture war | spreadtheinfestation Says:

    […] Privilege theory is a great way to drive the white working class toward the Right.  In fact, there are elements of the Right hoping we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot this way. […]

    Posted on May 15th, 2014 at 5:03 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment