Scrap note #1

The Dark Enlightenment needs to keep its message to the mainsream ‘right’  as simple as possible, because it is dealing with people who have let chronic dishonesty lay waste to their powers of organized cognition. The point I would most like to see addressed is this: “Over two centuries of historical experience strongly suggest that you only exist to facilitate the triumph of the Left, have you any response to that? (And if not, do you seriously expect to dominate the right pole of the political spectrum indefinitely, i.e. to prevent anything from deterioration leftwards ever happening?)

I’m not holding my breath.

January 22, 2014admin 48 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

48 Responses to this entry

  • Alrenous Says:

    Yes.

    Most traditional rightists are too mind-damaged to be able to take the question seriously. They’ll see it as a dominance or political crowd-pleasing ploy, and respond accordingly, that is, with evasion, ignorance, and misunderstanding.

    Thus I can’t entirely agree with simple as possible. It needs a trap, to expose these zombies as what they are. Probably best done beartrap style, with that initial statement being one jaw and a matching counter-statement that’s Spandrell-blunt for the other jaw.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 22nd, 2014 at 5:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Karl F. Boetel Says:

    I have a prog-trap Alrenous. It goes like this:

    “Am I a ‘conservative’? Oh, no. I believe that same-sex marriage is a natural social arrangement, and I wouldn’t want to see the government try to ban it. … And I feel the same way about hereditary slavery.”

    [Reply]

    handle Reply:

    You have to watch out for their core and devastating counterargument, ‘you asshole!’

    [Reply]

    Karl F. Boetel Reply:

    i only do it in person, so only the proggiest of progs — like a lesbian jewish sociologist or something — will respond with vulgarity. and then i would say to her: ‘people like you are the reason jesus invented concentration camps’ which i think is fair.

    [Reply]

    Contemplationist Reply:

    LOL +1

    Posted on January 22nd, 2014 at 5:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • SGW Says:

    I find it rather weird that we haven’t had any noteworthy response. It reminds me a bit of the Fermi paradox. There are a reasonable number of darkly enlightened blogs on the internet, due to the interconnected nature of the internet and the world it is highly probable that the ideas have spread into some nodes of the conservative mainstream. Yet despite listening very attentively to their channels we haven’t received anything besides glorified white noise.

    Anyway, would we even know what to do with them if they were to respond? Is it currently even desirable?

    [Reply]

    Karl F. Boetel Reply:

    They aren’t trying to understand. They’re trying to get moar clixx by saying “something something racist fascism and they hate women too.”

    I’m more offended by Scott Alexander’s little ‘FAQ,’ because his ‘Nutshell’ shows that he understands this stuff pretty well, and then he hauls out a bunch of wrongheaded crime stats, calls it a “steelman,” and gives leftoids something to put at and say “see he has debunk all the badthought.”

    [Reply]

    Karl F. Boetel Reply:

    “something to point at,” that is—all other typos deliberate

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    This x 100000. But he has a ze girlfriend and self identifies as a mentally ill psychiatrist apprentice. Intellectual honesty might be too much to ask.

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    Out here in Pontus it’s all “you talk like a fag”. Getting a coherent response would mean things are better than we think, on many levels.

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    We responded to the anti reactionary FAQ, because it actually made arguments that needed rebutting. “Fascist, racist, nazi!” needs no rebuttal.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 22nd, 2014 at 5:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    The Dark Enlightenment should also avoid being needlessly insulting. Most insights are obvious once they are pointed out, but not realizing them until they are pointed out isn’t evidence of chronic dishonesty or intellectual inability. If you are interested in appealing to the right at all, something other than this kind of disdain is called for.

    Now, its possible that I’m wasting my breath because this is an exercise in boundary maintenance, not in genuine outreach. If so, its a pity, because I believe that broad elements on the right are uniquely receptive at this moment in time. My belief is mainly a holistic and impressionistic judgment, but there is evidence for it. Conservative blog comments have gotten less compromising and less hopeful. The Mitt Romney campaign documentary had some revealing moments of despair by him where he felt the country had reached a point of no return. The Tea Party, inchoate as it was, was an expression of a political grouping that was becoming radicalized. So are some of the in-party fights you’re seeing. Obama’s reelection was a severe shock to many.

    If you do outreach, a modified and amplified version of your point is probably a good one. It’s what persuaded me. Modified in that I wouldn’t go back two centuries. Back to FDR should be enough. A literal long lifetime of leftward ratchet should be more than adequate to prove that something is fundamentally wrong. The main counter-argument you’d need to handle would be the feeling that the conservative movement had a resurgence in the 70s and in the Reagan era. Dispose of it not by insulting Reagan or his real accomplishments but by pointing out that overall federal/state/local taxation levels continued to increase despite his efforts at slowing down the rate of increase, that the number of regulations and regulators also dramatically increased despite his efforts to reduce regulation, that spending went way up across the board (not just in defense) and the federal government got bigger, that the judiciary went further left–at best, he was able to pause, not reverse it, that social breakdown continued, that the EEOC continued to crank out more anti-discrimination suits, that the universities continued to crank our ever more extreme lefists, and on and on. Reagan was like a two-thumbed dutch boy facing a dike with a thousand leaks.

    Another option would be to forget the past and simply look at the present. In the middle of a prolonged economic collapse and with a history of failure, Obama was re-elected. We have literally unsustainable levels of debt and no hope of doing anything about it. Only drastic and immediate cuts could fix it, but the argument in Washington is between increasing spending by even more, increasing spending by less, or at the ‘radical’ extreme, increasing spending by only a little bit. Something is broke, something fundamental is off, and just campaigning and donating and trying to win elections isn’t going to fix it. We’ve been trying that for years and what have we got?

    The only problem is that outreach to the right is pointless unless you have a program to sell them on, but you don’t. You don’t even know what your endstate is, for the most part, and to the extent you do you have no clear idea how to get there. Even the mechanism of the leftist ratchet is obscure. All you really have is a diagnosis, that the ratchet exists.

    But that diagnosis is extremely valuable.

    [Reply]

    Karl F. Boetel Reply:

    We are leaving notes for future political theorists so they know why our civilization collapsed and how they can avoid the same fate, which, of course, they will not, because they’ll be just like the political theorists of today. Hey, what do you think Joe Biden makes of Carlyle? wheeee

    [Reply]

    handle Reply:

    I find it interesting that even saint revdrmlkjr mentioned Carlyle in his speech immediately after the ‘arc of history’ line.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    @Lesser Bull,

    THIS.

    Except..this: ” We have literally unsustainable levels of debt and no hope of doing anything about it. Only drastic and immediate cuts could fix it,”

    Or Neo-Liberal Shock Therapy .

    Which is what Stan Fischer and crew at the Federal Reserve actually means. That’s the Rape of Russia Redux, continuing America on following the course of the USSR.

    It turns out they didn’t have a Hope, they have a Plan.

    Mohamed El-Arian thinks Stan Fischer at the Fed is just wonderful.

    [Reply]

    SGW Reply:

    I think you overstate the degree outreach would be an issue. Program wise basically everything that lowers time-preference gets supported and everything that increases it gets opposed. In my eyes the main difference between mainstream conservatives and us is that they consider democracy something that lowers time-preference and we generally do not.

    The lack of a universally agreed upon end state isn’t really an issue. The NR isn’t particularly worried about end states, most of it consists of analyzing processes. Something basically everyone here desires is a society characterized by a low time-preference, since such a society allows for the accumulation of biological, cultural, intellectual and economical capital. A program of accumulation is opposed to the notion of an end state and isn’t particularly attached to specific means.

    Laliberte summarized our options as consisting of subversion and exit. Moldbug leans towards the subversion strategy and snide remarks towards mainstream conservatives are a part of it. He hopes to convert progressives and such comments are an easy way to score points with that crowd. Various ways have been proposed on how to best subvert the current order and on how to reduce our societal footprint. A consensus has not been achieved and it isn’t really necessary to do so. You seem to propose subverting mainstream conservatives. This sounds like a reasonable strategy to me, and you contribute another head to the NR hydra by acting on it.

    I don’t really see any problems.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    The ratchet? Leftism is self-empowering lies adapted to being spread by the state. As long as you can lie your way into power, the only thing that will ever dislodge one of these lies is a more sophisticated lie.

    Or: lies can be adapted for marketability. The truth is just the truth, apparent warts* and all. The gulled, having bought one lie, are far more likely to fix cog dis by accepting another lie than the idea they’ve been had. Is there a good myth or metaphor for a tower of lies? Ours challenges Babel for height.

    *(The truth doesn’t have warts. But humans sure see warts on it.)

    Between the state empowering sophisticated lies and the gulled refusing to accept their ignorance, there is only one way popular opinion can go.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 22nd, 2014 at 6:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    Most conservatives know shit about history and what they know is tainted by progressivism. The growth of justice!

    The best way of making people snap out of their cognitive dissonance is to point them at some blatant lie that the Cathedral throws at them every day yet most people still don’t buy. Women being bitches, third worlders being stupid and hostile, gays being generally perverted people.

    Of course people will only react to the stuff that affects them the most, so the question would vary.

    [Reply]

    handle Reply:

    Yep. Having obvious Ignoble lies shoved down your throat like a fois gras goose is emasculating, and being forced to pay lip service and regurgitate them is enraging and humiliating.

    Combine that with ‘you need to accept you’ll never get what you want working within this rigged system’.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    The System is being rigged now for Shock Therapy.

    I suspect they have a plan for the backlash as well.

    Do we?

    [Reply]

    anonymous Reply:

    I plan to blog and tweet about it

    R7 Rocket Reply:

    No-fault divorce, lifetime indentured servitude for loyal ex-husbands (alimony, child support) is Growth of Justice! Because Progress(TM)!

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 22nd, 2014 at 6:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stirner Says:

    Debunk! I loathe it when progs use that word. Inevitably it is always some half-assed critique that primarily addresses strawman issues. And all the other progs will use the “debunking” to not have to think at all about the actual issues. Cognitive dissonance maintained: mission accomplished.

    It is pointless to argue with those types. They simply need deprogramming at this point.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 22nd, 2014 at 6:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hattori Says:

    So, is there any ETA on the response to that anti-reactionary FAQ? I’m eagerly awaiting this.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Go to Jim’s blog. Plenty of answers.

    [Reply]

    Karl F. Boetel Reply:

    I handled everything to do with crime in ‘Anarcho-Tyranny.’

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 22nd, 2014 at 7:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    This evening’s dose of social justice – as the distance between making a moderately offensive comment online and being reviled as ‘worse than hitler’ becomes ever smaller…

    ‘The furore began on Sunday when Mr Casey, who has lived in Singapore for 12 years, uploaded a picture on Facebook of his son riding on a metro train, with the caption: “Daddy, where is your car & who are all these poor people”‘

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/expat-banker-who-mocked-stench-of-poor-on-public-transport-faces-fury-of-singapore-9077127.html

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Hitler’s being progressively rejuvenated… you should have picked that up by now ;)

    [Reply]

    Rasputin Reply:

    An aside – If NR dose go the King route, the King will need a throne…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/21/racism-row-as-dasha-zhukova-naked-black-woman-chair-martin-luther-king-day-pictures_n_4636390.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 23rd, 2014 at 12:08 am Reply | Quote
  • Bryce Laliberte Says:

    Frame is essential. We can’t make concessions, and we need to call out modernist conservatives as hopelessly mired in a paradigm of thought that will forever straitjacket them into supporting leftism. Make it plain that a choice has to be made between conservatism and modernism. At present they think of us as being “modernists way to the right”; they don’t even comprehend that we have stepped outside the modern paradigm.

    We should fight them as progressivists do. After all, it’s clearly effective. A modernist conservative is worse than a progressivist.

    Because it’s relevant: http://anarchopapist.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/conservatism-per-se/

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 23rd, 2014 at 2:12 am Reply | Quote
  • Bryce Laliberte Says:

    While in NYC, Amos & Gromar and I talked about being “intellectual shamans.” Offer a tribal identity to disaffected conservatives and give them the reasons to be able to believe what they’ve always wanted to.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 23rd, 2014 at 2:17 am Reply | Quote
  • Karl F. Boetel Says:

    All I can say to this is lolol.

    “What the media has been doing is taking jokes, combined with the opinions of certain reactionaries, and pretending they’re representative. It basically goes: ‘Dark Enlightenment,’ ‘red pill,’ ‘Sith,’ ‘Voldemort,’ and oh, by the way, they want a KING!!! Well, I want a King (or Queen), but we’re not all monarchists, or statists, or absolutists,” Boetel argues.

    “Our only immediate goal is to try and understand the world, politically incorrect though it may be; and to tell other people to try – though most will not, and if they do, will fail,” Boetel says. “In the long term, I, personally, hope to survive the collapse of civilization and the coming Dark Age. I also would like to accumulate a number of ferrets and teach them amazing tricks.”

    oh god wat have i done

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    Added to my ruckus list. That make 14 in just the past month.

    [Reply]

    James James Reply:

    “Comments are Closed”
    Excellent.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 23rd, 2014 at 5:36 am Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    @In other words, we need a new religion.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    That was for Bryce up there.

    [Reply]

    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    I like my Catholicism though.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Pretty sure that trying to invent a new religion is barking mad, but in any case effective new religions are almost always reimaginings and repurposings of old ones. At first, the new religious movement will include a spectrum of belief that includes the old religion pretty much undiluted with one or two additional commitments, but as time goes the new religion and the old religion both increase the distance between themselves as boundary maintenance.

    [Reply]

    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    I do have the metaphysical and moral arguments stowed away somewhere for a religion. It combines reincarnation, solipsistic pantheism, and natural law theory. Won’t give any more details than that, because I don’t want people to take it seriously. But it isn’t really that difficult.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Of course its difficult. Writing up a fictional religion and actually making a new religion is the difference between writing an SF story and the Apollo program.

    VXXC Reply:

    Bryce,

    “In The Shadow of The Sword.”

    The real prophet was you see a genius, and not a madman.

    As was his answer 3 centuries coming, Urban II.
    ========================

    As to Frame when your enemies entire eschatology is built on lies, Truth works fine. [note I'm answering multiple comments here.]

    [Reply]

    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    A madman is just a genius who failed.

    spandrell Reply:

    The Pope is communist. You’ll like the new stuff better.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    @spandrell,

    An Anti-Pope is a good rallying cry against.

    Posted on January 23rd, 2014 at 7:53 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    @Bruce,

    Examine the Prophet making “Shirk” a mortal Sin.

    That’s one badass Commander.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 24th, 2014 at 2:07 am Reply | Quote
  • Neoreactionary Apostrophist Says:

    The Dark Environment needs to learn the difference between ‘”its” and “it’s”.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Thanks (fixed). My only excuse is Cambodia.

    [Reply]

    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    You wrongly use an apostrophe once…

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 24th, 2014 at 5:52 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment