Sentences (#31)

Sunic:

In the eyes of the New Right, unlike continental Europeans, Anglo-Saxon peoples fail to perceive the importance of organic community and the primacy of political over economic factors.

— In other words, the New Right is fundamentally alien (and hostile) to our thede.

November 21, 2015admin 43 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : ,

43 Responses to this entry

  • Michael Soren Says:

    No, it means Anglo-Saxons wouldn’t recognize their own thede if it’s life depended on it!

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    And yet somehow they do.

    [Reply]

    George Reply:

    I’m not sure that Mr. Bennett’s concept of ‘the Anglosphere’ is strictly limited to Anglo-Saxons. Reality dictates otherwise.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 21st, 2015 at 2:43 am Reply | Quote
  • Sentences (#31) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on November 21st, 2015 at 2:59 am Reply | Quote
  • Yvjrolu Says:

    It doesn’t have to be hostility, unless you are a hardline WN who thinks all white people have to live in the same way within the same state no matter what.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 21st, 2015 at 3:49 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Says:

    Sunic is not very objective:

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/11/very-objective-tom.html

    Sunic is from Croatia and insecure. It’s insecure types from marginal areas that tend to be holier than thou like this.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 21st, 2015 at 4:47 am Reply | Quote
  • Mai La Dreapta Says:

    Who’s “we”, kemosabe?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Roughly, these folks.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 21st, 2015 at 5:02 am Reply | Quote
  • ::faceplant:: Says:

    Ah, social naïveté! The doorstep of senseless oppression and underdevelopment.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 21st, 2015 at 7:25 am Reply | Quote
  • Sentences (#31) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on November 21st, 2015 at 7:37 am Reply | Quote
  • s(R) Says:

    I suspect, though I may be wrong, that the essential difference between admin’s thought and this sort of dyke-plugging reaction is that admin believes that competition opens up a goal beyond mere survival (nb that, while Western Europeans are learning to value survival, they have yet to get round to the other half of the Darwinian equation that produces competition – or, more accurately, their memes and capital have hijacked, viruslike, their capacity to grow and reproduce European intelligence. An IQ shredder on a grand scale). While the New Right’s instinct for civilizational survival is praiseworthy, it sees all change as a threat, including creative destruction. And so les nouveaux réactionnaires stay ‘new reactionaries’ rather than neoreactionaries.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Creative Destruction is simply destruction of our economies to the benefit of social democracy and cannibal capitalist hedge funds. Nothing was created but Detroit, rubble, crime, prisons, welfare and insanely predatory hedge fund portfolios built on notional schemes of wealth.

    Creative Destruction was always a scam. Works worse than Keynes in practice.

    They do harm because they mean harm.

    They mean harm. That tactics and methods differ matters not, the results matter.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    So bailing out the big banks was the right thing to do? Creative destruction is THE reason for allowing those banks to collapse.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    I was actually talking about manufacturing. You may be too young to remember manufacturing.
    Don’t feel bad. Someday young people may shake their heads at you when you discuss that man once flew through the air in machines called airplanes.

    Walmart for instance isn’t a manufacturer believe it or not, neither is Amazon. Or Paypal. Or Facebook.

    Once there was more to the economy than Finance and Government and social media, we actually made things. Besides empty McMansions I mean.

    Like these computers for instance. Or cars. Or Clothes.

    As far as Banks — Finance Capitalizes nothing these days.

    There was once more to the economy as well besides deciding who gets a Bailout and who doesn’t.
    The actual healthy answer was not to destroy vast sectors of the economy in the first place.

    Not even the USSR wiped out manufacturing and farming, not even banking. They simply damaged them to very harmful to all levels and killed a lot of people doing it but the USSR’s economic plans unlike the United States post 1965 weren’t nihilistic and purely destructive.

    Not only is creative destruction simply Nihilism meets the Morgenthau plan and Free Trade takes care of the survivors it was also a very profitable Finance scam. Government won too as it increased dependency and their own person Donor related coffers.

    So no we shouldn’t have bailed out the banks but we shouldn’t have allowed the government and Finance to cannibalize and destroy our economy in the first place.

    Now we should defenestrate them all. All of them. The Bailout starts with opening the window and then we push. Let it be called Creative Defenestration.

    michael Reply:

    while agreeing that its prudent when absolutely necessary in conflicts between capitalism and civilization to chose civilization,I cant help thinking if our entire elite superstructure, academia ,press etc were not full time running dogs for the multicultural marxist project they would easily handle the excesses of capitalism with out need for actual market legal constraints.The soft cost of multiculturalism is staggering.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    michael,

    Finance isn’t Capitalist. It’s hardcore Leftist Radicals.

    Then again so is most of NRxn if they’d admit it. Or they came from there and bring the same radical character and just become hardcore genocidal capitalists instead of communists. First they wanted to kill as many of mankind as it took to save it and now they want to simply purify humanity of low IQs [and hard fists].

    Finance didn’t just pay for Democratic Socialism all these years they’ve also been paying for Communism from the birth of the USSR until now. Some of that of course being ethnic ties.
    Who by name the worst Red Butchers were in particular in the Ukraine however raises some uncomfortable questions so we’ll be moving right along.

    Posted on November 21st, 2015 at 8:33 am Reply | Quote
  • OLF Says:

    Economic prosperity won’t make people happy, but poverty makes people unhappy. Those who say that politics>economics ignore the fact that economic prosperity is necessary (precondition) for stability, and, for everything else too.
    If one listens to the WNs, one ought to think that Eastern Bloc countries during the Cold War were paradise on Earth – 100% white, capitalism smashed, arbeiter taken care of, etc. On the other hand they fail to notice that their precious organic community can only grow as a consequence of spontaneous order, and thus, fail to see that far from being their worse enemy, catallaxy is in fact their only friend.

    [Reply]

    Wade McKenzie Reply:

    “If one listens to the WNs, one ought to think that Eastern Bloc countries during the Cold War were paradise on Earth – 100% white, capitalism smashed, arbeiter taken care of, etc.”

    As a white nationalist myself, I’m actually open to the idea that it was as you say (setting aside, of course, the rhetoric of “paradise on Earth”)–the Eastern bloc countries were at least in a position to be wholesome places to live, for all the reasons you supply (and contra the capitalist, degenerate West). There was only one problem: they were under foreign occupation by a malign superpower, and surely that was a big handicap toward a meaningful, flourishing national life. Now they’re under the malign sway of another superpower–international capitalist degeneracy–and that’s another handicap.

    You say ” that economic prosperity is necessary (precondition) for stability, and, for everything else too.” But the Eastern bloc countries during the Cold War were very prosperous by any reasonable historical standard–just not as prosperous as the degenerate West. So, unfortunately, I don’t think you’re in fact proposing economic prosperity as a “precondition” (that is, as the foundation of a separate end, goal, telos) but rather economic prosperity as the goal in itself–whether you realize it or not. In any case, since economic prosperity (contra Hurlock) is a relativity, it can’t serve as a standard, let alone a “precondition”, for anything. That’s the problem with the Western, Anglo-Saxon fetish for economics. It has as a goal, a standard, that which–aside from a comparison that can be conducted infinitely–is intrinsically meaningless.

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    As a white nationalist myself, I’m actually open to the idea that it was as you say […]

    Ah finally, an honest WN. I’m glad when you guys so openly admit that you’re old-school Stalinists. It saves us all some precious time and proves my point that most of Alt-Right is actually Alt-Left.

    […]But the Eastern bloc countries during the Cold War were very prosperous by any reasonable historical standard […]
    …and utterly miserable! It’s exactly the relative prosperity that we’re talking about, not the absolute prosperity. We are talking about the prosperity that is the consequence of liberty, i.e. prosperity controlling for the level of technological advancement (which BTW Commie countries had none of, all the tech they had was just leeching off the West, enjoying the fruits of hard labor of oh-so-evil degenerate capitalists, but industrial espionage takes you only so far, I guess). And controlling for tech, Eastern Bloc was poorer than eh, well, just about almost anything anytime anywhere. And even without controlling for tech, looking at absolute levels of prosperity there are some countries that are poorer today than some in the middle of the Middle Ages, hooray socialism!

    [Reply]

    Wade McKenzie Reply:

    You completely disregarded my point about the Eastern bloc countries being under the occupation of a malign superpower. That will tend to make anyone miserable, regardless of economic or political philosophy.

    Obviously, guys like you and me disagree about what the nature of “the left” is. It seems that you and your lot have a conception of the left that accords with the American political perspective, where “the right” is capitalism, the “free enterprise” system. According to my lot, the left is more or less classical liberalism–contemporary liberalism just being an extension and variation thereof–and the right is more or less illiberalism as such. Thus there is, I believe, a certain affinity between rightism and Stalinism, so long as we disregard Stalinism’s internationalist comportment. But what is more “internationalist” than capitalism? To that extent, Soviet communism and Anglo-Saxon capitalism are similar.

    When people say “cultural Marxism” what they really mean is “cultural capitalism”. And NRx a la Moldbug just wants to intensify the phenomenon.

    Hurlock Reply:

    As someone hailing from an ex-Eastern Bloc state, trust me, it wasn’t just the influence of a foreign superpower. If that influence was gone, but everything else remained the same, e.g. the communism and etc., it would be just as bad as it was. And if you come to my country and tell a right-winger that there is even a possible affinity between rightism and Stalinism, he will probably shoot you. And he would be right to do so.

    Also, you white nationalists seem to have a pretty naive view of international politics, if you believe that it is possible for any one state to be genuinely independent of the influence of all the superpowers.

    [Reply]

    Wade McKenzie Reply:

    Obviously, my comment was somewhat flippant. If I might be permitted to respond to your criticisms:

    You and others cite the wretchedness of the populace in Eastern bloc countries as a mark against those regimes. I’m not convinced, however, that–from a political theoretical standpoint–the happiness of the citizenry ought to be the standard in evaluating a regime. In fact, I’ve long been given to understand that so-called “neoreaction” wasn’t particularly concerned about the happiness of the proletariat. So the alleged unhappiness of Warsaw Pact countries is, in my opinion, a red herring when it comes to analyzing their quality (or lack thereof).

    Mind you, I am myself not indifferent to the condition of the (white) proletariat–but I don’t think its “happiness” ought to be our guideline when thinking about what the best regime might be. Now one can’t allege the wretchedness and misery of the Eastern bloc masses without comparing them to an ostensibly happier mass elsewhere–and presumably that comparison is conducted with western Europe and North America in mind. Assessing the “happiness” of the “Western bloc” is no doubt a bit of a wild goose chase–but since you cited your own experience as hailing from an Eastern bloc country as authoritative, allow me to return the favor. I’m an American–not an émigré–a lifelong, true-blue American. I can’t say that life in America is particularly happy. Of course, much depends on how we evaluate “happiness”–our concept of happiness, so to speak–but the American ideal of happiness through material prosperity strikes me (on the basis of lived experience) as hollow, foolish and pernicious.

    In a comment below, External describes Eastern bloc regimes as characterized by “all-pervading propaganda and economical wastefulness on a grand scale [and] learned hopelessness among citizenry”. Sounds like an apt description of the contemporary United States to me. In fact, I’d always been led to believe that “neoreaction” a la Yarvin more or less upheld the Heideggerian equivalence between the Soviet Union and the United States as quasi-messianic regimes consecrated to low and ignoble ends. (That the end of Yarvin’s own proposed regime is even more base, I’ll leave aside for now.) So, as far as I’m concerned, the critique of Eastern bloc countries that has been proposed in this exchange fails, since it has little or no basis of comparison and/or contrast in the present aside from marginal, ideal or speculative regimes. I’m perfectly willing to critique the Eastern bloc regimes on the basis of a contrast with an ideal regime, but none has been proposed in this conversation and I’m afraid that Yarvin’s regime simply will not do.

    I’ve a sneaking suspicion that residents in the Eastern bloc–from the GDR to the USSR–didn’t have to kowtow to niggers, and that is almost enough to make those regimes infinitely attractive to me. Now, for that and many other reasons I probably deserve to be shot, but not for asserting an affinity between Stalinism and rightism–in the decisive respect, that is (what I count the decisive respect). It’s an awfully complex discussion, too complex for my little comment, but there is a disagreement in these precincts as to what constitutes “rightism”. Many seem to think that being “pro-capitalist” is the cynosure of rightism. I tend to think that being illiberal–that is, entertaining the use of force in the maintenance of political order–is closer to being the plumb line of rightism. Again, I acknowledge the oversimplification of the distinction–but if I’m at all right about that, with “Stalinism” being a byword for the use of force to maintain order, then there is indeed an affinity between Stalinism and rightism. It goes without saying that that affinity has nothing whatever to do with the ideological content of Stalinism.

    Finally–of course I don’t think that it is possible for the “little fish” states to remain free of the influence and control of the “big fish” states. But–keeping in mind all that I’ve said above about the questionable value of “happiness” in a political context–I do maintain that it isn’t possible for a country to be happy under foreign occupation.

    Exfernal Reply:

    As a former resident of Eastern Bloc, I would gladly swap places. You forgot to mention other necessary components of enforced stability – all-pervading propaganda and economical wastefulness on a grand scale. Learned hopelessness among citizenry might be of use to the ruling elite, but that costs more in the long run than it’s worth.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    Didnt MM hold up the 1950s [a less prosperous era] as the apex of american achievement? Did Marcus Aurelius point out that the rich are not necessarily happier? And where on earth did you get this nostrum that prosperity is a precondition for stability? Kind of absurd so absurd its not worth spelling out.

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    And where on earth did you get this nostrum that prosperity is a precondition for stability? Kind of absurd so absurd its not worth spelling out.
    I am talking about relative prosperity, not absolute prosperity. Absurd?! Absurd?!?!! Obviously enough (to some, I guess), if the masses are suffering a massive famine, it won’t make for a very stable country.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    in Madagaskar a lot of suffering and famine is not rare, but Malagasi woman give birth in average to 6 kids.

    happy humans with no shartage in anything I have seen only in those Matrix movie, swinging in capsules.

    Hurlock Reply:

    @SVErshov

    What does fertility have to do with stability?

    Would you like to live in Madagascar? I very much doubt it.

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    I’m not really into this Intra-Leftist argument.

    However the point about Anglo-Saxon economics being teleology of endless experiment for it’s own sake is interesting.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 21st, 2015 at 9:53 am Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    @Mark

    Yes they’re always extremely right wing. The West in the eyes of everyone East of the Elbe exists as a childhood sandbox do over/Mulligan for wrongs done their own group in the past.

    There’s unfortunately a well paved path for this going back over a century.

    Frankly I’m tired of people using Public Life and the West’s Liberties of speech and politics as psychological therapy. We have our own ways, our own history and our own problems…kindly screw off.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 21st, 2015 at 12:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • bob sykes Says:

    Actually, Bennett is correct. The Anglo-sphere is different. It has to do with marriage patterns going back to the Middle Ages. Go over to hbd chick. Her post is largely devoted to this issue and closely related issues:

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/

    Read the archives.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 21st, 2015 at 1:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wade McKenzie Says:

    The original post failed to supply the sentence which succeeds the one cited. It runs as follows:

    “The excessive individualism of Anglo-Saxon society and a unique political theology of ‘secularised’ Protestantism resulted over a period of time in the subordination of traditional politics to unbridled economic expansion.”

    What’s interesting is that Sunic shares the Moldbuggian, neoreactionary emphasis on the crisis of the West originating in a “political theology of ‘secularised’ Protestantism”–but he views that political theology in terms that damn both contemporary left-liberalism and Moldbuggian NRx.

    Both left-liberalism and Moldbuggian NRx seek to repress politics in favor of economics–the former with some mitigation of economic hardship, the latter without. The problem with Moldbuggian NRx is that it is really just an intensification of modern liberalism–classical liberalism to the max, so to speak. But what is eternally needful, and will not be denied, is politics–sovereign politics on the part of peoples, politics centering on the decision to go to war against enemies foreign or domestic–not raising property values, the pitiful Moldbuggian sociopolitical endeavor. God save us from the “real estate republic” a la Moldbug!

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    its that they are enamored of the evolutionary like process of “capitalism” conflating the two, seemingly not noticing that a process that produces the most efficient delivery of pornography,high fructose corn syrup,and ready made opinions might be at cross purposes with the system that developed more slowly the organism that consumes them.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    That’s a Classic Mike.

    Adam Smith just noticed what was happening. It wasn’t a plan or ideology [that term didn’t exist yet for decades and was coined as pejorative by Napoleon].

    I guess Capitalism went wrong when official theoreticians were granted Admin Root passwords to power.

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    “politics centering on the decision to go to war against enemies foreign or domestic”

    War is a negative sum multi-player game, where who joins last, wins. But don’t let that stop you. I’m sure that another purge is just the cure for every public ailment that there is.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 21st, 2015 at 6:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • pyrrhus Says:

    It has become clear that the chattering classes want all of the benefits of 1st world nationhood and sovereignty, without the actual nations. This paradox will soon be resolved against them with extreme prejudice.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 21st, 2015 at 7:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wade McKenzie Says:

    There’s no greater champion of “gay rights” than Moldbug. There’s no greater champion of drugs than Moldbug. After all, societies that aren’t “gay friendly”, societies where recreational drugs aren’t legal, might see a decline in their property values. And we can’t have that in Moldbug-World, where maximizing real estate values is the be-all and end-all.

    People think of this as “right-wing” and actually imagine that a republic dedicated to real estate is a desirable state of affairs? What a joke.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Which raises the question of how much of UR and Moldbug is an actual Troll on Western Civ and America in particular?

    [Reply]

    Yvjrolu Reply:

    If the people with power want gay marriage, it’s going to happen. Ancap and Moldbugism don’t really incentivize people to like gay marriage from what I can tell, but they are compatible theoretically I guess. I think it’s pretty weird that you think people would want to live in the country with the most drug abuse, though.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 21st, 2015 at 7:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Here’s some good White People news. The NYT has noticed that those on govt Draw [welfare] don’t vote.

    The Whites that are still working vote against the programs.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/opinion/sunday/who-turned-my-blue-state-red.html?ref=opinion

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 21st, 2015 at 9:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bob Says:

    The “organic community” of New Right discourse is similar to the terms “people’s republic” or “democratic socialism” in communist discourse and nomenclature. It suggests a kind of bottom up organization but really signifies a top down, State/Church directed group guided by mass media technologies, from Sunday “mass” to modern mass communications technology. Anglo-Saxon peoples may have an organic tendency to commune Congregationally, but such Congregations can never be organic communities. The organic community, like the people’s republic or proletariat, is that which the State/Church defines and in whose name it rules.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 22nd, 2015 at 12:38 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    @Hurlock

    stability is in recilence, when society is able to adapt to changing environment (economical, political) as responce to negative and positive feedback loops. fertility have a lot to do with stability, because level of population depend on birth rate (positive loop) and death rate (negative loop). western countries have no shortage, but their polulation declining.

    many people whom I know do lot of business with Madagaskar and I live very near by too.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 22nd, 2015 at 11:59 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Anglo-Saxon peoples fail to perceive the importance of organic community and the primacy of political over economic factors.

    As someone afflicted with quite a few New Right beliefs, I think he’s accurate about organic community.

    The term “political” may be misleading here. Much of the New Right owes a debt to the Left, as does National Socialism before it. In that usage, “political” means concerned with leadership rather than flattery of the herd.

    The missing link is that economic factors — free competition — require some sense of cultural guidance so that people value better over mediocre. We see the negative consequences of that lack in American industry, which will happily produce Budweiser instead of Sam Smith’s.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 22nd, 2015 at 9:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    More on this, from a recent speech by John Morgan (Arktos):

    “What Arktos is trying to do could perhaps be summarized as trying to find alternatives to modernity – which basically means alternatives to the current liberal order based on individualism and materialism and the dominance of the state over every aspect of the lives of its people, and which runs contrary to anything traditional or communitarian, that has spread everywhere across the world. This can take many forms.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 22nd, 2015 at 11:34 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment