Sentences (#91)

Broken on Twitter, but containing far too much insight into traumatic discrimination disorder to leave there:

NRx and Alt Right share just about one thing in common, but because that thing is “hating the media” the media naturally can’t tell them apart.

(Sentence unchanged, but glued back together, with one semiotic shortcut — “bc” for “because” — edited up into English)

For historical reference, this was the occasion.

February 11, 2017admin 51 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Media

TAGGED WITH : , , , , ,

51 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    The media knows only a binary: safe/non-safe, which in this time, translates to Left/non-Left.

    This is where the Left is dangerous: the Right may kill you for attacking them, but they tend to leave you alone if you are merely a nonconformist. The Left attempts to destroy anyone who fails to agree with them.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Why don’t you ever challenge Land, Brett, you freakin quarter-pounder with cheese? You’re one of the only ones in a position to and you always let the old toad slide.

    [Reply]

    Cryptogenic Reply:

    Hey.

    Hey!

    Hey!!

    This is comment section!

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Hey! Cryptoasskiss! This is wrong side of history!

    anon Reply:

    Whatever we think of Land’s ideas of AI destroying life (including, you, your children, their grandma and all your friends), that isn’t going to happen for quite some time ; we have to like his concept Patchwork, as it allows for different kinds of communities, like really different kinds—like not being taxed to pay for niggers replacing your nations— as the Globalist Davos Man <b<Cathedral will have been disintegrated, which is his main driver for quite some time.

    AI will not disconnect tradition, it will connect it better.

    roots are taproots with a more multiple, lateral, and circular system of ramification.

    tradition is/has multiple entry and exit points in representation.

    this is a non-zero-sum game

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    ” Yarvin’s ideas, along with those of the English philosopher Nick Land, have provided a structure of political theory for parts of the white-nationalist movement calling itself the alt-right”

    I dont think so Brett, I have said over and over for years NRx might as well own white nationalism because the HBD nuance is lost on the left. And rightly so.Scientific racism is pretty fucking accurate.Many dont want to face this. It may matter to NRx that its not emotional, not irrational hate, just business. But its all the same to the genetic losers and to the left. “Oh but we want to explain to them in the long run more niggers are saved through our HBD.” – Youre just another cuckserve trying to reason with the left, they dont do reason they do genocide.And as for Lands multicultural cogelite utopia well he might just as well move to Davos because that exactly their plan except it doesnt work, it doesnt work because smart niggers have stupid murderous families, and multicultural societies tend toward racial conflict. and because after more than a 5% minority it becomes rather unpleasant.We dont have to like the fact we are locked in a death struggle with the other races, but we better recognize it. This doesnt have to look like nazism it could look like common sense where you enjoy diversity when you travel.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    “Scientific racism is pretty fucking accurate.” Ahahaha I imagine one of the beneath-contempt journos that’s going to be dressed as a clown and twisting balloons into animal shapes before 2017 is over reading that and exclaiming “Sickening!” with a lisp.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 11th, 2017 at 3:18 am Reply | Quote
  • froth_city Says:

    my facebook feed has become such a drag now that everyone is trying to hysterically weigh in on NRx and DE

    [Reply]

    Seth Largo Reply:

    Yeah, it’s been fun to see this little corner of the internet—that I’ve happily dabbled in since 2012—be thrust into the limelight all of a sudden. 15 minutes and all that.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 11th, 2017 at 3:29 am Reply | Quote
  • Daniel Chieh Says:

    The author is correct. There’s no real point to try to explain a logical philosophy to people who are too ideologically blind to understand it.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [Daniel Chieh] “The author is correct. There’s no real point to try to explain a logical philosophy to people who are too ideologically blind to understand it.”

    {AK}: ‘Logics’ can be constructed for anything at all, that doesn’t really prove anything except its possibility.

    “A proof is true only to itself, and it implies nothing except the existence of proofs, which prove nothing.” (“MINDSWAP”, ROBERT SHECKLEY; PAN BOOKS LTD; LONDON AND SYDNEY; © Robert Sheckley 1966)

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Then you cant object when we incinerate you?

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [collen ryan] “Then you cant object when we incinerate you?”

    {AK}: I was addressing Daniel Chieh, not you, due to your consistent inability to think coherently.

    For instance, your arguments, which draw on criteria of alleged supremacy, are undermined in a number of areas:

    1) As you have demonstrated, on other posts, you’re incapable of discerning simple logical form.

    2) Because of 1), you’re incapable of discerning the logic of arguments, in general.

    3) Your abilities of actual comprehension, are virtually nonexistent. Instead, as Daniel Chieh points out, you are “too ideologically blind to understand” anything outside of your dogmatism.

    These three points only demonstrate your inferiority, not the supremacy you allege. Therefore, to insist on a supremacist argument, would entail your own sacrifice to the flames.

    Given these points, it suddenly becomes very clear as to why an ideology of ethnic difference holds such an appeal for those like yourself. Quite simply, it’s an enthused compensation designed to cover up your personal inferiority.
    Burning books and people is usually the desire of the intellectually inferior, those not secure with their own attainments. Those, and I think I’ve said this before to you, whose ambitions exceed their abilities. Instead of developing said abilities, they resort to incessant inflation of mixed up rhetorics, not really saying much at all, except for declarations of their own, obvious character defects.

    I said that “‘Logics’ can be constructed for anything at all”. That doesn’t mean one can’t choose between them. It doesn’t mean they’re all of equal utility for every purpose. It doesn’t mean, either, that there aren’t logics of assertion and objection.
    You’re already burning up in your own resentments, I guess that’s the reason why you’re so desperately reductive in your thought and ideas.

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    For me, I think the Jordan Peterson model is pretty useful. What’s logical is what has good survival value – and the current liberal ideology is incoherent. Infinity welfare benefits times infinity population(due to immigration) is asking for a resource base that isn’t here.

    This doesn’t even need HBD or anything else; liberals generally seem to advocate a model that is internally inconsistent. There’s only been one way I’ve seen it to be logically coherent, and that is to assume that all games are cooperative, and technological optimism will overcome any problems of scarcity. I dispute those premises – but I think its likely that said journalist doesn’t even grasp that. She just practices goodthink, and is horrified that anyone would question Democracy.

    I mean, yes, logic can be based on premises which are ultimately, changeable. But not everything has the same predictive value – like I can argue logically that evil eyes exist and therefore magic accounts for the illness of the wealthy. But if its predictive value becomes poor, if the wealthy die of illness at a rate lower than that of the poor, then that premise becomes more species and the logic built from it is of less value.

    [Reply]

    Seth Largo Reply:

    Spandrell’s counter-argument has been that total equality + “infinity welfare benefits” sounds really really great to a non-trivial number of people, so even if leftism ultimately runs into resource problems, it nevertheless has good survival value from a purely memetic perspective. Who doesn’t want to believe they’re equal to everyone else and deserving of checks from the state? Sounds good to me. I’m in!

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    companies like Nike have direct Thirdworldist ties.

    Benetton, etc. Many of these companies.

    Are Cathedral funders-propagators

    they run ad campaigns promoting brunefication : the valorisation and reification of having darker skin ; etiologising accepting vibrant africans into society with your children and as husbands (or would-be fathers) to your daughters

    And you buy their products? Valorise their “coolness”? Don’t be so cheap

    » German police: It’s an Arab rape game called Taharrush, and now it has come to Europe »

    http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.2374/german-police-it-s-an-arab-rape-game-called-taharrush-and-now-it-has-come-to-europe.html

    It’s in Sweden too. There was an interview with a girl at Stockholm’s largest mall, she wanted to quit her job because of daily sexual harassment from brown kids.

    “Capitalism” is so cool ; not really though unless your mall security is let maintain order in the street and mall. Either its capitalism or cathedralism ; a healthy dualism has to be maintained

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    https://twitter.com/StealBeams/status/830532169449820160

    Biology and behavior are two faces of the same process. It’s man’s ultimate taboo

    collen ryan Reply:

    Daniel Chieh Reply:
    February 12th, 2017 at 8:31 pm

    However, HBD concepts….. POSTULATES? its a bit more than a postulate but whatever.

    And however I would agree that HBD, and I think HBD chick speaks a lot about just this,does support that euroman, or at least h
    Hajinal man is predisposed to openess. And its served him well. Its allowed him higher trust societies then more capable of complex economies, assimilation of new information, and faster adaptivity. Since until recently that openess was mainly toward other euromen those benefits accrued to euromen and some camp followers at the margins. I dont think because jets, thats become a dysgenic trait, although admittedly a case could be made as such. I think its been purposely distorted and temporarily set us back, I think the stronger trait of self preservation will prevail.The only ones infected with this social interpretation are about a third of the Hajnals who need the nigger races to add to their votes, and a lot of clever jew manipulation, to have gotten their way thus far. The rest of the Hajnals have always been opposed to this and all of the non Hajinals have never fallen for it.If I were a non white living in the west or for that matter a white living in the east like admin I would be packing my bags the partys over, winter is coming.
    Sure admin is welcome to his experiment with cathedralism meets robber barronism meets alien, I just think he shouldnt call it reaction,Reaction is about peoples nations civilizations.And he shouldnt be coy about it,hes putting one over on a lot of people who have heard hes the co founder or something of reaction, as if. and he should if he going to get on a soapbox expect some critiquing.

    His little Elysium sea stead simply is a fools errand and Romes burning and i want all good men to come to the aid of the country .Its an argument Ive had with him for years mostly one sided lately since ive taken a likeing to the word nigger, just love the sound of it and think things should be called by their proper names. I digress.

    But I say if you get into this cogelitist arms race pretty soon youre in a nation of one, Now lately hes said yeah sounds good Ill turn out the lights on humanity on my way out. – like i said it just silliness hes smarter than that and we havnt the time for his little vanities. Which is pretty much my problem with this monarchy crap its a waste of time on somethings not going to happen. because as you just brought up euro man has a genetic predisposition to democracy or at least a semblance of it.We seem to be ok with a strongman in hard times and we dont mind democracy being a sort of sham for as long as things get done, but white men are not into bowing, no offence i know you and art are from bowing races, and Im sure it has its advantages just not our cup of tea.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [Daniel Chieh] “For me, I think the Jordan Peterson model is pretty useful. What’s logical is what has good survival value – and the current liberal ideology is incoherent. Infinity welfare benefits times infinity population(due to immigration) is asking for a resource base that isn’t here.

    {AK}: I don’t know what the Jordan Peterson model is, but regarding your question, which frames ‘logical being’ according to survivalist expediency, such a pragmatic conception has to do not so much with Logic, as a discipline or subject, but rather, with areas of application, its use value(s).

    This still leaves open, the question of survival; the survival of what exactly is being sought? The individual; family; ethnicity; species; culture; society; nation; tradition; etc.? Conceptions of any one of these, of course, often involve references to the others, the complicity of their respective and constitutive logics reflecting these relations. Where there are conceptions, there are usually conventions and cultures, each of these having their ‘logics’. The conventions of the sociocultural, as they pertain to the political, as in this blogpost, are largely specific to the category of the ‘human’, constituting a particular and delimited primatological scenario forming the horizon and anthropic tendency of the debates therein. This should not be forgotten, as any exclusivising tendency of it, be that tendency inflationary or deflationary; as is the wont of political doxic exaggeration in the USA, for instance; constitutes a significant theoretical limitation, the fixation of which usually proves to be a barrier to any truly beneficial and expedient strategies.

    The oscillation between ecologising and instrumentalising sentiments, for instance, usually devolves to the clash of superficial clichés, having very little to do with the complex and irreducible factors often at play. Complexity, its problems and solutions, are not conducive to the hyped polarisations, simplicities, and tiresome contrarianism of what are essentially the entertainments of ‘consumer politics’.
    Yet large technological societies are necessarily complex and prone to many specialisations. The logics of such complexity are difficult to coordinate and often not amenable to easy explanations comprehensible on a consumer political surface. This difficulty creates epistemological discrepancy between specialisations and public presentations. It is here, along the line of this discrepant distance, that the businesses of interpretation, with all their ‘consultancies’ and ‘think tanks’, intercede. It is here, too, that misrepresentation and bias often occur.
    The incoherency that you attribute to liberal ideology is the unavoidable result of a prior history of European ethnic, religious, national, and commercial, rivalries and conflicts. The emergence of Modernity was not some smooth and orderly linear progression. It was messy, destructive, and often disastrous. This time, that emergence occurred mainly through merchant culture and the logic of capitalism. Hence, the contemporary hegemony of market forces and high finance. The development of sociopolitical ideologies reflects that hegemony. Variations in the sociopolitical field reflect the balance of whatever forces are at play. Those forces are complex and not fully known, therefore not susceptible to political representation, or even misrepresentation. So, in principle, full coherency is unachievable. It’s imagined achievement, would only be instrumentalised, probably according to partisan or present bias, leading to effects of reflexivity, and loss of coherence. The Newtonian imagination of a commonsense mechanic, and the public expectation of explanations according to such an imagination, are fictional simplifications that don’t always obtain.

    Your statement: “Infinity welfare benefits times infinity population(due to immigration) is asking for a resource base that isn’t here.”

    “Infinity welfare benefits” and “infinity population(due to immigration)”, aren’t here, either.
    When nations are exploited and/or destabilised, overpopulation is often a result. Europe is responsible for the majority of exploitations and destabilisations, over the last 300 years.

    “And note well — Europe has always been the most densely populated area of the Earth; far more so than Latin America or Asia. Latin America, in fact, is almost under- populated compared to Europe.” Pournelle, Jerry (2011-04-22). A Step Farther Out (Kindle Locations 891-893). Jerry Pournelle. Kindle Edition.

    Europeans were the ones that ‘feralised’; they were the volk that spread beyond their heimat.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [Daniel Chieh] “This doesn’t even need HBD or anything else; liberals generally seem to advocate a model that is internally inconsistent. There’s only been one way I’ve seen it to be logically coherent, and that is to assume that all games are cooperative, and technological optimism will overcome any problems of scarcity. I dispute those premises – but I think its likely that said journalist doesn’t even grasp that. She just practices goodthink, and is horrified that anyone would question Democracy.”

    {AK}: The inconsistency is that capitalism inherently relies on competition to supposedly generate increased wealth for all by means of an increased productivity that competition is alleged to generate. Competition, or competitiveness, is the great motivator and magical organiser of wealth-directed activity. The irony is that cooperative, team-distributed competition is actually the magic motor of wealth production. When criteria of team membership and cooperation are not geographically localised, they are no longer mere reflections of geographically proximate community. Instead, they mirror the distributed requirements of the competing enterprise.
    Whilst it cannot be claimed that Europe inaugurated international trade, it would be no exaggeration to say Europe definitely radicalised that trade, inflating its importance to the extent that the fortunes of almost all nations became contingent on that global market. It could almost be said, that Britain, Holland, France, and to a lesser extent, Spain and Portugal; alone; transitioned the globe from being a collection of mercantilist and sovereign powers, to being a world of market-dependent nations.
    The irony is that the mechanism of market-distributed relations used to enrich those nations, and to impoverish other nations, is precisely the mechanism those enriched nations are having difficulty with now. This mechanism of market-distributed relations; loosed from its geographical moorings; and solely under the guidance of its own conceptions of profitability: is inherently destructive of any obstacle to its guiding logic.
    Iff “the “imperialism” of the maritime powers [Britain, Holland, France] was a debased mercantilism, characterized by an unscrupulous use of military power to promote ultimate commercial ends”, as opposed to “the uncorrupted mercantilism of Prussia and of the non-maritime countries in general”; this ‘debased mercantilism’, subsequently known as ‘Capitalism’, inaugurates the virtualisation of global economy, the mechanism of market-distributed relations, and their disappearance into the dominance of the ‘financial cloud’.
    Pure mercantilist economies, that are contingent on ideas; whether of absolute monarchy, ethnicity, national ideology, religious affiliation, and even the idols of political ideology, can only function to the extent that they do not obstruct the profitability and market-distributed relations of the ‘debased mercantilism’ of capitalism. The question then, is, are there any pure mercantilist economies left? There are a few; some oil states, and Cuba perhaps, etc..
    Capitalism, is by its very nature, expansionist. Expansionism, is by its very nature, ‘exogamous’, as it were, in its search for profit and market advantage. Such expansionism, necessarily and naturally entails international integration and internationalist distributions of teamwork.
    Whatever the merits or demerits of state-administered ‘multiculturalism’, there is no escaping the fact that capitalism is inherently multinational and multicultural. Business transactions, are contractual cooperations, entered into for reasons of mutual benefit. They exemplify a commercial optimism, in the service of an ideology of plenty. That’s, really, all that ‘liberal ideology’ is, an enabling condition for the widest and most inclusive, possible capitalist expansion.
    What goes under the name of ‘multiculturalism’, is just the default all-inclusiveness at the root of a social contract mirroring the requirements of this capitalist expansion. The cosmopolitanism of world citizenship, previously enjoyed only by the wealthy, is the model of consumption conveyed, in which all the world’s goods are available to all. That’s the ‘goodthink’ PR.

    The question is, to what extent; and in what situations; ‘badthink’ has been more profitable, and who chooses to invest in that, and why?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [Daniel Chieh] “I mean, yes, logic can be based on premises which are ultimately, changeable. But not everything has the same predictive value – like I can argue logically that evil eyes exist and therefore magic accounts for the illness of the wealthy. But if its predictive value becomes poor, if the wealthy die of illness at a rate lower than that of the poor, then that premise becomes more species and the logic built from it is of less value.”

    {AK}: Logic can be very effective, but very dangerous over an inadequate knowledge base that is restrictive. Prediction, I would suggest, requires adequate knowledge. Hasty and prima facie judgments of ‘common sense’, are not always forms of adequate knowledge.

    collen ryan Reply:

    Im not at all a white supremacist, an optimist and loyalist would be closer to what I think.So while I understand EAST Asians [not wogs] have a slightly higher average IQ, and AZK Jews even higher, Im not worries about competing with them if we can free ourselves of the white mans burden {gungadin}.Because Unlike you and land I dont think IQ is everything as hugely important as it is.On the other end browns are shown to be not evolved for the environment whites built and become a burden and a danger when allowed to live in white nations, a burden we can ill afford while competing with east asians and jews.There are also dozens of reasons why allowing browns entry to white nations is not helping them for those who are concerned with them. I would actually count myself among those who are concerned with all mens interests to some extent in descending order from my children to the lowest of the human species.The fact that there are outliers in all races does not obviate the fact that multiculturalism is an absolute failure and particularly fatal to my race.What you and land seem to want is exactly what we have been attempting for the past couple hundred years, all models from colonialism to slavery, jim crow/ apartheid, and civil rights are abject failures.What your perceive [as an entryist coming into this blog years after the fact] as my lowbrow nazism is in fact my insistence that Land return to the foundation of reaction , HBD and desist from experimenting some new form of multiculturalism he imagines will be different this time because he will have a crypto lock on the sewers something something.The better question is what are you doing here “an ideology of ethnic difference” is the foundation of reaction, it is what leads to a rejection of multicultural democracy.GNON -evolution thats what we are about. You seem to think that Land like taking this to the extreme of intra race elitism and extra race futurism is an entre for niggerization; its the opposite. I am simple arguing the idea of cogelites sustaining a nation of nerds alone is not going to work for a lot of reasons, that there a cultification of moldbug that blinds a certain type of emasculated man to a revenge of the nerds fantasy, fooling otherwise sensible people into actually thinking they are going to reorder the world as Stalin thought.
    You are obviously suffering from an inferiority complex. Obviously we only make fun of your wogishness because your such a libtard and it bugs you sure yours is a huge population of stratified genetics that has and will continue to produce some fine minds, Its immaterial because you are not my people you are a competitor to my people, we both owe allegiance to our own people go home and make your people better whites can no longer afford to share. Its business.
    You imagine some high IQ others who have good social skills can simply integrate into this USA multiculti patch and I tell you it cant be done its not working and your response is its working your a mean racist.

    [Reply]

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    However, HBD concepts would potentially undermine your arguments. If society is the collective sum of personalities, and these personalities are partly or largely hereditary as John Derbyshire postulates, then:

    1) European Caucasian societies appear to be the greatest advocates of multiculturalism

    2) Such societies, then, are biologically premised to greater openness

    3) If such openness is a weakness, then such societies are biologically premised to such weaknesses.

    I would never discourage anyone from optimism, however, insofar as attempting to be rational, I think it is more useful and of more predictive value to try to isolate factors that we can quantitatively measure and then see if they are descriptive of present day outcomes, and further, predictive of future outcomes.

    Beyond that, though, I’m not sure why any form of experimentation should be discouraged so as long as it does not try to impose itself as an ideology over all others. I believe that our kind host is merely exploring various alternatives and thought experiments, which is well within the expectations of any form of political science.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [collen ryan] “Im not at all a white supremacist, an optimist and loyalist would be closer to what I think.

    So while I understand EAST Asians [not wogs] have a slightly higher average IQ, and AZK Jews even higher, Im not worries about competing with them if we can free ourselves of the white mans burden {gungadin}.

    Because Unlike you and land I dont think IQ is everything as hugely important as it is.”

    {AK}: I never mentioned I.Q., I just said you were inferior, according to your own criteria.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    There

    [collen ryan] “On the other end browns are shown to be not evolved for the environment whites built and become a burden and a danger when allowed to live in white nations, a burden we can ill afford while competing with east asians and jews.”

    {AK}: No, that’s not the case.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [collen ryan] “There are also dozens of reasons why allowing browns entry to white nations is not helping them for those who are concerned with them.”

    {AK}: It might be a good idea not to cause the destruction, of their original countries , that forces them to flee and migrate.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [collen ryan] “I would actually count myself among those who are concerned with all mens interests to some extent in descending order from my children to the lowest of the human species.”

    {AK}: If your counting abilities, in any way reflect your logical abilities, the concern you allege could only prove to be a liability to everyone else. But your sentiment is nice. It could be the case, that a lot of people might regard you as the “lowest of the human species”, too.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [collen ryan] “The fact that there are outliers in all races does not obviate the fact that multiculturalism is an absolute failure and particularly fatal to my race.”

    {AK}: Multiculturalism, has largely occurred subsequent to prior, and often alongside ongoing, exploitations, by “your race”. European majority nations, extract far more from other nations, than they return to those nations.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [collen ryan] “What you and land seem to want is exactly what we have been attempting for the past couple hundred years, all models from colonialism to slavery, jim crow/ apartheid, and civil rights are abject failures.”

    {AK}: All of these so called ‘models’ were no more than ad hoc, stopgap methodologies, in the service of European greed.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [collen ryan] “What your perceive [as an entryist coming into this blog years after the fact] as my lowbrow nazism is in fact my insistence that Land return to the foundation of reaction , HBD and desist from experimenting some new form of multiculturalism he imagines will be different this time because he will have a crypto lock on the sewers something something.”

    {AK}: No, I’m not “an entryist coming into this blog years after the fact”. You are.
    Nick Land hasn’t changed his positions at all. You don’t seem to comprehend what you read. Even lowbrow Nazism would be a step up for you. You’re just a thug who wants to incinerate people.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [collen ryan] “The better question is what are you doing here “an ideology of ethnic difference” is the foundation of reaction, it is what leads to a rejection of multicultural democracy.GNON -evolution thats what we are about.”

    {AK}: No, devolution would be more accurate.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [collen ryan] “You seem to think that Land like taking this to the extreme of intra race elitism and extra race futurism is an entre for niggerization; its the opposite.”

    {AK}: No, I’m not concerned about any of that. That’s your problem.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [collen ryan] “I am simple arguing the idea of cogelites sustaining a nation of nerds alone is not going to work for a lot of reasons, that there a cultification of moldbug that blinds a certain type of emasculated man to a revenge of the nerds fantasy, fooling otherwise sensible people into actually thinking they are going to reorder the world as Stalin thought.”

    {AK}: You can discuss all that with your fellow ‘all-triters’! I’m not interested.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [collen ryan] “You are obviously suffering from an inferiority complex. Obviously we only make fun of your wogishness because your such a libtard and it bugs you sure yours is a huge population of stratified genetics that has and will continue to produce some fine minds, Its immaterial because you are not my people you are a competitor to my people, we both owe allegiance to our own people go home and make your people better whites can no longer afford to share. Its business.”

    {AK}: The only reason that people like yourself use the word ‘libtard’ is because that is the only group (those suffering from mental retardation) you actually believe yourselves to be ‘superior’ to. Unlike others, who wish to help others, and who would never even dream of insulting those suffering from mental retardation, or use the category as a general insult to others; those like yourself, feeling yourselves in competition with everyone but inadequate to that competition, can only draw on the category of mental retardation to characterise that which you do not understand.
    Incidentally, I’m apolitical; I see politics as inferiority.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [collen ryan] “You imagine some high IQ others who have good social skills can simply integrate into this USA multiculti patch and I tell you it cant be done its not working and your response is its working your a mean racist.”

    {AK}: No, you’re just talking to yourself. All your assumptions about what I think are nonsense.

    Posted on February 11th, 2017 at 4:22 am Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    NRx is populist unless it discusses the Machiavellian action of Moldbug’s selection of BAP. It will not, *therefore* (insert silence, disavowals, distractions here).

    “We do not talk very much about Leo Strauss. Once again, there are some obvious reasons for this, but also others.”

    If the Atlantic publishes a Machiavellian/Burnhamian analysis of NRx it might as well be putting a gun in its mouth and blowing its brains out =’D

    Please do it, beneath-contempt journos, PLEASE.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Note, decrepit, soon-to-be-gulagged priests: Yarvin and Land would HATE HATE HATE for you to apply Machiavellianism to THEM as they have applied it to the Cathedral. Do it. It’s the only way, or else you’re done.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Xenosystems.net should be looked at as the Atlantean, the neo-cathedralist version of the Atlantic–just as full of deceits but with a more fascionable cover. Truly pathetic, put Land in prison, Trump, he’s a crypto-leftist trying to accelerate rightism past itself, a twisted brit trying to avenge his failed country for having been surpassed by America.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Read this and thought of you

    Abraham Lincoln once famously asked Winfield Scott, “Why is it that you were once able to take the City of Mexico in three months with five thousand men, and we have been unable to take Richmond with one hundred thousand men?”

    “I will tell you,” said General Scott. “The men who took us into the City of Mexico are the same men who are keeping us out of Richmond.”

    [Reply]

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    You seem to have a remarkable degree of love for our host. There’s no need to suppress these feelings, every Bronze Age Pervert would understand.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    *Someone* needs to look after him. He had a direct experience of Bataille who had a direct experience of Nietzsche – not many can boast of being Zarathustra’s grandson. And it’s always a joy to witness Land’s double-standard: if I call someone gay he tells me to shut up, when people call me gay *crickets*

    “1) European Caucasian societies appear to be the greatest advocates of multiculturalism

    2) Such societies, then, are biologically premised to greater openness

    3) If such openness is a weakness, then such societies are biologically premised to such weaknesses.”

    1 appears to be false looking at Trump, Brexit, and the alt-right. Like I’ve said before, it was Moldbug’s strategy in his “Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives” to use their (our) openness against us; we’re so open we’re even open to closedness, the telos of which we’re seeing play out more and more by the day.

    Posted on February 11th, 2017 at 5:51 am Reply | Quote
  • Apatheos Says:

    The Internet’s movement

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 11th, 2017 at 6:00 am Reply | Quote
  • Alien Archeogenesis Says:

    » Seldon was also a member of the Israel Centre for Social and Economic Progress (lCSEP), which was run by Daniel Doran, a former Israeli intelligence officer and special consultant to the US Embassy in Tel Aviv in 1957, and a Mont Pelerin member. The US ICSEP board includes Irving Kristol, while the UK ICSEP has Sir Stanley Kalms (treasurer of the Conservative Party between 2001 and 2003), Lord Harris (lEA and MPS), Lord Young (British Telecom, Cable and Wireless, and British Aerospace), Sir Sigmund Strnberg and Sir Ronald Cohen (who each donated £100,000 to the Labour Party in 2001) (34) and Gerald Ronson, the convicted fraudster.(35)

    Seldon had further right-wing connections, with the Adam Smith Institute and the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS). As recently as June 2000 the lEA hosted the ‘Aims of Industry Free Enterprise Awards’, with Aims’ Sir Nigel Mobbs. Seldon was on the Advisory Council of the Libertarian Alliance whose journal Free Life describes Demos as part of ‘[a] cavalry of Trojan horses within the citadel of leftism. The intellectual agenda is served up in a left wing manner, laced with left wing cliches and verbal gestures, but underneath all the agenda is very nearly identical to that of the Thatcherites.’(36) 😀

    As well as co-authoring Socialism Explained with Brian Crozier, Seldon also edited The Radical, founded in 1988 by Stephen Haseler and Neville Sandelson (who was initially a very right-wing Labour MP before becoming one of the founding members of the SDP, supporting Thatcher’s radicalism and the anti-subversion lobby). (37) Haseler has also written for Demos (and worked for the Greater London Council (GLC)). Haseler worked for the ‘left face’ of the US National Strategy Information Center (NSIC) which funded Brian Crozier and was at the centre of a vast network of anti-communism and front organizations; his involvement illustrates a continuity with previous CIA relations with Labour. Haseler also worked with Roy and Joe Godson, who, in the 1970s, through the Atlantic Council, had set up the Labour Committee for Transatlantic Understanding, now called the Trade Union Committee for European and Transatlantic Understanding, which incorporates Peace Through NATO, the group that had been central to Michael Heseltine’s MoD campaign against CND in the early 1980s.(38)

    Mather came to prominence as head of policy at the Institute of Directors (IoD). His principle interest is ‘the advance of markets into government itself.’ (41) Mather sees himself as part of a ‘priesthood of believers in the market’, pushing a libertarian right ideology against the ‘threat … from socialism’, and has found a spiritual home in Demos. (42) In 1990 it was noted that the IPPR’s Patricia Hewitt felt a common cause with Mather:

    There is even, between the rival think tanks, agreement on the part of the new agenda… That has reached the point where the lEA and IPPR are planning a joint seminar … ‘It is not’, Mr Mather says, ‘a consensus on solutions. But there is a consensus on objectives: Patricia Hewitt says: ‘We may even be able to agree on some of the methods.’(43)

    Another key figure on the early Demos board of directors was Lord Dennis Stevenson. A multimillionaire banker and management consultant and a key figure in BAP, Stevenson has been chairman of numerous companies, notably Manpower Inc, whose board member Rozanne L. Ridgway was president of the Atlantic Council of the United States (a vehicle for supporting NATO) and a director of Boeing, as well as being a member of the elite policy-planning groups the Brookings Institution and the George C. Marshall Foundation. Recruitment is a key aspect of Stevenson’s work. As chairman of the media group Pearson, which owns the Financial Times and The Economist, he placed Marjorie Scardino (again of the Atlantic Council of the United States) as chief executive. Stevenson says he first met Mulgan when he was giving a talk to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York. Stevenson recruited Peter Mandelson for his secretive consultancy SRU in 1990, in between Mandelson’s time as Labour’s communications director and his election as an MP. Stevenson was an under-recognised gateway for big business access to New Labour, saying that ‘Blair has involved businessmen to a huge extent… In fact he has almost delegated power to them, I think there is a legitimate question about the extent to which that is actually right.'(44)

    This essay has sought to describe a nexus of interests and organisations centred on one particular locale, the Mezzanine, and one notable organisation, Demos. Readers are of course free to draw their own conclusions from this coalescence. However, it is worth noting the patterned, almost structured way such policy actors and charity groups associate and interpenetrate. The case of Demos and the Mezzanine represents a network of actors with shared connections and, crucially, shared interests. They represent a little-examined and poorly understood current in British public life. But we should beware of looking to conspiracy theory for an explanation. Much of what has been discussed here is not secret, but is openly available on the public record if you know where to look. As William Domhoff, a leading expert on elites and power structure research, notes:

    We study visible institutions, take most of what elites say as statements of their values and intentions, and recognize that elites sometimes have to compromise, and sometimes lose. Conspiracists study alleged behind the scenes groups, think everything elites say is a trick, and claim that elites never lose.(69) »

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 11th, 2017 at 7:35 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    ▬ ” Media dumbs climbing up wrong tree with “Evola” nonsense. Bannon is a CATHOLIC REACTIONARY! My convo with him covered Trinquier, Jean Ousset ” said @BronzeAgePerv who’s a parody account.

    I don’t think Catholic martyrs were into pseudonyms. And altho the Restoration requires Catholicism it will not happen only through nor only for it. It transcends and includes Catholicism. I.e. it is more catholic than Catholicism.

    ▬ ” Let me put it this way: Ayn Rand is a mystery to most in Europe. She’s the same type of clown as Evola. ” said @trekonomics Feb 10.

    You’re so dimwitted you should get a job from the NYT.

    The NYT that wrongly called Evola “fascist” ; st. Evola who bravely declared himself an anti-fascist straight in the face of Mussolini, at a time that was dangerous in Italy and elsewhere in Europe.

    9/10 things as a rule apparently have to be in this world wrong in cases Evola’s name is dropped. Probably no author has as high an incidence of that, altho pseudointellectuals thinking they know Nietzsche no doubt outnumber those who think they know Evola.

    This is the nature of topics involving subtle things, of which people have always for all of history been born into four classes of understanding them: class of rites (brahmins, law, “priests”), class of order (warriors, kshatriya), class of trade (vaisya, “accountants”, shop keepers). Last is the class most disposed to do the least subtle work.

    In modern terms these would refer to brahmins as those who can understand the symbolic order and maintain that. Because of confusion of castes it’s most useful to understand the appearance of castes in the modern world by the type of ideas people can understand.

    Bannon would be a brahmin to the kshatriya-vaisya mix that is Trump.

    They both have affinity with at least two of the 3 holy castes, Bannon having served in the Navy, done business and now doing the most subtle work of ruling minds.

    ▬ ” There’s a dark romanticized cult of absurdity, a bring all down Evola nihilism that inspired much historical fascism.
    Bannon gets much of it ” said @drMajMaj 28 Jan 2017.

    You cursed pseudo. It was exactly nihilism that Evola combated.

    His propagation of the wit of the transcendental ‘I’ was as absolute against the nihilism resulting from belief in the death of the self as can be.

    https://twitter.com/NoTrueScotist/status/830464623530762242

    The root of nihilism is exactly to believe that you’ll simply vanish after death and thus you must play a short game of getting what you want in life no matter the cost as you’ll be dead with no after-life anyway.

    It will be within our lifetimes, for those of us who live long enough, that the epoch of Nihilism ends; which the prophesier and shaman FW Nietzsche said would take 200 years.

    » What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism. . . . For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe, with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end. . . .

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Incidentally, the first google of the concept serves well : SYMBOLIC ORDER (Lacan): The social world of linguistic communication, intersubjective relations, knowledge of ideological conventions, and the acceptance of the law (also called the “big Other”).

    We have a saying in Iceland, which translates as : with Law thou leverage a Land.

    Construct it, actually, is the more ortho-translation.

    If anyone ever thought the hocus pocus of priest referred to anything other than the maintenance of a symbolic order, that person has misunderstood.

    It was exactly why the priests of rome, of which the emperor was the arch-priest, or High Priest, were called pontifex, i.e bridge-builders, because they could translate subjects from subject to subject in a manner that others had difficulty with.

    They built bridges between people and thus maintained imperium.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Erikson, I was wrong about your appeal to etymology, there is something to that–but still, be careful, there are greater things to reduce reality to.

    I was beginning to formulate in my mind the question, “But what IS nihilism anyway, *exactly*?” but you said this and it made me stop and think:

    “The root of nihilism is exactly to believe that you’ll simply vanish after death and thus you must play a short game of getting what you want in life no matter the cost as you’ll be dead with no after-life anyway.”

    This is the populist answer to nihilism. Kant is right that things have value in themselves. Even if one does vanish after death, one’s actions have intrinsic value or anti-value depending on whether one does good or bad. The elixir to nihilism, to my understanding, is that every moment means a FUCKLOAd, every SINGLE moment, regardless of whether one gets Heaven at the end or not. “Why?” the skeptics might ask–because it does. The “New Heaven” is that everything is valuable in itself. This is what Nietzsche was trying to get at with Amor Fati – Would you will *every* moment an infinite amount of times? If not why not? From this thought experiment one arrives at the conclusion that every moment is valuable.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Another thing that the bio-gods are compelling me to add: with the beneath-contempt journo panopticon present here more than ever before we need to go into hyper-drive in the gardening of our Wills-to-Truth. They’re going to drag probably more than a few of us away into the Lies of Hell. It has already happened to the best of us (Land) – the weak should sever themselves from this website entirely or they’re going to be brought under the fold of the Trump Regime. For the rest of us we should up the ante on virulent anti-cathedralism, namely,- insist that Trump was elected not only in a democratic process but that he is an arch-demagogue. His cult of personality should be SHATTERED (so should “Moldbug’s” but that’s another issue). Anacyclosis is key here. Donald, consider this a middle finger aimed directly between your eyes. Go ahead and lock me up, I’ll pull a Thich Nhat Hanh and be the Gramsci of your Reich. Cunt.

    anon Reply:

    ▬ [ The elixir to nihilism, to my understanding, is that every moment means a FUCKLOAd, every SINGLE moment, regardless of whether one gets Heaven at the end or not. ]

    Nah, this is still nihilism. « Jacobi used the term to characterize rationalism and in particular Immanuel Kant’s “critical” philosophy to carry out a reductio ad absurdum according to which all rationalism (philosophy as criticism) reduces to nihilism—and thus it should be avoided and replaced with a return to some type of faith and revelation. »

    It is further nihilism in that it nihilises morality with in-the-moment amor fati. I.e. anything is justifiable as long as you as doing it in the moment. Which is exactly somewhat cogenetic with Russian nihilists’ and fascists’ “propaganda of the deed” viewpoint.

    I.e. nihilism.

    Wagner Reply:

    You are presupposing that there is no faith and revelation involved in willing Amor Fati.

    Wagner Reply:

    Trolling federal agents is easier than I thought, everyone else should try it.

    anon Reply:

    ▬ “All Theodicy claims that at the most fundamental level there are no mistakes. Heidegger says the same thing. Even the Nihilism of our Time is the Geschick (destining) of Being. Like Hegel again, but in a very different manner, Heidegger also maintains that at the most fundamental level there have been no mistakes. We were always going to eventually end up here in late modernity / postmodernity. Beings concealment belongs to the beginning of Western Philosophy. Philosophy did nothing ‘wrong’; — Concealment (and nihilism) was always its Fate.”

    ▬ « ‘To love’ means to desire something what is not possessed (Socrates defended this view in Plato’s Symposium). Philosopher is a lover of wisdom because he is not wise and searches for knowledge. He desire to possess true description of objects belonging to the real world This world is the source of our imperfect world which we perceive with our senses. 1. The nature of a philosophical problem: to show that what we take for granted and obvious in our everyday life is in fact puzzling and confusing »

    One could argue Philosophy is nihilistic. Heidegger did.

    You see here the similarity with Marx: the point is not, according to him, to theorise but to change the world (propaganda of the deed).

    » The criticism launched by Pythagorians, Eleates, Ionians at the Homeric pantheon was not unjustified, since this pantheon testifies to pre-Hellenic non Aryan influences ; rather, it was illegitimate, since, instead of being made on the basis of a higher conception of the sacred, it was built on a truly Semitic approach of it; it was built on and could not but be built on such approach, for the simple reason that most of the so-called pre-Socratic philosophers were of Semitic origin. These had put forward so many contradictory notions that a school had to emerge to wipe out their shaky systems. Sophism developed from the endless arguments which dogmatism based on abstract subtleties gave rise to, only to pave the way to the seeming simplicity of Socrates’ humanistic method. Socrates may be considered as the one who “revealed the moral God” and who introduced the subjectivist standpoint into the Greek cosmos. Socrates claims to have the utmost respect for Athenian laws, preaches obedience to authority, and pretends to accept that laws are of divine institution and to respect the gods of the city-state, but, above the laws of the city-state, he points at laws supposedly engraved by God in the heart of all men and which require the same things in all countries. His morality is subversive in that it does not only seek to regulate, as did Greek political right, the bonds between citizens and the state, but to establish a universal morality, duties reciprocally binding all men ; that is precisely why Socrates declared himself to be a “citizen of the world”. He laid in Greece the foundations for the doctrine of universal brotherhood, which, having been professed by Platonism and then consecrated by Christianity, later gave birth to “natural law”, whose doctrine was not developed until modern times. In all these regards, Socrates’ teaching reflects his racial pedigree.

    Plato, a student of Socrates, “continued the philosophy of [the latter] and struck traditional mythology a blow from which it never recovered. He combined some of the theories of Pythagoras with those of Cratylus and Heraclitus and so composed a body of doctrine in which he introduced the morality of Socrates”. (L.-F. Alfred Maury, Histoire des religions de la Grèce antique, 1859) Indeed, Platonism is based on Reason and inner conscience. Plato’s political views represent a destructive criticism against Athenian politics. Sure, the city-state is divided into four classes : labourers, artisans, whose respective function is to work and obey warriors and magistrates, who are respectively in charge of defending and of ruling the city-state. Prudence is the virtue of the magistrate, courage, the attribute of warriors ; temperance consists in the subordination of the lower classes to the upper classes ; justice lies in the accomplishment by each class of its own function and in the harmonious cooperation between each for a single purpose. Unity is the true good of the city-state. As much these views fit perfectly within traditional Greek policy, as much the views, expressed in the Republic, that the two obstacles to this unity is family and property, regarded as principles of division and enmity, are highly seditious. Everything must be common : property, women, children. True community can only be achieved if the government is in the hands of philosophers : — implicitly — of foreigners. Plato makes hospitality to these an obligation : “Our city should receive all strangers of either sex who come from other countries.”. “For the stranger having no kindred and friends, is more to be pitied by gods and men. Wherefore, also, he who is able to assist him is more zealous in his cause.” The stranger “ought to have entertainment provided them at the temples by hospitable persons, and the priests and ministers of the temples should see and attend to them.” We are here light years away from Aristotle, who, according to Diogenes Laertius, believed the activity of philosophy to have originated in Barbarians, and whose own philosophy, leaving aside its ethical aspect, with its eudemonism, a typical feature of all ancient philosophical schools, is almost completely free from exotic influences.

    The doctrines of the Stoics did not contain much that had not already been taught by their predecessors. Stoicism focused on certain aspects of the doctrine of their predecessors and push their ideas to their logical consequences ; for example, the Stoic emphasis on introspection and self-examination contributed to the acknowledgment of subjectivity and, therefore, of individualism as a value. They generalised their ideas and made them a “lifestyle”. Again, the founders of Stoicism were all Semites, not to mention their disciples. What is worth noting is that they took to a completely new level the Cynic notion, abhorrent to ancient Greeks, of a caste of “wise men” expecting to be supported by citizens, no questions asked. In Rome, where Stoics met Christians, magistrates won over to Stoicism applied themselves to passing laws designed to weaken civil law, to blur the distinction between Roman law and provincial law, to subordinate the rights of the city-state to “natural” and individual rights.

    To quote F. de Coulanges, “philosophy appeared, and overthrew all the rules of the ancient polity. It was impossible to touch the opinions of men without also touching the fundamental principles of their government.” This is precisely the point we elaborated on in the first part of our French revamped version of ‘From Freedom to Feedom’, to be published soon at http://elementsdeducationraciale.wordpress.com/, followed by a study on the genesis of the subjective standpoint through the work of philosophers, then by a study on the rise and the development of the concept of freedom from pre-Socratic philosophers to Christianity. These three studies show unambiguously that, far from having “[reinvigorated] what was left of the traditional Patriciate” the late Stoa, which, in Rome, was no longer detached from politics, hastened its end.

    One only has to look at the distinctive features of early Greek civilisation to see, not only that Stoicism is an imported doctrine, but also that all schools of philosophy, whether born in Athens or elsewhere, are alien doctrines, which remained quite foreign even to the mentality of the science-, poetry-, eloquence- and arts-loving and therefore already partly easternised Greek in the century of Pericles. On the other hand, Stoic ethics bears some similarities with the Roman character, and that is precisely why some Romans fell for it ; why, much later, J. Evola was fooled by it. A Stoic knows how to die ; yet he does not know how to die smiling as did Leonidas and his companions at Thermopylae and most importantly, he does not know how to die for his fatherland. The Stoic claims to be a citizen, yet a citizen of the world (Evola mistook Stoics’ cosmopolitanism for an “ideal state”). Stoicism could train excellent cosmopolitans, that is to say, poor citizens. Stoicism meant Romanity without pietas, and without pietas Romanity was nothing.

    Modern artists — no matter how schematic this typological analogy may seem — can be compared to ancient Cynics ; modern technocrats to ancient Stoics ; modern intellectuals, media people and political schemers to ancient Sophists. »

    Modernity didn’t start in the 15- or 1600s.

    It started in declined Greece.

    China knows.

    Wagner Reply:

    Yeah well shekelsweat can be smellt anywhere, and you, anon, reek of it. I would like Bannonism if it weren’t for the fact that in the next presidential election all right-wing “progress” (heh) will be undone. You morons, the only option is grandscale bloodshed. Curtis Yarvin advocates this between the lines.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Imagine that you die, everything goes black. You, as it were, cease to exist.

    The atheists believe that the universe continues. E.g. if I die, Wagner continues his daily life.

    I, since I am dead, “I” have no existence. There are only remains of me, but not a me.

    Yet. If my POV is gone : what is it to me then that the universe spends all of its time until it is extinguished? Or, if you wanna skip time ; tries all of its indefinite material configurations however conceived

    I have no reason to believe that the universe is eternal any more than I.

    Since I am dead, isn’t the time of the universe’s extinction nothing to me?

    Since the time of the universe is nothing to the dead nonexistant me, what’s to stop the universe from finishing its process in no time and for another big bang happening “as soon as” that happens? And since there is no time to the nonexistent me, or simply the nonexistent, what do “I” (nothing) have to wait (nothing) while the universe (nothing) dies and gets reborn in indefinite configurations until it is a return of the same and my life again?

    Why is there being rather than nothing? Well, because there is no nothing. How could there be? If there is nothing, there isn’t a nothing. None is meaningless without 1.

    The belief in nothing is the root of nihilism.

    The primal stance is life or death — affirmation, fides, vs: nihil. That which is dead may never die. In fact death is merely a process in life. It never exits life. It’s never demarcated from life nor dichotomous to it.

    Death is nothing. Meaningless. There is only life, and being able to live well or badly

    All the premodern peoples knew this. Thus they were not concerned with anything but to live well, for it is an everlasting world without end

    Have I contradicted myself? I contain multitudes

    I am that I am. legion, the lord of hosts

    anon Reply:

    Are you insane like me? Been in pain like me?
    Bought a hundred dollar bottle of champagne like me?
    Just to pour that motherfucker down the drain like me?
    Would you use your water bill to dry the stain like me?

    Are you high enough without the Mary Jane like me?
    Do you tear yourself apart to entertain like me?
    Do the people whisper ’bout you on the train like me?
    Saying that you shouldn’t waste your pretty face like me?

    And all the people say,

    “You can’t wake up, this is not a dream,
    You’re part of a machine, you are not a human being,
    With your face all made up, living on a screen,
    Low on self-esteem, so you run on gasoline.”

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Lacan doesn’t seem to disagree with me:

    » Death is perfectly conceivable as a mediating element. Before Freudian theory stressed in the existence of the father a function which is at once a function of speech and a function of love, Hegel, in his metaphysics, did not hesitate to construct the whole phenomenology of human relationships around death as mediator, the third element essential to the progress by which man becomes humanized in his relationships with his fellow man. And one might say that the theory of narcissism, as I just set it forth, explains certain facts which otherwise remain enigmatic in Hegel. After all, in order for this dialectic of the death struggle, the struggle for pure power, to be initiated, death must not be actualized, since the dialectical movement would cease for lack of combatants; death must be imagined. And, indeed, it is this imagined, imaginary death that appears in the dialectic of the oedipal drama; and it is also this death that is operant in the formation of the neurotic—and perhaps, up to a certain point, in something that goes far beyond the formation of the neurotic, specifically the existential attitude characteristic of modern man. » 1979 [1953] «The Neurotic’s Individual Myth». The Psychoanalytic Quarterly.

    Posted on February 12th, 2017 at 3:01 am Reply | Quote
  • anon Says:

    ” In previous posts I have described the Chinese strategic tradition as a “great conversation” between disparate voices and viewpoints often locked in bitter debates over basic fundamentals: the nature of power and control, the true sources of national strength, the utility of armed force, the respective merits of offense and defense, the proper aims of an armed campaign, the relative importance of prior planning or strategic thinking to military success, and so forth. While not the first voice to be heard in these debates, the Sunzi Bingfa (Sunzi’s Art of War, old style: Sun-tzu Bingfa) was one of the most important and is today by far the best known in the West. Barely a new year goes by without a new translation–perhaps only the Analects, the Yijing (I Ching), and the Dao De Jing (Tao Te Ching) have been translated into English more often. This small book has also seen intensive study in the West, where it is canonical in war studies syllabi and Marine Corp reading lists. It is regularly analyzed in general histories of strategic thought [2], has been rigorously compared to Western strategic thinkers [3], and more rarely (but most profitably) has been studied in the context of ancient Chinese thought [4]. Even if we eliminated all of the rather spurious books and articles that have attempted to apply the Sunzi’s precepts to business, sports, or social climbing, we would be left with a small library of essays and books chapters applying concepts found in the Sunzi to various tactical, operational, and strategic challenges.

    It is important to remember through all of this that both in its own day and afterwards the Sunzi was not the only voice in the debate.The strategic principles included therein were hotly contested in ancient China, with many thinkers directly attacking the Sunzi and its precepts. [5] Traditionally, Chinese scholars looking back on the intellectual history of these times described this period of Chinese history as the “hundred schools of thought” (zhuzibaijia), for it was a day when many different philosophical schools flourished (and competed) side by side. However, we must not forget that these hundred schools flourished in an age of conflict and chaos–a period whose regular name is “Warring States.” As the name might suggest, the Warring States period (475-221 BC) was an age of vicious and near eternal warfare. During this time any thinker who wanted the attention of those in power had to be able to explain to anxious monarchs how to secure their kingdoms from the threat posed by foreign invasion. This meant that every single Chinese philosophical school had to propose what today we might call a coherent theory of victory, and all thinkers who wanted royal patronage would have to at least touch on war and diplomacy.

    The good news is that most of these works have been translated into English. Indeed, we live in a golden age of translation and archaeological discovery. Our understanding of pre-imperial China has increased more in the last twenty five years than in the hundred years that preceded them. In the last two decades alone we have seen new translations of the Mozi, Dao De Jing, Analects, Seven Military Classics, Huainanzi, Lushi Spring and Autumn, Sun Bin Art of War, Shizi, Guanzi, Mencius, Xunzi, Yi Zhou Shu and the so called “lost classics” of the Yellow Emperor and the Guodian tomb texts. When combined with the existing translations of the Stratagems of the Warring States, the Book of Lord Shang, Gui Gu Zi, Han Feizi and fragments or excerpts from the works of thinkers like Shen Buhai and Jia Yi (not to mention earlier translations of many of the works mentioned above), there is a considerable corpus of works that touch upon strategic questions available to anyone who speaks English.

    As we approach 20th century Chinese history the amount of research published in English increases dramatically. China’s contact with modernity was a violent and desperate affair. The structures and ideas upon which Chinese society had been built for centuries were torn to pieces in a few decades. The focus of every Chinese thinker and strategist during the subsequent ‘century of humiliation’ (bainian guochi) was how to regain China’s prestige on the international stage and expel the foreign brutes who leached off of their nation’s wealth.”

    http://scholars-stage.blogspot.is/2015/05/the-chinese-strategic-tradition.html

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 12th, 2017 at 5:17 am Reply | Quote
  • Lucian Says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFIn708ssFg

    Play from 5.30 onwards.

    Alex Jones characterises the goals of the elites as precisely those advocated by Land’s right accelerationist NRx.

    The reckoning is nigh.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I’ve been swimming in synchtroni city

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 12th, 2017 at 12:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Daniel Chieh Says:

    @Wagner

    We will see. My belief is that there’s a pretty strong cycle and pattern to history, to which I have theories, but I think such things can only really be tested through time.

    [Reply]

    anon Reply:

    Haven’t they been, before?

    [Reply]

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    Everyone thinks that this time, everything will be totally different. They might yet be right. I’ll say to give it ten years or so, and see which hypothesis is more superior.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    genetic structuralism :

    ‘A term adopted by Goldmann to describe his method of cultural analysis. Although Goldman coined the phrase, he believed the basic method had been elaborated by Hegel , Marx , Freud , Piaget , and the young L ukáacs . Goldmann’s method is a Structuralism because, in considering cultural phenomena, it concerns itself not with immediate appearances or content, but with significant mental structures. Such structures are totalities in which the component parts are dependent on the whole. But unlike Barthes , Léavi-strauss , or Althusser , Goldmann stresses that such structures must be understood in terms of their origin in the historical process. Any given totality can be inserted into a larger totality; thus a literary Text could be seen as a totality with its own structure, or as a component of a whole epoch of social history. In particular Goldmann develops the concept of a “world view,” the set of aspirations, ideas, and feelings elaborated by a whole social Class at a stage in its history. Such a worldview is produced by a collective Subject , but may find its most coherent expression in a major literary or philosophical text. Goldmann gives the most concrete exposition of the method in The Hidden God ( Goldmann, 1956 ). In strengthening the state machine, Louis XIV of France undermined the power of one section of the nobility, the noblesse de robe , leaving it … log in or subscribe to read full text’

    Posted on February 12th, 2017 at 9:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Daniel Chieh Says:

    @collen ryan

    Europe existed under aristocracies and monarchies for hundreds of years, so the notion that democracy is somehow fundamental to the existence of its people is historically dubious, to put it lightly. I would say his use of Reaction is quite appropriate, since Reaction really was originally a movement against democracy more than anything else. At the time of the Restoration of the Bourbons, for example, far more of them were concerned with defending the notion of an aristocracy and monarchy, than anything else. The writings of Joseph de Maistre, for example, do not mention much about race but speak at length about order, hierarchy and religion.

    You’re free to believe as you wish, but the bulk of history and empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

    Most of what you claim is basically assertions, which are fine, but it seems that you rarely seem to try to build it on evidence or on the all important notion of defeasibility. I’m a bit too old for e-peen, so I don’t really care about whether I’m “right” or “wrong” to you, but I would suggest applying some rigor to your statements. That helps communication and exchange of knowledge.

    HBD is indeed useful and an important part of the understanding, but it should not be the only aspect of one’s cognitive toolkit. There’s saying about hammers and nails which is apropos to this.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2017 at 6:14 am Reply | Quote
  • Culture War Watch #1 – Cardinal Lemon Says:

    […] the NRx and alt-right movement reject the media and the cathedral, but the differences largely end there. The alt-right is far more base, and willing to turn […]

    Posted on February 15th, 2017 at 8:10 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment