T-Shirt slogans (#6)

VXXC’s latest deserves some focused attention:

No enemies to the Right save Quisling.

(Hasn’t that principle already been tacitly accepted to a remarkable extent on the Outer Right? Never denounce anybody within hearing distance of a Left-controlled cultural institution. Among all the fracture and controversy ahead, it’s a guideline worth holding onto.)

December 28, 2013admin 52 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Slogans

TAGGED WITH : ,

52 Responses to this entry

  • Michael Says:

    I thought we liked quisling

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You’re straight into this T-shirt slogan’s subtle depths. (I’m hoping there’s no pressure to count Strasserites as Rightists, just for starters …)

    Worry at it just a little bit further, and it will topple through the wall into paradox and cognitive ecstasy …

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    from our perspective there is nothing right

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    We are in a position Michael to change the conversation, it won’t last forever.

    The well footed warrior Michael always has his footing and is the center Michael. You already know this, we have no enemies to the Right wing. It’s our wing now [well it is what many people wanted, right? Merry Christmas].

    When one takes a stand armed with Moldbug Zen* you are the fucking center. It’s not intellectual namby pamby, it’s a martial fucking art.

    *summed and distilled essence of Moldbug. T-Shirt, Zen martial artist moldbug. Game Moldbug. Zing!! It’s the fusking mitochondrials focused into Machiavellian daggers aimed at teh putrid beating treacherous heart of Progs.

    Here’s one: on the subject of the royal marine sentenced for dispatching a wounded taliban …”shuffle off this mortal coil you cunt”. BANG.

    My reply to his putrid court martial authority that sent him up and revealed his identity, his comrades identity, put him in civilian prison: “Treason long the birthright of the Highborn is now a status seeking tool for social climbers, the guest pass to the elite club.”

    Either of the last 2 quotes is Zen. Also fighting words with an opponent now stunned.

    See their not used to it….

    Giacomo Reply:

    Treason long the birthright of the Highborn is now a status seeking tool for social climbers, the guest pass to the elite club.

    Treason is:

    *when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir
    *if a man do violate the King’s companion, or the King’s eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King’s eldest son and heir
    *if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere
    *if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King’s justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices
    *if any person or persons…shall endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown…from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging

    I haven’t planned or incited violence, and I haven’t exhorted anyone to interfere in the foreseeable future, based on barely refined ideas and speculation, with the workings of the state, or riot, or demonstrate, or be an activist.

    I have said that in the long term, I would like to help our political systems change. I have encouraged a small audience to discuss and promote this change, which is not illegal. I have also criticised sweeping ideologies, and updated on progressives’ beliefs about what constitutes a fatal conceit.

    “Treason” would not be an accurate charge, and it lacks a moral sting in this culture that venerates all sorts of dissidents, radical theorists and critics.

    It’s not intellectual namby pamby, it’s a martial fucking art.

    It doesn’t feel wicked to develop a shield against political fictions, especially within the illusion of benign neglect and obscurity.*

    The attraction of these ideas is the same as Roko’s Basilisk: it’s fascinating as f*ck. If young people are starting to see progress as a big grey ball of boring lies with Britney Spears dancing on top, it is queer that elites would spite the vanguard of adventurers and idlers who blithely kick it around, instead of exhorting them to play constructively. Vast formless things and all that.

    I admit that progressive enforcers and their bosses, as I learn about them, are terrifying. I shall give Internet contrarianism, and the whole bloody blogosphere, a wide berth in future. I have many things to do and ways to amuse myself that will not upset the enforcers.

    *Perhaps it will seem vicious once I grok Gramsci. I would not underestimate the inferential distance of moral, as well as methodological beliefs between progressive elites and others in this area.

    Posted on December 28th, 2013 at 2:47 am Reply | Quote
  • Mai La Dreapta Says:

    “No enemies to the Right” is an essential principle of Neoreaction. Lose it, and the progs will cook our goose.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 28th, 2013 at 1:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    When the left does this, they proceed against their enemies on the left be denouncing them for not being sufficiently leftist.

    As far as I can tell, neo-reaction does the same thing. Anyone on the right that needs denouncing is ‘really just a progressive.’

    No enemies to the right is a little bit amusing a slogan for a movement that spends as much time attacking conservatives and old school reactionaries as it does leftists.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    @lesser bull

    He has a point. Screw ideological purity [as if we have it, as if it exists outside of splinters anywhere].

    To blazes with purity. No one completely agrees. No enemies on the right save quislings. And there is of course a purpose to that position.

    If the Quisling is thrown down be prepared to lead in his place. That’s the only responsible and pragmatic thing to do. Throwing poop at another’s failures without stepping up yourself is Prog monkey behavior.

    Attack with a purpose. If the weakling cannot lead replace him, but then lead.

    Regardless of how elite the troops are.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    @ Lesser Bull — Seems as if you’re glossing it as “No enemies to the right of center.” I don’t think that’s what it means. (The Leftist precursor clearly meant “No enemies to the Left of us” didn’t it?)

    [Reply]

    Contaminated NEET Reply:

    In practice, it definitely means “No enemies to the left of us.” I’m not so sure that’s the intent, though. When I first heard the slogan, I assumed it meant, “No enemies to the left of center.” That’s a more obvious and fairer rule, so I figured that’s what they were going for: a united front. “No enemies to the left of us,” is much more interesting, as well as being the way the rule is actually applied.

    Does anyone know who coined the phrase and in what context? 5 minutes of superficial web searching turned up a lot of people who say it’s from the French Revolution, but nothing more specific.

    [Reply]

    Mai La Dreapta Reply:

    If the intended meaning is “left of center”, then the proper grammatical way of expressing it is “No enemies on the left”. With the preposition to the intent is clearly “left of us”, which is what the phrase has always meant and is intended to mean.

    Contaminated NEET Reply:

    Sure, but remember that it’s a French slogan. Parsing the proper meaning of an English preposition in translation is not the way to understand it. My French is nonexistent, so someone better educated than me will have to tell me if that same shade of meaning is there in the original.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    No, I’m saying that this is one of those sayings that doesn’t mean anything in practice, because you can always attack someone for being insufficiently rightist, especially since the right has even less of a coherent program than the left.

    If I wanted to, I could make some fairly cogent arguments that neo-reaction has leftist features that allow us ‘true’ men of the right to criticize it. Your cladistic analysis is to the purpose.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    @Lesser Bull:
    “Your cladistic analysis is to the purpose.”

    I don’t understand that sentence. Are you saying cladistic analysis is left-wing, or saying that it can be used to show that neoreaction is left-wing?

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    The latter.

    Posted on December 28th, 2013 at 2:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    To be shorter, just take out Kerensky’s ‘no’ and you get – “Enemies To The Left”

    But that’s still a pretty poor way to define allies and opponents; though it’s better guidance as onto whom one should focus one’s criticisms. If it wasn’t for the open-borders nonsense and anti-ethnic-differences posturing, I would say we criticize the Libertarians too much.

    I’d also note that while they don’t consider them ‘enemies’ and don’t focus their animus in that directions, that the progressives find it occasionally ok to concede, as to some of the more Communist economic policies of the Marxists, “Well, they’re incorrect about that.” Furthermore, they find those ‘extreme’ positions useful foils against which to contrast their relative reasonableness, and even, as Sunstein does, to criticize the right for conflating their ‘distinct’ politics.

    The progressives have moved past ‘authoritarian collectivization of the means of production’ to ‘tolerated but regulated capitalism, social justice via redistribution, and the PC-inquisition.’ They have no trouble marginalizing those that stubbornly cling to the older, abandoned forms of their faith and who haven’t caught up with the latest fashions.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 28th, 2013 at 3:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • Porphy's Attorney Says:

    Some of the critiques of the slogan, so far, are apt. But IMO they’re apt in a way that misses the insightful zing of the slogan.

    What was the essence of Quisling? Quisling was a collaborator with the enemy.

    What is it about, for example, Open-Borders Libertarians and universalist mainstream conservatives (the anti-ethnic-differences Libertarians and mainstream conservatives) that the Outer Right criticizes? Their positions on these subjects can only serve the Progs – they advance leftism, not conservatism (and thus are worse-than-useless not only to the Right as a whole, but to their own ostensible cause): on those matters they are operationally collaborators with the advancement of Progressivism through the “Hegelian Mambo.”

    So the zing in the slogan “No Enemies to the Right save Quisling” is that the Outer Right has a lot of people on the right to criticize. Just as “No Enemies to the Left” did not mean that far(ther) leftists weren’t endlessly critical of the “compromising left” (for example, often forgotten is the fact that the New Left’s initial target, the target they hated most passionately, was what was then openly called “The Liberal Establishment.” Their initial targets of spite were not conservatives).

    So try not to misinterpret the slogan “No Enemies to the Right Save Quisling” as somehow meaning the outer right will stop criticizing, say, NRO for it’s purges and near-purges of right-wing commentators on Prog “racial sensitivity” grounds. Or that it implies that the Outer Right needs to lay off the more insipidly self-destructive Libertarians, und so weter. Those guys are operational Quislings.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 28th, 2013 at 3:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Who would the Quisling (potentiallyto our Right) be?

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    Depends on the fight.

    1. For open-borders, the Libertarians will collaborate with the progressives. The Corporate-Republicans will too.

    2. When it comes to preservation of a public preference for traditional bourgeois morality and family structure – the Libertarians will also collaborate with the progressives, but the social-conservative republicans will not. Same goes for the prohibition of certain drugs.

    3. When it comes to economics, it’s a very mixed bag all around. I don’t even think the ‘fights’ matter much anymore. My personal belief is that the current template and frame of political discourse and economic debate in overly inertial and entirely inadequate to deal with the exhilarating and frighteningly disruptive automation-future coming right for us. ‘Trying to preserve manageable levels of social harmony before the chaos spins completely out of control’ isn’t the statesmanship we’ve been preparing for, and since we’re not debating those eventualities, we’re not going to be ready for them.

    There may even be a Nietzsche-level far-right justification for high levels of redistribution. Since the ‘supermen’ now compete with each other on the battlefields of the markets instead of organized violence, they need individuals with a high marginal propensity to consume to generate the aggregate demand that will stimulate the incentives for evolutionary competition and innovation.

    So the government pushes the process forward with 1. Market Battle, 2. Tax the winners (but not too much), 3. Distribute the taxes as goodies to the market consumers, 4. Lather, rinse, repeat. 5. Try to avoid stagnation and competition-insulating rent-seeking. 6. Gradually reform the consumers themselves so that they exhibit the highest levels of taste (and a connoisseur’s permanent insatiability) that the overall level of wealth allows.

    If you want better gladiators (or the technologies the modern commercial gladiators make), you need to give people the wherewithal to attend the circuses.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Do you have a position statement somewhere on drug prohibition? I’m wondering which way the wind is blowing in these parts, and why.

    Should this move to Chaos Patch 7?

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    Heh, no, I don’t have a position statement yet. One of my long-term goals is to write a book of position statements, but I haven’t had time to do the requisite thinking and research to come to firm conclusions about many topics. I try as best I can to intellectually discipline myself to avoid the biases of the ‘pundits disease’ which is to be completely confident as to the rightness of one’s judgments about a topic despite an almost total absence of understanding.

    I agree it’d be interesting to see what everyone tends to think about drug prohibition. I’ll put up an open discussion forum about it at my own place.

    To divert a little – I think you touch on the broader subject of my ‘darkest enlightenment’ in your excellent essays on religion. I think it’s quite possible that sometimes the optimal social result relies on propagating a noble lie and reinforcing it through social penalties both to heresy and revelation of the conspiracy. And that certain noble lies will produce vastly superior social outcomes to a completely ‘overt’ public philosophy.

    This bothers me a lot, especially because I hate the current form of the PC-inquisition and think it’s clearly harmful rather than helpful, but I can’t discount the possibility that some alternative noble lie would produce much better results and would deserve coercive social reinforcement.. I think many of the traditionally religious folks around these parts would quickly say, “Yeah, it was called Christianity.” But obviously it wasn’t a stable system after the reformation and enlightenment. I think a lot of them want a ‘Reconstituted Traditionally Christian Society rebuilt to be Both Stable and Compatible with a Modern Technological Existence.’ It might already exist and be called ‘Mormonism’, but like that mistranslated saying from Zhou Enlai about the french revolution, “too soon to tell.”

    If you’re going to adopt such a regime, you’re going to need a way to pick the best winners in the ‘tournament of illusions’, and you’re going to have to have a privileged space where the secret ruling class has the battle of ideas in private, and where there is at least some uniform understanding of, and loyalty towards, the notion of ‘the common good’.

    Ok, that all being said…

    The essence of a neoreactionary perspective, I think, is ‘realistic reasonableness’. Realistic means we have to accept the truths of Human Biodiversity no matter how ugly or inconvenient, and Reasonableness means a willingness to take all relevant and material factors into account, balance competing virtues without obsessing over one to the expense of everything else, and the general absence of dogmatism.

    So, what about ‘drugs’ then? The problem is that darn HBD. The dispersion of human reactions to various chemicals (or really any other stimulations including the newer electronic ones) is just enormous. That includes 1. the immediate psycho-physiological reactions 2. tendencies towards addictiveness, dependency, compulsive repetitive use, or merely bad habit, and 3. the detrimental effect on one’s overall life success and happiness to include work performance and relationships with family and friends. My father was definitely a cigarette ‘addict’ in the modern use of that term, and it was probably what got him prematurely in the end.

    Personally, I’ve always stuck to caffeine, alcohol, and an occasional puff of tobacco from my pipe. I certainly hope my kids will make the same decisions and go no farther than I have, and not try anything earlier than I did.

    But in my very few anecdotal observations (I’ve lived briefly in South Beach Miami and LA, but I’m naturally a square), I’ve witnessed the spectrum from, “Does an eight-ball of cocaine or ecstasy tab every time when going out to party, but besides turning them into an asshole or birch for a few hours, has no other apparent effect on their non-party lives” to “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness…” Sometimes actually ‘destroyed’ in the heroine junkie sense, and sometimes more ‘neutralized and demotivated into a lotus-eater and stoner-bum.”

    There’s also the specific cultural context. We often read about alcohol prohibition as if it’s the biggest and most obvious mistake American ever made. But when you read about the universal level of very hard drinking and resulting social harms that was extant at the time it starts to look a lot more reasonable. Our current alcohol culture, while still resulting in a lot of human tragedy and social cost, is remarkably tamed compared to the late 19th century.

    So, as a particularist, I think different groups of people with different ethnic backgrounds and different cultures are necessarily going to have different ideal or optimal solutions to this issue, anything from Mormon levels of complete prohibition to high permissiveness, so I can never say there’s one universalist right answer.

    But there is still a lot of dispersion even within distinct and homogenous ethno-cultural groups, so the broader question is what is any particular government to do with regards to deciding whether and how to regulate contraband and minimize social harm when its members have such disparate reactions to it, and beyond the almost universally-held opinion that children should not be allowed to freely purchase and consume most of these things.

    The libertarian economists’ answer to everything seems to be ‘legalize everything but tax to the optimal extent necessary to mitigate the externalities’. But I find that problematic in many ways, not the least of which is that if the external harms and taxes are high, then you’ll just end up with the same black market and policing structure we have now (as you see with cigarette smuggling). Also there’s too much opportunity to obscure a lot of mischief with regards to the harm-estimates by using the veils of the academy and bureaucracy.

    Finally, though this is a blasphemous position to a libertarian, I wonder how much the human experience of liberty to ingest these particular substances is really worth, or even how to meaningfully ask the question given the subjectiveness and malleability of value. How much do ‘we’ ‘lose’ by banning some of these things?

    ‘Addictive Substances’ give us a non-linear problem of value. Because if you don’t ever taste them, you don’t really want them, and it seems individuals can find all the happiness and most of the thrills and sensations a human life can achieve in alternative substitutes with less risk of harm, but then after ‘the taste’, one’s utility curves go through a substantial warping in favor of the newly experienced stimulation. Do we have the intellectual tools to compare the preferability of ‘pre-warped vs post-warped human life pathways’?

    When a lot of conservatives argue in favor of drug prohibition or traditional sexual morality, they say that the ‘youthful free-for all but later sober settling-down’ model of the elites is an illusion because the experience of promiscuity ‘ruins’ people for monogamy, and the hyper-intense experiences of drug use ‘ruins’ people to enjoyment and appreciation of more normal human pursuits. I think this ‘ruination’ theory has something to it.

    So to loop back to the religion / social-noble-lie discussion above (and the reason I put it in here), I’m not convinced that the optimal answer for some of the substances is not actually to do what we kind of do now and propagate ‘sinful’ norms about them – ‘they’re always wrong and dangerous for everyone everywhere so never ever do it or tolerate it’ – and try to encourage people to not to contradict those norms even though there are naturally going to be plenty of obvious counter-examples to the official myth.

    admin Reply:

    @ Peter A. Taylor — my next post was prompted by your question, but in case it’s still too cryptic, I’ll aim for something more concrete soon.

    Posted on December 28th, 2013 at 4:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Porphy's Attorney Says:

    Still doesn’t negate the slogan (which, after all, is only a slogan – or, if you prefer, a aphorism. In any case it’s not a manifesto). It seems rather strange to dismiss it on the grounds it is being dismissed on, because it reflects an essence of “Moldbuggian Neoreaction” since its origins – the worthlessness and counterproductivity of much of the Right. While having much sympathy for some of its more inchocate (but hapless) elements – elements that are not so much attacked as sympathized with (even if, probably, most of us wouldn’t end up living in their type of community, once things shook out).

    Lets take just one of your examples, where you said “but the social-conservative republicans will not.” Ok, great, and neoreaction has a fair amount of sympathy for these mostly Vaisya peckerwoods.

    But they obviously need better leadership, and it’s also clear that a fair amount of their current religious leadership is happy to sell them down the river on a lot of issues, both economic and social-moral. Likewise I think you’re one of the people who noticed that it has become fashionable in evangelical (the social-con base, if there is any) circles to adopt, well, babies of diverse backgrounds. And also to harken back to Social Justice causes. In any case, an inchoate mass of social cons, however large, has not demonstrated a track record of success.

    And certainly it’s possible to rationalize a whole bunch of progressive causes on “right-wing” grounds (like, for example, redistribution and interventionism), which is the fate of most Western conservative movements. The American Conservative (magazine) does it so much I’m surprised they have yet to attempt revive the old Rothbardian “Left and Right” fusion effort (such efforts will always fail because in the end the Left has nothing but scorn and contempt for anyone on the Right). Probably ultimately someone will come up with some rationalization of why the Neoreactionary Supermen should also promote open borders, because then these world-bestriding Supermen will get moar pawns (moar) to move around their chessboard and puppeteer, too, and they can redistribute from some of their productive pawns (Vasiya’s) to their new pawns (Helots) so that the Helots can consume moar, and, que surprise, we’ll have recreated the very self-licking ice-cream cones we now say are destroying civilization and our transformation from Neoreactionaries into NeoProgs will be complete.

    At some point, us neoreactionaries being a rational bunch, someone will just suggest to cut out the middle steps and jump right in with a conversion to progressivism for a quick ticket to the top of the dungpile we now call The Modern Structure.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Never go full Quisling.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 29th, 2013 at 12:26 am Reply | Quote
  • Porphy's Attorney Says:

    Because going partial Quisling has worked so well for the Right lo these last couple hundred years. :p

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 29th, 2013 at 12:58 am Reply | Quote
  • etype Says:

    Left/Right = bullshit. Anyone who can demonstrate a talent for fucking shit up is useful. Though the weapons may be words, and the arena – debate… it is of no matter who’s right, or left, it matters who takes his opponent’s fucking head off and leaves a blood gushing corpse as the conclusion of his argument.

    [Reply]

    Giacomo Reply:

    The world in general, gentlemen, are very bloody-minded; and all they want in a murder is a copious effusion of blood; gaudy display in this point is enough for them. But the enlightened connoisseur is more refined in his taste; and from our art, as from all the other liberal arts when thoroughly cultivated, the result is—to improve and to humanize the heart; so true is it, that—

    ——”Ingenuas didicisse fideliter artes,
    Emollit mores, nec sinit esse feros.”

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    @giacomo,

    “a diis quidem immortalibus quæ potest homini major esse pœna, furore atque dementia?”

    Well that’s what we have. Ovid had something to defend. We have to take to get something to defend.
    We have to attack to have the space to build. We have to attack to carve a refuge for truth and beauty first, and the truth of our enemies is they allow no refuge. No tyrant was ever this mad. No tyrant ever had such a marvelously constructed edifice of Republic, ritual of democracy, cloak of Laws to go so mad.

    You see Handle your beautiful better lie was called the New Deal. And it did work. When you mean to do good you’ll for the most part do it. When you mean Harm as the Left the last 50 years has no system of men short of prison can restrain you. The motto of our elites should be “furore atque dementia.”

    @Giacomo – brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.

    Betrayal in the case I referred to above of a fellow British Soldier and many others like it is done not out of misguided morality but as a tool for social climbers.

    [Reply]

    Giacomo Reply:

    I’ve tried to reason with you.

    I believe in free speech, discussion and fair play. Congratulations on stifling that; you’re wonderful people and you should feel proud of the good that you’re doing in the world.

    Posted on December 29th, 2013 at 10:31 am Reply | Quote
  • anonymous Says:

    ok first test of this slogan:

    this kid in texas who played knockout game on a 78 year old black man and is now getting the federal hate crime treatment

    isteve commenters are pretty disgusted with him

    what says neoreaction?

    [Reply]

    Puzzle Pirate (@PuzzlePirate) Reply:

    I’ve always thought that if I were to become a bully I’d be an “honorable” bully. What I mean is I wouldn’t attack targets that are too weak to defend themselves. So if I were to play knockout game it would be against someone young and able, not old and feeble.

    Of course if we were in a full on war / SHTF situation, such pleasantries would have to be ignored.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    No. Pick on a bully.

    [Reply]

    Puzzle Pirate (@PuzzlePirate) Reply:

    agree

    [Reply]

    Puzzle Pirate (@PuzzlePirate) Reply:

    I mean I agree that bullying a bully is a good idea.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Me too!! and it so happens there’s plenty of them among the foe.

    Posted on December 29th, 2013 at 1:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Says:

    @anonymous

    Dunno anon, it can pretty plausibly be argued that dealing with your frustrations by beating up old people is not a right wing value.

    The Taliban might be a better test case.

    [Reply]

    Mai La Dreapta Reply:

    FWIW, I don’t consider conservative Islam to be an enemy, at least on the theory of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Progressives sometimes want to make Islam into their friend, but this is clearly an instance of buying votes through appeasing a minority too small to actually threaten progressive norms. Did you know that something like 70% of Muslims voted for Bush in ’00? Of course, in ’04 it was 2%, because conservatives are idiots, and progressives seized the opportunity to make Muslims part of their strategy. An intelligent conservative could make hay of progressive disdain for conservative religion and regain the Muslim vote, not that I expect this to actually happen

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    Non-unitarian (i.e. tamed to be more-or-less mainstream) Islam is a virulent and incompatible invasive species in post-Christian ideological ecology of Western environments. It provides an opposing pole of attraction from loyalty towards and belongingness within the local, native community and instead towards the alien for the resentful, frustrated, and marginalized types who enjoy strict bright-line rules and aggressive assertions of cultural confidence. See, e.g. #6 here

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 29th, 2013 at 5:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Lerner Says:

    What about the Less Wrongers? They are unplugged from The Cathedral, but then they plugged themselves right back into Eliezer’s new Cathedral (it’s growing organs!).

    I’m inclined to attack them. If neoreaction were a religious revival, they would be Scientology. It’s embarrassing.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 29th, 2013 at 9:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Drugs Discussion Forum | Handle's Haus Says:

    […] great Peter A. Taylor asks an interesting question over at Land’s […]

    Posted on December 29th, 2013 at 9:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dan Says:

    I think a neoreactionary concept is that laws should not be the same to all peoples and cultures, but should take into account special circumstances. For instance, homeschooling may be a great idea for the Duggars, maybe should not be allowed for militant Islamists.

    By this token, Reactionary drug laws would be different for groups with high or low impulse control and high or low tendencies toward violence.

    However, such laws violate our our religion of Equalism (will it be long before we are celebrating Equalmas?). We are forced to take a hard look at what our demographics are and are becoming.

    If our society is filling up with a lot of low-impulse, high-crime types who don’t function well without structure, our laws need to reflect that.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    There are many other controls and structures other than “Laws”.

    All irrelevant without power. No power without Unraveling of Cathedral.

    No deals pre-unraveling, they’d be fantasy castles anyway.

    All is unraveling, human nature freed will find natural orders and pathways.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    In the old days, travel was more difficult and expensive, but the vices were available ‘abroad,’ so the elites and mostly only the elites could afford to travel to indulge in them (it occurs to me that this may be on reason that the profession of sailor was always considered to be dodgy). That, coupled with noblesse oblige so the elites remained discrete and didn’t broadcast their indulgences to the lower orders, did the trick.

    Travel costs are much lower now, but the patchwork/federalism option probably is still workable. Keep gambling and legalized drugs to Las Vegas and practically anybody can indulge in it occasionally but it would be much harder for anyone to do it all the time. There would still be people at the margins who would screw their lives up irredeemably, but that’s not really a bug. Failure should always be an option.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 30th, 2013 at 12:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Nulla ante agit enodare.

    No deals before unraveling.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 30th, 2013 at 4:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • etype Says:

    This ‘laws for them’ and ‘law of privilege or priority’ for ‘us’ [sic] is both delusional and unworkable… as has been well demonstrated throughout man’s history. Many seem to respond to the idea of ‘Neo-reaction’ as a type of political, swords and dungeons computer game which they expect is set on it’s easiest, fantasy level (proclaiming one’s affiliate insurmountable intelligence/ superiority ‘on the internet’ etc.) in expectation they may go around fucking shit up with only token resistance.

    Disparage ‘Progressivism’ all you want – you are fools to underestimate it… or just fools, period ‘.’

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 31st, 2013 at 4:50 am Reply | Quote
  • Jefferson Says:

    A nation of laws writes laws to fit the men. A nation of men determines the law as appropriate in a given circumstance. We’re neither right now. If we’re to become a nation of men, we shouldn’t have a position statement on drugs (or any of the other things we’ve been quibbling over of late). It is unlikely that anyone here will be in charge if and when the changes come, so we ought be concerned with making sure that the best men are the ones who take over, anything beyond that is not for us to decide.

    [Reply]

    etype Reply:

    @Jefferson
    Thank you for your well-considered reply. “A nation of laws writes laws to fit the men. A nation of men determines the law as appropriate in a given circumstance. “ is a tautology if you examine it in blank, impartial terms. But crediting your intelligence and viewing your statement in partial terms, your statement bears an important truth; it is not so much for us to presume to legislate the written law, as these things generally happen after the fact and are not so important if in good faith; it is the unwritten law and uncompromising fidelity to the unwritten law which calls for reaction – for it is the unwritten law that the nation of men legislate, and is the duty and right they must yield to no one. In the West laws are still made by men, but the unwritten laws are made by and for women, foreign minorities and the mob – which leads not to a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but the degradation and eventual destruction of all. The ‘unwritten law’ is ours to bear or to fail.
    If we are not ourselves the ‘best men’, but instead a bunch of idiots who like to write comments declaring our superior intelligence and priority (ie.when someone claims ‘superior intelligence or priority’ in the comments section on an internet forum – you can accurately subtract 15% points from their actual intelligence – 25% points if made on a forum that uses a black background and white text…) then one should just shut the fuck up – for you are dealing again with nothing more than the mob looking to be first to exhaust the nations resources.

    [Reply]

    Jefferson Reply:

    Your oversimplification does you a disservice, sir. The tautology I cite needs reiteration, since much of this thread seems to be men wanting to write laws for a nation that does not abide by written laws. “In the West laws are still made by men, but the unwritten laws are made by and for women, foreign minorities and the mob – which leads not to a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but the degradation and eventual destruction of all.” There are, obviously, no true (Scots) men making our laws, otherwise we wouldn’t find ourselves in this predicament.

    Furthermore, your response to my comment casts doubt on your previous post.The best men make laws that fit the circumstances, not one-size fits all. This is how it’s been through history, and the last century+’s attempts to squeeze all humanity into one bucket has been to the detriment of all.

    [Reply]

    etype Reply:

    I see the point you’re trying to make, but with respect I disagree. I’m against preferences. I think there should be few laws, and those laws should be excessively few in number and simple – they should apply with equal effect to the lowest or highest. ‘Not-one-size-fits-all’ law is what we see today in the name of ‘equality before the law’, with the actual access to justice ruled by power of one’s wallet. If one is wealthy, one doesn’t have a superior level of laws, but superior access, which amounts to the same thing. This is a degraded state of affairs fit only for a nation of dogs.

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

    The Laws themselves should be few and equal.

    There is an entire world beyond Law and Government.

    We should fight for a world where at least Americans* can discover it again.

    As we currently labor under a government that wishes to tell us how to defaecate and tax us for breathing, has politicized every physical aspect of us from color to sex to food to weight, that has more laws than our magnificent machines can count …we may have difficulty imagining a world where the government and laws are simple, small and commonsense. And few.

    We are all products of the not yet ended interminable and bloody 20th century. Prior to which at least Americans seldom were animated about national affairs, absolutely not on a daily basis.

    We don’t need laws that differentiate every aspect from the more Right View instead of the Prog Left view. Haven’t we all had enough?

    * Lo – if the American Cathedral falls, the rest are free.

    EType is correct.

    [Reply]

    etype Reply:

    Thank you VXXC for your consideration. I think the Americans in their original Constitution were prescient in a few areas, and in essence the Constitution was of the most ‘neo-reactionary’ sentiment. However they did not foresee that this document could be changed without amendment by changing the people, and they imagined a solidarity between people which in a capitalist democracy does not exist, or is easily malleable by the very nature of capitalism within a democracy. There were a few fundamental errors, and in this sense the commentator Jefferson is correct – ‘All Men Are Equal Before The Law’ might better have been limited to ‘All Americans Are Equal…, and Let Others Tend Their Own Gardens Or Their Graveyards’. I think the latter, although commented on in numerous instances by the founders, was unwisely left unwritten.
    Now the unwritten law is dictated by what here is accepted as the ‘Cathedral’ – This unwritten law is directed at it’s previous formulation, not the Constitution. ‘All men are equal before the law’ has become the rope with which to bind and hang us. In this sense the commentator Jefferson is correct.

    The unwritten law of the ‘Cathedral’ is similar to what is known as Jante’s law as defined by Sandemose :

    You’re not to think you are anything special.
    You’re not to think you are as good as us.
    You’re not to think you are smarter than us.
    You’re not to convince yourself that you are better than us.
    You’re not to think you know more than us.
    You’re not to think you are more important than us.
    You’re not to think you are good at anything.
    You’re not to laugh at us.
    You’re not to think anyone cares about you.
    You’re not to think you can teach us anything.

    and finally:

    Maybe you don’t think I know a few things about you?

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 4th, 2014 at 11:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Quote notes (#54) Says:

    […] on the theme of finessing the ‘no enemies to the right’ mantra, some back-to-basics essentials from Angry White […]

    Posted on January 6th, 2014 at 4:52 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment