Twitter cuts (#11)

I’m going to put up a post on moral terror later, if I get a chance. A little background:

— Primary reference.

… and on, and on. But here’s the tweet I’m seriously ashamed of:

This repulsive, sniveling concession to moralistic coercion is the epitome of philosophical cowardice, and a grave offense against any decent sense of cognitive hygiene. It’s like protesting to Cotton Mather — “Honestly! I’m not a witch!” — when you don’t remotely have to. Having been badgered into it by a couple of ankle-biting blowhards is no excuse, in my book. They demanded a cheap signal of conformity to sovereign stupidity, which is their actual god, and it was surrendered to them, in a bleat. The only dignified response to such vulgarity is contemptuous silence, or if not that then “Yes, my blender is encrusted with puppy blood”, but now it’s too late for that. Still, never again (I hope). May Gnon sharpen my instincts and stiffen my spine.

— which was easy to say, after I’d already put the damn thing on.

February 27, 2015admin 26 Comments »


26 Responses to this entry

  • Twitter cuts (#11) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Twitter cuts (#11) […]

    Posted on February 27th, 2015 at 9:30 am Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Well before you post on moral terror….do consider the following 0520 ET feedback [IOW I just awoke]…

    ” precisely this barbarity is necessary to overcome the weakness of liberalism. ”

    That is not your position as I understand it, you are observing what ISIS is doing and that it’s winning. That ISIS is winning on exactly the Moldbug script for a Prog backed [State Dept] and Prog Proxy/Paymaster ally [Saudi/Gulf Arab $$] prog backed insurgency is utterly obvious.

    I’ve been telling people what we’re actually doing is trying to bomb ISIS back to the Progressive fold. Just as we were doing in Vietnam until really 1969 [post Tet mop up by Nixon].

    Further on Vietnam there’s a misunderstanding of what the NLF/PAVN actually were…that they were guilty of atrocity and ruthlessness is true, that they were guilty of many crimes is true, that they used terror is true. That they were a blood cult isn’t.

    This is how they saw themselves early 1960s. RAND profile of captured PAVN.

    Coppola can be used as a source on Vietnam with less reliability than he can be used as a source on La Cosa Nostra. Both movies are brilliant art, neither one is True.

    So it’s no premise.

    ISIS isn’t winning on barbarity. It’s winning with superior tactics (and highly suspicious quantum leaps in training, tactics, strategy that began to be applied in 2014).

    You want to know what ISIS is winning with? ISIS is winning with a networked model of war and using social media to essentially flash mob it’s forces for attack, but keeping them dispersed to groups of 3 vehicles until needed to mass.

    ISIS isn’t winning with beheadings. It’s winning with Flash Mobs and Facebook, twitter execution of Mission Type Orders of broad goals left to subordinates to figure out details aka Aufragustik.

    I’d love to have an intelligent discussion about ISIS.

    Now not you yourself but certain types on these here Interwebz haunts are unfortunately the type to morbidly focus on beheadings and terror.

    Well yes, if one has been exposed to the soft moral terror of the Academy one might be fascinated by moral terror ala Kurtz. However it’s a TIME WASTER.

    We actually DID defeat the NLF [VC] and PAVN [NVA] armies in South Vietnam, by 1970 you could drive alone in a jeep from one end to another.

    US and south Vietnamese forces smashed through the depleted by Tet VC [NLF] countryside in what was the bloodiest year of 1969, a year however of focus because Nixon was now at the helm.

    As far as the anti-guerrilla operations against the Communist Cadre CATHOLIC south Vietnamese officer developed Phoenix Project; originally to persuade to flip sides, morphing into program of Anti-Communist assassinations – or Jujitsu using their own tactics. That’s about the extent of us becoming the enemy to win.

    Coppola, Hollywood, the Media and the Left can’t be used as a source and I intend to repost this over on Theden to tell them exactly that.

    Yes killing and ruthlessness are required in war, the degree of which is determined usually by the mutual and reciprocal restraint or savagery of the combatants.

    Rommel won by superior mobile tactics, lost when he was forced to play British game of fixed fortifications at El Alamein, was defeated in Africa overall by the logistical treachery of the Italians [who controlled his logistics].

    So not so much for you but for the younger crowd [who are worth it Professor, as is enduring them finding their own wings and flying] but so they look deeper I’ll point this out.


    admin Reply:

    I think there’s a dimension to this you’re being evasive about. ISIS clearly thinks they can horrify the world into acquiescence. Are they ENTIRELY wrong about that? It’s at least a question.

    The level of violence required to win a serious military conflict against a determined adversary is no longer within the moral capacity of Western societies. Even if everything you say about Vietnam is true — and I’m not arguing with the substance — that remains true. It should be recognized, irrespective of the conclusions that are then drawn. A fundamental driver to robotic warfare is the incapacity of silicon to quaver.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    It’s worth considering early theories of air power that were tested, the idea that if you carpet bomb a few cities killing civilians directly it would demoralize your enemy in capitulation which is essentially a tactic of horror. It didn’t work, initially it will actually strengthen an enemy’s resolve. Being able to destroy an enemy utterly with impunity can get them to surrender unconditionally, but horror can only buy you limited capitulation at best and strengthen an enemies resolve at worse (The sentiment of Arthur Harris saying “I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier” is something I wholly agree with and would never want to serve under someone who disagrees, however he failed to achieve his strategic aims of sowing fear and capitulation into the German populous though his deliberate targeting of civilians). Overwhelming power, not vindictiveness is what inspires fear. Humans evolved to read signals very well, resorting to horror signals weakness since it implies inability to destroy an enemy utterly. Horror is what you get from a wounded animal backed into a corner, they’re dangerous and can certainly get some sympathy (progs will crawl over each other to signal solidarity with weakness, it’s easy to confuse that with the common prog trait of capitulating instantly to violence directed personally against them) and potentially some capitulation but never unconditional surrender.

    “The level of violence required to win a serious military conflict against a determined adversary is no longer within the moral capacity of Western societies.”
    This is why the shadow state exists, to do the work the front state can’t be seen doing. Also the alpha progs are capable of fighting tooth and nail and will plant machine guns behind the more reluctant lesser progs for motivation, they just don’t like fighting their perceived allies.


    VXXC Reply:

    I don’t disagree.

    However I think ISIS is a creature of the State Dept, and I doubt Lord Moldbug would disagree.

    The will within Western Elite society doesn’t exist for anything but harm – and looting – of the society that birthed them…which Nero like they seek to ruin and destroy.

    So yes we’re in agreement fundamentally, but I draw as usual a dichotomy between the Western Peoples and their Elites.

    We need to summon the will to save ourselves, and not from ISIS.


    VXXC Reply:

    And no ISIS isn’t wrong about Horror and Terror being used to force acquiescence at all.

    Yes, Horror and Moral Terror work…to a point.

    Unless…people are convinced they’ll be killed anyway and it’s just a matter of time and chance.

    That was the downfall of AQ in Iraq, and it’s predicted [I really don’t know] will be again with ISIS [same people actually].

    I will say the Shia are quite convinced they have no choice, as do any non-Sunni.

    Well the Sunni are only 18% of Iraq.


    A.B Prosper Reply:

    In reality these methods ISIS uses are not different than they standard methods that are used in every war when it comes down to it. War is force, terror and slaughter. Its easy though to overextend yourself and to not have the amount of force you want, need or think you do and if you are locked into excessively violent solutions, you’ll get smashed either by local foes or outside ones.

    ISIS isn’t entirely about slaughter and Muslims willing to accede to their particular Islamic strain, which is pretty close to what our best bud Saudi Arabia has, are fairly safe by standards of that region.

    A lot of people can’t or won’t comply or shouldn’t and will end up killed but that’s war

    And yeah I concur the current methods are messier and more public and scarier to soft western minds but dying of a piece of rebar through the gut from a bombed building or being incinerated by a firebomb isn’t much different to the poor fool on the receiving end.

    Hell not that many years ago we executed our prisoners for public edification same as them though we tried to mostly not be cruel, mostly.

    Does that make us the same? No, of course not but it does mean the differences between as are not a gulf as much as a large gap. we’d do well to remember that.

    Whats got us all worried is that for once Arab armies are being successful at something. This is not historically anomalous of course , this kind of blitz warfare is something that lot has a talent for be we in the spoiled rotten “virtual” West have forgotten.

    In the end though, these ISIS guys will be wiped out I suspect since they are just too violent and inflexible with too many people. Good riddance.


    Posted on February 27th, 2015 at 10:53 am Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    The Defeat of South Vietnam was accomplished through Logistical Treachery in America, just as Rommel’s Afrika Korps was defeated by Italian logistical treachery.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    The outcome of just about any war boils down to logistics. I don’t regard Vietnam as a failure, the wider geopolitical aim of keeping Communism contained was achieved in that theater thanks to fighting in Vietnam and then pivoting to China after the fighting stopped. The more important strategic aim of avoiding direct confrontation with China and thus keeping the fighting out of countries like Thailand was achieved and made the pivot to China possible rather than pushing them into the arms of the Soviets. South Vietnam was just a pawn, keeping the Chinese Rook boxed in was more important even if it technically counts as a point loss.


    Posted on February 27th, 2015 at 11:03 am Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    That article is just 1000 words of missing the point, which is why I decided to ignore it when I read it the first time.

    I don’t know why you bother, these two are not even part of NRx or remotely important in any possible way.


    admin Reply:

    I don’t really (bother). It’s Coppola’s topic of moral terror that’s worth thinking about — and NOT doing that is the whole of what those two are about.


    Posted on February 27th, 2015 at 12:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • SGW Says:

    I think that there is some truth in what he says, though I don’t think his arguments are particularly valid, since horror has worked quite well as a weapon in many cases. The question raised of how a nation can apply instrumental terror without demoralizing the domestic population is a valid one. Horrorism can easily become a blood stained skirt used to cover the eyes of monsters, if these type of questions aren’t taken seriously. It hardly makes sense to become a SJW of the Outer Right in reaction to the SJWs of the center.


    admin Reply:

    What would an “SJW of the Outer Right” even mean? I can’t begin to construe it.


    Scharlach Reply:

    It means being a 16th century Puritan, which, of course, means being an old-school Leftist instead of a contemporary Leftist. Some people misconstrue “old-school Leftist” with “outer right.”


    SGW Reply:

    I imagine that an outer right SJW would be somewhat comparable to the gang of gifted children from Mishima’s “The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea” whom practiced a philosophy, which they called objectivity, and tortured and dissected cats to harden their hearts against all too human sentiments, patted one another on their backs for being unfeeling about such things and killed an unafilliated person who didn’t conform to their ideal.

    The philosophy of the children in question obviously was primarily inspired by the philosophy of de Sade, but there are some parallels.


    admin Reply:

    Is “SJW” doing any work at all there?

    SGW Reply:

    To be honest, I’m not sure. I see Scott Alexander as a progressive, but not as a SJW, since SJWs basically are abusive moral activists. I think that it is useful to have different terms to differentiate one from the other. The equivalent term for a religious abusive moral activist probably would be puritan.

    I don’t believe that there is an equivalent term for the outer right, which is a good thing in a way, but it is rather inconvenient. What are we supposed to call the heroic youths who would proudly patrol the streets of San Fransisco, in their Carlyle youth uniforms, where they give random people inverted Voigt-Kampff tests, and turn those who show too many signs of empathy when faced with imagery of starving African children into biofuel for the municipal buses?

    I’m not entirely serious about this, but it is not like there aren’t some tendencies towards milder versions of similar phenomenon, like Phalanx and such. Zealots perhaps?

    Posted on February 27th, 2015 at 2:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Twitter cuts (#11) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on February 27th, 2015 at 2:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • soapjackal Says:

    Theres nothing wrong with appealing to moral men and actually working within moral systems for guidance on political decisions. The trouble with that article is they wanted to disagree with you so hard that they forget to actually use anything you actually said to disagree with. It was a full article of pure fallacy. I rebuked the entire article and not much of a response on my end from them.


    admin Reply:

    Without wanting to understate the degree to which we are always arguing about everything, it has to be said that your intellectual integrity is a thing of wonder.


    Posted on February 27th, 2015 at 2:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bryce Laliberte Says:

    “Land has used a liberal trope” but then no liberal trope is picked out. Horrorism isn’t liberal. He doesn’t get around to even describing it accurately, there’s nothing else worth rebutting.


    Erebus Reply:

    “Trope” was a probably just a poor choice of words. I think that the author of that article means to imply that our host has accepted “the liberal viewpoint/narrative” with respect to the Vietnam conflict…. but that passage borders on the incomprehensible.

    …Why people bother to write such ridiculous and misguided articles, I’ll never know.


    Alrenous Reply:

    The article is saying Land accepts a Marxist talking point, namely that wars are won by being more uncivilized than the loser, e.g. torturing toddlers. Marxist -> liberal.

    For clarity, I read Kurtz via Land as saying that, regardless of the actual military utility, the Viet Cong had the will to do that, and the Pentagon did not. Indeed the Pentagon didn’t have the will to do a quick, clean kill, let alone a long, dirty kill.


    Costofles Reply:

    That is correct, the Pentagon did not have the will to do what it took to subdue the Viet Cong. What it would have taken has little to do with forming bloody death cults ala Kurtz.


    Posted on February 27th, 2015 at 4:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    It’s not necessary to embrace the 7 kill Stele to win. As far as us losing militarily in Vietnam we didn’t.

    In fact we defeated not only the Viet Cong but the NVA repeatedly.

    In Tet 1968 the Vietcong completely committed along with heavy NVA support.

    We defeated them in Tet, we rolled up and ground to a paste their infrastructure and by 1970 one could and some did drive alone in an open top jeep from one end to the other of South Vietnam.

    The South Vietnamese backed by our air power and advisers defeated a conventional army invasion from the north in 1972.

    South Vietnam was cut off from supply in 74, the North which was getting resupplied was able to field one more conventional army and invade and conquer, with tanks in 1975.

    Congress won for North Vietnam, not Pentagon squeamishness.

    Of course even now with the ridiculous ROE – there should be no ROE once war begins – we still aren’t losing militarily. We’re defeating ourselves politically.

    let’s understand the political goals the military was given in Iraq and Afghanistan – turn them into SWPLs – aren’t possible.


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Just out of curiousity, did you see a lot of difference between serving under General Westmoreland and General Abrams?


    Posted on March 2nd, 2015 at 1:42 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment