What is the Alt-Right? III

Late to this, which is what the comparatively honest faction of the Cathedral is seeing.

Main XS-specific quibbles:

(1) No, I didn’t have anything to do with The Dark Enlightenment blog. Nor, I’m highly confident, did Curtis Yarvin. I’m especially confident that the Open Letter was not written as an introduction to the DE.
ADDED: See this TDE statement.

(2) I have no social connections at all with the Lesser God-tier of SV. (If I did, I’d brag about it all the time.)

(3) Anyone who thinks this usage of echoes is non-ironic needs a Kek-check.

(4) The RamZPaul link is complete black-thread and duct tape conspiracism. (C’mon, seriously, that’s obvious, isn’t it?) A little reciprocal linkage isn’t a social relationship. We both merely acknowledge that the other guy exists.

Induction would suggest there are some other howlers beyond my epistemological horizon. Frankly, though, I don’t see much deliberate malevolence here. Cramer seems to be doing his best to understand what’s going on, and to remain as calm as possible about it. If he’s primarily interested in the Alt-Right, I’d recommend much more attention to Richard Spencer, and much less to Neoreaction. My recommendation to NRx, naturally, is to vindicate that suggestion.

March 3, 2017admin 87 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , ,

87 Responses to this entry

  • dmf Says:

    thanks for the clarifications, hard to keep up with yer newfound fame on the intertubes

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 3rd, 2017 at 6:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    I thought it was very clear that you were from the libertarian, Anarcho-Capitalism, and Neoreaction cluster of themes and not the ur-Rightist one that the Alt Right desires.

    Of course, what may have confused him is that the Alt Right has the same cluster as part of its inputs. For example, Allum Bokhari’s “cultural Libertarianism” is a type of influence on the Alt Right (and the defining idea of the Alt Lite, a.k.a. gentle balkanizers).

    Either way, the Alt Right is pretty clearly an attempt to bring back volkisch conservatism in a postmodern form, namely one that aspires more than reacts.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 3rd, 2017 at 6:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    XS has explained the difference between NRx and the alt-right, but to my knowledge it’s never explained why the two are so often conflated.

    [Reply]

    Apatheos Reply:

    When Thomas Jefferson writes “Nature or Nature’s God”, following Carl L. Becker’s interpretation, he is referring to laws of motion or gases. Jefferson is not thinking of natural/national laws in the sense of William Blackstone. This conflation is fascism. Jefferson effectively does away with God, dispensing with the divinity of souls and special place of human rationality in organizing the universe, but maintains a noumenal understanding of social contracts.

    [Reply]

    PC Reply:

    Because to the outsider, NRx looks like a precursor / subset of the alt-right; and most outsiders aren’t going to waste time parsing internecine theological disputes.

    [Reply]

    Ur-mail Reply:

    The point is to classify so as to quarantine. In such a case a large containment chamber (“Alt-right”) will do as well as many small ones (“NRx”, “Rx”, “Traditionalist”, “Race realist”).

    What we have is one word used two very different ways. To the left the “Alt-right” means something like “modern right”, although its exact signification is far from clear. To everyone within the right, “Alt-right” (Richard Spencer’s coinage) retains a more nuanced meaning.

    The constant confusion by the left seems to stem more from convenience than malice. They want to make content without getting tripped up in nuance. They want to understand only enough so as to suppress.

    [Reply]

    PC Reply:

    Instead of saying “everyone within the right”, you should probably say “everyone within the fringe right”. Most of “the right” has equally low awareness of the fine distinctions that preoccupy the fringe.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 3rd, 2017 at 6:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    all this is so familiar to me

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 3rd, 2017 at 7:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • pyrrhus Says:

    Vox Day wrote the 16 principles of the Alt-Right, so I would suggest reading them and VD’s discussions of them rather than bother with publicity hound Richard Spencer.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    I think they should interview a handful of the frog gentlemen that were banned from twitter recently. Too much Machiavellian silence with the mainstreamers. *looks over at admin*

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 3rd, 2017 at 7:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    The Left isn’t showing any interest in distinctions. In my neck of the woods (UK Art scene) the sudden exposure to these ideas (LD50) went: Neoreaction > Alt-Right > Fascism > Neo-Nazi > Nazi in ONE step – all while splitting hairs / arguing like precocious children over the “””correct””” reading of Marx. Apparently, you’re a facist Nick, despite writing more against fascism / populism as a failure mode of democracy than all your misrepresenters combined. The antibodies of the Cathedral are primed for attack.

    [Reply]

    Friedrich Reply:

    Well, if you define fascism as “everything to the right of John Oliver”, then this makes perfect sense. Left is not interested in distinctions between Alt-Right, Old Right, NRx or what have you because of one simple point: everyone who is not a rabid progressive is a potential helicopter pilot to them.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 3rd, 2017 at 9:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • 1488 Says:

    You say a lot about how “skinheads” are stupid, but I never see you say the same thing about Zionists in Israel. I am curious what the reason behind this is?

    Virtue signaling? Do you extend your consistent reminder of the distance you have between yourself and the “dumb” skinheads (I agree with that much) to a distance with “white nationalists” or Western Europeans who believe in the same exact policies that Zionists want in Israel? If you believe that these people are “stupid” or shameful, would you extend this same harsh criticism toward the Zionist Jews?

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Heh, you’ve got to be kidding, he’d never answer that. Playing devil’s advocate though, a pretty sizable chunk of the world Jewish population was eviscerated during the war and whites, feelzing they were one people, took on the responsibility for what the Germans wrought, and adopted a “save the whales” complex on crack. I think it’s understandable, seeing as how we’d been ingrained with Christianity for almost two millennia, to feel called by the holy spirit to carry out such a reparation. It’s starting to unwind now, and we’re sensing our debt has been paid and the Jews have, well, Jewed us in the bargain as they’re wont to do. Everything evens out, every speck of dust is in its right place, and neither white guilt nor antisemitism simply fell out of the sky.

    [Reply]

    tsk Reply:

    In short: no, he won’t. Nick has never said anything bad about jews.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Keyword here is “never”, which is highly suspicious to me, but I’m sure to only a few others.

    Here’s the rub: neither Land nor Moldbug has directly addressed MacDonald. Never. Just an innocent psychology professor. They’ve never deigned to philosophically examine him. It must just be that he isn’t an intellectual worthy of scrutiny. Lots of their opponents slash allies are drastically influenced by him but no he’s just beneath the radar, oh well.

    [Reply]

    Nulle Terre Sans Seigneur Reply:

    All of MacDonald’s examples from CoC are 20th century movements. This is no coincidence. If he cares to look a little further back, the result will be one quite unfavorable to his volkisch-materialist position of promoting white ethnic genetic interests. Thousands of Jews were involved in the Hungarian Revolution, either as soldiers or as financiers and supporters (Kossuth speaking in favor of Jewish emancipation). One of the great Romanian revolutionaries and nationalistic romantics was a Jew: Constantin Daniel Rosenthal. Friedrich Wilhelm IV exclaimed that the German uprisings in 1848 were orchestrated by “budding Robespierres and Jews,” etc. etc.

    Ethnonationalism was once a left-wing position (still is in the Basque and other places), and so Jews were instrumental in building many of the European nations that MacDonald proposes to save by having a Leninist vanguard of white nationalists to inculcate ethnocentrism in mass European man and have some of that group evolutionary strategy for themselves. Perhaps Die Juden have gone too far, though? “No, no, Schlomo – we don’t want the whole revolution! Just most of it!” That’s the alt-right position, essentially.

    But that’s just the Jewish side of things. The white European share is far more damning.

    This is the problem with trying to unearth what went wrong by looking at late modernity. It’s where the seeds of earlier heresies, illuminisms and revolutionary fervor start sprouting in all sorts of directions. You can look at them and come up with many explanations, all of them very plausible. Hence the obsession many on the alt-right have with the year 1965. It’s a magic bullet.

    admin Reply:

    That’s hyperbolic. Look up previous threads here. Problem with JQ discussions is they get stuck at a pitifully low-level of sophistication, and get boring fast. Everyone knows the arguments off by heart now (including — or especially — MacDonald’s). There’s a million places on the Internet to do tedious racial finger-pointing. You can even do it here, if you really have to, and don’t get personal about it. Just don’t expect much response, because it never gets anywhere new, and it’s worn everyone out.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    I’d never heard of the phrase JQ certainly never considered it seriously when it was implied by casual remarks,until you began posts on the JQ. The same can be said for HBD generally it wasn’t the alt right, which i am still not even clear on who they are, it was group of blogs that referred to themselves as reactionary that turned me into a racist. Certainly it was also a lifetime of repressed observations culminating in a series public scandals.

    You seem to think you can have it both ways, either other races are harming our civilization or they are not, if they are they are enemies. Sure this harm is on the group scale, and as we confront on a personal scale our personal friends who are not white there is a horror at the implications of facing HBD, that horror transfixed me for at least two years after reading you and moldbug and griffe radish and a dozen others I desperately tried to prove you all wrong. And yet many of you now seemed to have blinked, you can not face the implications of your own philosophy.

    The left understands the implications I told you when you tried to equivocate a couple three years ago that it was pointless; you are a nazi I am a nazi charles murray is a nazi trump is a nazi. Its not the SJW propaganda that makes you a nazi its that you crossed a line a very clear line on one side is one assumption on the other reality the implications of reality are dark and horrible you used to get that it seemed. yes cognitive dissonance between our friends and group averages, between the worldview we all grew up on and reality, like I said for two years it was as if a child of mine had died. That childs dead if im called on to put my freind on ships bound for mexico israel and africa I will, because there is no where to exit ,and hide nick there is only whats left of white nations to defend.If I could exit to Elysium with you (and I realize you wouldn’t invite me) I wouldn’t go I would stay and fight and guess what Carlyle would be fighting with me. As would these monarchs you tout. And its going to come to that ,it’s inevitable its not going to be different this time we are still great apes.and it’s almost inevitable the jews will fight as non whites its not the alt right that is the cause of that, it is the jews they simply can not see themselves as whites, they were not five minute plucked from Aushwitz when they began again in the USA their anti white organizing. Ii for one wish they were salvageable that they would rise up and openly repent and work for white civilization but thats not what they are doing. It doesnt matter that it wasn’t everyone of them, it was like the other races, enough and open and done with no opposition save a few souls.Can Thomas sowell be the salvation of blacks average behavior. can he singlehandedly redeem the black question? Sorry i no longer believe in Jesus types. Jews are not the victims. They had their chance they had america they shit on it we are done.

    Posted on March 3rd, 2017 at 11:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • 1488 Says:

    @1488
    One more thing… taking into account the current political system in general and the system of guilt, can we really discount the power of pure social shame that current acts upon Western Europeans, for simply saying the same things which others would say, and how this social control is destructive onto personal lives of those who notice simple realities? I think coldness makes sense in a psychological context, but in an actual real life situation the reality is that a human deprived of social and cultural implementation becomes… malign.

    For instance many people point to a person like David Duke as inherently jokish. The guy in your lecture wouldn’t touch his books with a 20 foot pole. Nor Culture of Critique. These are subjects which are toxic and remain so. Despite your personal thoughts on the subject, this is a fact. One can read, say, HBD and engage it carefully, yet for some reason we know that this line exists which you cross, which remains pure existential terror. That line is the line where you look at David Duke’s book and say, “Why are people just laughing this guy off?” An odd double standard to say the least. I can’t get down, on a moral basis, with any group which enforces such a double standard.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 3rd, 2017 at 11:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • 1488 (TEE HEE) Says:

    It’s just a simple fact that non-Jewish white people who dare even mention Jews in anything other than a sterling light are held to a double standard that is 10 times worse than anyone else doing anything of the same. That’s just a real, simple reality. It’s a taboo, or some kind of social law that you “just don’t cross.”

    Think what you want, support Zionism, love the high Jewish IQ, etc etc. Don’t project some Nazi onto me. What I’m saying is, as a white person, I fail to see how it is in any white person’s interest to have any kind of passive acceptance of this social arrangement. There is no reason to do so except for fear to being smashed.

    Explain to me why I, as a Western European, or any other Western European white man, should accept that we should not be allowed to talk about these groups which have increasing power, but they should be able to talk about us at will and in whatever way they want… why should any of us accept this, just on a basic level? There is no reason to do so. I will never accept it. And I support Zionism to a large extent.

    It’s just not in my interest, no more than it is in Jewish interests to defend German interests. This is a SOCIAL taboo and it has become very tiresome.

    [Reply]

    Y. Ilan Reply:

    That’s understandable and reasonable; one shouldn’t simply accept social arrangements that are injurious to oneself. It is currently a mainstream taboo to question the power of Western Jews over non-Jews, partly because of historical guilt and partly because the very action of such differentiation is unacceptable by current ideological fashions. Going from such a simple insight to the belief that it is the Jew who has brought Western mores to this sad state of affairs, is a very unclear path in my opinion. It is unknown whether Group Selection actually exists, and in order for some sort of unconscious tribal conspiracy to exist (McDonald), Group Selection needs to be a thing.

    Listen, the Hellenizers amongst us have always been fanatical in their repudiation of Jewish tradition and their wholehearted acceptance of alien morality. You want to get rid of our pernicious influence? Better work on your own collapsing moral framework – getting rid of the Jews won’t help you, and it never really helped anyone historically. I’m not saying this in order to defend my brethren in the West; actually, the more hostility there is towards them, the more of them will find their way here to Israel. I like the old West, and I’d much rather we work together.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 3rd, 2017 at 11:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Cryptogenic Says:

    Serious question: If Cramer understood NRx in sufficient detail, would he be more or less horrified?

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 12:19 am Reply | Quote
  • smg Says:

    I watched the presentation & he completely missed the ‘alter’ part of Nrx/al-right (whatever).

    I realize he was limited by time but his summary of Moldbug was terrible & off the mark by a mile.

    He’s obviously never read UR. You’d think he’d take the time.

    He never mentions HBD. How do you talk altright/Nrx without HBD?

    He doesn’t mention Sailor. Again, weird.

    You (nick) are being generous. His summary is incredibly superficial & silly.

    [Reply]

    tsk Reply:

    If he were the kind of person to read UR, he’d not be the kind of person to do this kind of stupid “they’re a bunch of racists” pseudo-summary.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It was supposed to be about the Alt-Right, so the absences you mention didn’t seem to matter much. Routing the story through NRx / HBD would have been more of a problem.

    [Reply]

    smg Reply:

    HBD is primary to alt-right. Not discussing it was a glaring omission and feels intentional. It’s the rational for our “racism”. Key component is also hatred of materialism (human beings as interchangeable economic units) & death of alter (religion).

    These are all discussed by alt-right openly & repeatedly.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Of course he doesnt mention HBD the left doesnt want anyone thinking there is such a thing. Its implied you cross the line of racist not racist youre a racist they are not going to explain the flavors of racism and invite crime think. And they are correct there really is no difference between Land and Anglim just upper and lower class racists. three major newspapers each referred to Charles Murray as a white nationalist between 3 and 5 times in their articles yesterday.I really am astounded you all are surprised by this. we are in a race war Im sorry trying to use the euphemism a cognitive war is not going to work, we are supposed to be about reality here.

    [Reply]

    smg Reply:

    NRx crew is still trying to wall themselves off (build the wall!) from alt-right. They characterize alt-right with the same crude categories normies do. We’re all 1488 neo-nazis to them. Is this a real desire to disassociate or a good-cop, bad-cop strategy? Because progs won’t make the distinction it has a positive consequence for alt-right, regardless. There’s no ‘disavow’ that will be convincing to progs. As you point out, as Murray learned.

    Whatever. Given the opportunity, progs still gonna waterboard us all.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Maybe but frankly I dont think the cathedral is all that i think once this war goes hot they collapse really fast. But if the war doesnt go hot they are a 1000 year reich

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 2:51 am Reply | Quote
  • AMK Says:

    So if you didn’t create the Dark Enlightenment blog, then who did? And how did your essay wind up on their side? Is it your essay then?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I wrote it for Urban Future (1.0). It was picked up by the DE blog, which I was grateful for, since the UF platform — in the hands of an incompetent company tech-team — was highly unreliable (and shortly afterwards crashed into oblivion). That’s all I know, or ever cared to investigate. People don’t interest me much.

    [Reply]

    smg Reply:

    “People don’t interest me much.”

    lol. Nick’s autism confirmed. And I mean that in a nice way.

    [Reply]

    Charon Reply:

    @AMK,

    I thought Nick’s essay was an important one, and I was worried that it might vanish. So I thought I’d give it a safer home. That’s all. (I thought people might also like some more-convenient linkage to those two multi-part essays by MM, so I did that as well.)

    I started the DE “blog” (it’s obviously not a blog in any meaningful sense at this point) because, although I’ve been blogging for years under my real name, I was thinking I might need an anonymous outlet (and that others writing about DE/NRx matters might like one too). I had imagined it would be a sort of salon, but I never got around to doing any outreach for other writers. and never really wanted to have to write anonymously anyway – so I’ve just carried on at my regular blog, as myself, and left the DE site just hanging out there. (It gets a lot of linkage for a blog with no new content!)

    I hate to hide behind a pseudonym even here, but not to do so would sort of defeat the purpose, as I still may want to make the DE site more active someday.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 2:52 am Reply | Quote
  • Post Alley Crackpot Says:

    Never assume that despite earnest-looking intentions that the interlocutor isn’t essentially lazy …

    The best answer as to “why” is “in order to draw you in to the game”, and it is best applied on every level where the answer fits for purpose as well as echo effects.

    “We demand that the Outside be pulled Inside!”

    And the contemptuous kids at the back of the bus went HA HA HA.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    The neo-nazis may pull a Rosa Parks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Kde6RKPnE

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 4:34 am Reply | Quote
  • wu-wei Says:

    I think you give him too much credit. I don’t see how anyone could, for example, look at the usage of “(((Cultural Marxist)))” in that post and see it as anything other than poking fun at the expense of the alt-right, without themselves being either 1) stupid, 2) mendacious, or 3) mildly autistic.

    He even suggests you’ve “contradicted yourself”; he clearly doesn’t get it in the slightest.

    [Reply]

    Frank Reply:

    Probably autistic. Dimness and autism is a toxic combo.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I have to agree on that point. Could being a non-native speaker lead to such a hopelessly broken irony-meter?

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    I think you underestimate what a ghetto we are in, I went back to read that and got it its an inside joke though.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Until we have the left in camps pointing guns at their heads the nuance between alt right and NRX will be lost on them right now a nazi is a nazi is a nazi to them.Which BTW is why they are winning, and have us in a camp with guns to our heads offering them the real nazis, and when we have told them all about the real nazis they will pull the trigger anyway.

    wu-wei Reply:

    Maybe. But it reminds one of the “What’s so bad about the Nazis?” Moldbug hit-piece a few weeks ago (an obviously rhetorical question in context).

    I honestly think these people just put themselves so completely on edge reading this sort of material, so clearly out of their comfort zone, that they just can’t help their own terrified reactions. It’s completely alien to them, so they treat it like a venomous snake or something, expecting it to bite back at any moment (or perhaps, real-life Nazis to pop out of their monitors in 3-D).

    So when their eyes dart to the (clearly ironic) usage of (((echos))), their brain just completely deadlines, pure fight-or-flight mode activated, completely unable to process what they’re reading. In fact, it’s what they’ve already anticipated, or were hoping for, even: “Of course this guy’s a Nazi! It all makes perfect sense now! And Thank goodness! Reading this awful stuff was making me mighty uncomfortable, and my head was starting to feel a bit strange… but now, I can purge these awful Nazi thoughts in good conscience! Nothing to see here, nothing worth comprehending; just bad, bad Nazi-think!”

    Whether to interpret this reaction as stupidity, mendacity, or autism, is perhaps a subjective matter of opinion at this point.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Really, the Cathedral is currently ruling the world even openly destroying the duly elected POTUS. Their entire project rests on absolute denial of HBD. Nick Land is one of the bright lights that founded a philosophy of scientific racism. he and his dark angels have obviously traced as the intellectuals behind this alt right that has made the big time and thats not far from the truth without moldbug etal alt right is still skinheads and KKK. Land and reaction have” fucked with the primal forces that rule the universe” as Howard beale was told.I wouldn’t be surprised if he was taken to guantanamo bay eventually.It would be nice if he went like a man with his head up instead of whining about how some of his best friends are jews and asians.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Thing is, some of my best friends are Jews and Asians. I’d try not to make a point of it in front of the Red Guards, because it would indeed sound like a desperate plea for mercy. Not going to lie about it here, now, though. That would be ridiculous.

    Post Alley Crackpot Reply:

    I like my friends to be agreeable, but I prefer my enemies to be suggestible, corruptible, and open to negotiations.

    I don’t make pretences that alliances are formed of the best and most morally defensible stuff.

    I also see the flaws in allowing “deontic hate fallacies” to drive the narrative, but given this situation, I prefer to surround myself with the most blood-thirsty and angry allies I can find, not because I trust them on moral grounds, but because I trust that their blood-thirstiness and anger will do more than enough to sweep aside such conveniences as may arise during long periods of peacetime.

    Perhaps after such things become more obvious, some of these people will stop insisting that they are moral islands unto themselves, and that temporary alliances will shift to suggesting, corrupting, and negotiating toward any remaining real enemies.

    Wagner Reply:

    Speaking of Guantanamo Bay, I think the left has the power to put 3rd-Eye Jack (pirate name) in prison. And despite some of our disagreements with him I think anyone who wouldn’t bind together to bust him out is a coward, and there aren’t many cowards in our midst. There are lots of us and there will be a lot more if you lock him up. Go ahead, we all want Civil War II–do you?

    wu-wei Reply:

    I’m actually mildly surprised that Yarvin hasn’t yet been assassinated by some red guard thug, to be quite honest. If I carried his notoriety, San Fransisco would be the last place I’d want to raise my family.

    smg Reply:

    They don’t want to know what they don’t want to know.
    Too painful & unprofitable.

    [Reply]

    wu-wei Reply:

    Exactly.

    A combination of these two aphorisms roughly gets to the point: “can’t reason a man out of something he wasn’t reasoned into”, + “it’s difficult to get someone to understand something when their financial prerogatives depend on them not understanding”.

    The result is pure academic autism.

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 5:23 am Reply | Quote
  • 1488 (TEE HEE) Says:

    I made the vile error of purchasing the dvd of the oscar film winner this year for a viewing

    every trailer. every one.

    I truly suspect your mocking of the Alt Right is tempered by some error in thought.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 8:12 am Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    Why does NRx seem to ignore the ZOG question. NRx is restorative. Going after a single group , as well as an ‘us vs. them’ mentality is more revolutionary

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    Cramer seems to be smarter then someone who simply confronting something what he do not comprehend clearly. his aproach rather – what are you saling here. well, what about dynamic indeterminacy. he missed opportunity to build theoretical case against NRx. if someone does not have sufficient clearability about their vision, they are delusional. but who is not, that is the case for apocalypse as well, semantics apocalypse.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 11:24 am Reply | Quote
  • Goth Eiríksson Says:

    What would you have us do Wagner? I don’t see anywhere Mr. Land advocating for the replacement of Whites with Chinks.

    Please, source your claims with his oeuvre henceforth.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Is there an archive of his outsideness twitter out there somewhere? If you get your hands on it ctrl+f “Chin” and go from there, he recurrently attempts to market China to his anomic post-leftist audience. If that’s not enough I think the argument from immanence by itself suffices: he moved to China. He could’ve moved to America but he’s convinced the West is doomed and he doesn’t want to go down with the ship. I have pessimistic days where I conclude that too but I still think it’s possible for the poopdeck-swabbin’ “Nazis” to revolt and make the shitlib crew walk the plank (Cap’n Soros first maties!), but I guess I’m not the one with the “predictive capacities” here.

    [Reply]

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    Not convincing. What specific statements are you referring to? Let’s not be subacademic here, but rather beyond l’académie.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Are you honestly telling me that you couldn’t see a video like this being made of Land’s cyber-history?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDrfE9I8_hs

    China China China China CHINA!!! Except where Trump demonizes, Land deifies.

    It’s incessant! Why do you think he shared the chart the other day showing Asian superiority in math? Most of all, why does he LIVE in China? That’s not convincing that he’s given up on the West? Maybe he’s just pulling a Marco Polo but I don’t see why it wouldn’t have been more fruitful to pull a Tocqueville instead.

    Hey, what do you know, from three days ago:

    https://twitter.com/UF_blog/status/837553933555912704

    Okay, they pioneered the proto-pizza too but give it a break, America makes China look like an awkward adolescent. Good good Americans should practice tai chi in the mornings, now let’s go back to probing the environments that brought about the English, German, and Italian renaissances. I do like the vulgar race and sex-realism of the Chinese (though in my experience they are shifting westward…) but isn’t that the same POPURIST habit Land decries among alt-rightists? The answer is yes, he slings monkey poo at whites and polishes the shoes of gooks and Jews. Double-standard. An elaborate sublimation of Christo-proggism.

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 4:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jack Rose Says:

    Edit for ‘um’ and stammers it could be a 45 minute presentation. Pet peeve. When I am in the audience it’s all I can do to keep from jumping up and shouting ‘CUT THAT OUT!”.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 6:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • For The Record | The Dark Enlightenment Says:

    […] visited Nick Land’s website just now, and saw there two things. First, there was a link to a lecture on the Alt-Right by Florian Cramer, in which this website was […]

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 7:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Charon Says:

    I’ve just published a post at the thedarkenlightenment.com making clear that neither Nick Land nor Moldbug have ever been involved in any way with the site.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Thanks. I’ve linked it in the relevant post.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 7:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    @Nulle Terre Sans Seigneur

    Nietzsche is most commonly remembered as a philosemite but his position on Die Juden is actually pretty complex and I think his critique can serve as an alternative or supplement to MacDonald’s. Laurence Lampert, probably the least reticent of Straussians alive today, gets away with A LOT, especially considering that he published this under Yale Uni Press:

    “[T]he Jews founded ‘‘the slave revolt in morality,’’ and their way of possessing their children in strict loyalty to the way of the fathers enabled them to carry forward that ‘‘inversion’’ of good and evil… [They] ‘‘involuntarily make out of the child something similar to themselves.’’ ‘‘From which it follows… . .’’ that a more refined parental desire for possession of their offspring would result in voluntariness or self-knowledge and the desire to be known: higher forms of parental love would learn to let go or let be; they would learn to allow the child to become what it is, to alter and flower as itself. And such letting go could itself result in a more successful possession, dictated by the sentiment of gratitude in the beloved permitted by love to become itself… Nietzsche stands with Tacitus and the whole of the ancient world in judging the Jews to be ‘‘a people ‘born to slavery,’ ’’ the roots of that slavery being found in the parental instinct to possess their children by making them like themselves. But Nietzsche is a late ancient who views the history of the Jews from the perspective of late-modern times, a privileged perspective opening up for inspection a longer stretch of the natural history of morality. From that perspective, ‘‘the significance of the Jewish people’’ is that ‘‘with them begins the slave revolt in morality,’’ a revolt that can now be seen to have been faithfully advanced by Christianity (GM 1.7) and the French Revolution (46). The center of chapter 5 thus deals with the psychological and historical origins of what is now becoming global; modern morality finds its psychological origins in an unsophisticated form of possession and its historical origins in slave morality. ‘‘Ni dieu ni maître’’ is the outcome of a circuitous but calculable route beginning with subjection to God the Father. Nietzsche expresses gratitude for the Umkehrung, the transposing or reversal in values, successfully brought to pass by the Jews: ‘‘Thanks to it life on earth received a new and dangerous attraction for a couple of millennia.’’ Nietzsche’s own Umwertung aller Werte, the transvaluation of all values, aims to bring to pass a similarly monumental shift; in moving beyond good and evil it in part restores the good and bad that the slave revolt in morality eclipsed, a morality of nobility, and it implies an advance to a more refined form of possession based on self-knowledge.”

    Here’s a micro satyr play to lighten the mood:

    http://imgur.com/a/sYjZu

    [Reply]

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    the roots of that slavery being found in the parental instinct to possess their children by making them like themselves.

    Um, then all conservatives are a people of slavery. A Roman wanted nothing more than his son to become a pater. A father of the transgenerational family name.

    This is patriarchy. You teach your kids to live a sane and normal life.

    Conservatism.

    However… — he nails it here!:

    ‘‘Ni dieu ni maître’’ is the outcome of a circuitous but calculable route beginning with subjection to God the Father.

    About this exact topic none is better than Evola.

    The Indo-European vira witnessed himself as one with his gods, not subjugated to some evil sex-fearing daddy.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Nietzsche was a conservative in certain ways (I think Evola would favor Zarathustra’s “whip” comment–see 239 of BGE for an explication of this) but his over-arching project was to bring about a radical revolution. He wasn’t kneejerk like Marxist revolutionaries, he had no illusions that certain things are never going to change, hierarchy–masters and slaves, or put more moderately teachers and students–being chief among the Transcendentals he posits. In his own words, from an 1879 notebook:

    “Our task, to inventory and to revise everything inherited and traditional that has become unconscious, to test its origin and purposefulness, to discard a lot, to let a lot live.”

    But this is the philosopher of the Ubermensch we’re talking about. And with the thought in mind that the Ubermensch is by its nature a transcendental, not immanent, concept, I don’t understand Evola’s critique of N. Does E have something similar to the Ubermensch in his philosophy? N sought to free us from conservative slavery by creating a philosophical religion that combines Being (conservatism) and Becoming in an eternally overcoming agonistic tension:

    “[T]his is why the philosopher Nietzsche writes Zarathustra. It is to lead to a religion that intends to bring joy to all; (-and allow enlightenment to the tiny few who can snatch it from our obscure world.)

    Of course, this has been attempted before: Christianity is also a religion of Joy. (Joy brought by the good news of the resurrection / atonement.) But a religion that is in principal open to experimental (and thus changing / discovering) science was never attempted before. …Well, not exactly. Hegel attempts it with his ‘religious’ concept of ever-moving Spirit (theologically speaking, a dogma that changes). But he failed. His enterprise was tied to a dying Christianity. Nietzsche attempts to achieve what Hegel attempted to achieve by dropping Christianity.”

    Joseph Martin

    [Reply]

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    Yes, the red thread in E is transcendence. This will sound something like fantasy literature to some of the sub-caste readers here, but

    ▬» The supra-mundane realm should mean Doric clarity, cosmos, light in its suprarational sense, and thus has no concern for feelings, longing, mere faith, or the unconscious. This is the fundamental condition of understanding the true meaning and content and the true awakening power of the primordial symbols of our tradition, and of using them to rediscover the paths to a metaphysical, suprarational and supraindividual knowledge.

    Two main attitudes toward the supramundane reality are possible. One is solar, virile, affirming; the other is lunar, feminine, religious, passive, corresponding to the priestly ideal. The second attitude is mostly that of the southern Semitic cultures, whereas the lordly Nordic and Indo-[European] man has always been solar; the subjugation of the creature and the pathos of its absolute distance from the Almighty were totally unknown to him. He felt the gods to be his equals; he felt himself to be descended from heaven and to be of the same blood as the gods. From this there arises a conception of the heroic that does not end with the physical, soldierly, or tragically choreographed aspects, and a conception of the Ubermensch that has nothing in common with the Nietzschean-Darwinist caricature of the beautiful blond beast, because this Nordic Ubermensch also exhibits ascetic, sacral, and supranatural traits, and culminates in the type of the Olympian ruler, the Aryan Chakravartin as wielder of the two powers and King of Kings. »

    This is all translatable. In fact, I’ve come to replace the word ‘tradition’ with ‘traducción’. The latter means ‘translation’ and ‘rendering.’

    Simply, these things need to be translated to the dasacralised mundane.

    The talk about Doric clarity refers to things beyond human opinion. I.e. math. The Nordic-Greeks were lovers of Ratio, hence their very clean cut temples. Hence their statues of masculine bodies. Nothing in excess, it said on the temple of Apollo.
    en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio

    „Canonical Greek temples maintained the same basic structure throughout many centuries. The Greeks used a limited number of spatial components, influencing the plan, and of architectural members, determining the elevation.”
    „The central cult structure of the temple is the naos or Cella, which usually contained a cult statue of the deity.”

    I’d never even looked at an article in any form about Greek temples, but I just knew this. It’s obvious. I got this right now from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_temple

    This is “new” to me as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_designed_with_the_golden_ratio

    „The Acropolis of Athens (468–430 BC), including the Parthenon, according to some studies, has many proportions that approximate the golden ratio. Other (((scholars))) question whether the golden ratio was known to or used by Greek artists and architects as a principle of aesthetic proportion.”

    What he means by ‘ solar, virile, affirming ‘ can be deduced from reading Nietzsche. Perhaps the solar is least so. Basically it means someone who radiates, as is said of people when they are joyous or in good health. Internally, it means someone who doesn’t have to think, but sees things clearly. Basically it means enlightened opposed to a leftie who has a multi-decade crisis in his life. I.e. some people just know certain operable things, and don’t have to spend decades analyzing them. They don’t have to measure things either that are obvious. Lunar refers to the reflective faculty. It’s lunar because the moon reflects the sun. So when you have to think about something you are reflecting. When you just know it, it’s the solar.

    It refers to just knowing things like beauty, form, joy are good. You don’t have to be constantly kvetching or expressing your emotions like the figurative modern artist.

    We could thus say that the Bolshevik regime of the Soviet Union was very lunar. It had to measure everything (Gosplan), but in the end the faculty of the moon is inferior to the faculty of sun.

    So its measuring succumbed to the more solar “Anglo” (Germanic) dynamism.

    Essentially this is explained in the proverb « don’t confuse the finger pointing at the [sun] with the sun itself ».

    Further back this refers to peoples relying on scripture vs peoples who are simply dynamic.

    Again, this is in Nietzsche.

    The reference to being equal to the gods vs. being subjected by a tyrant god refers to shame based vs. honor based cultures, grossly said.

    It’s explicated with the shame-based sex approach of the historical Semites opposed to the, so to speak, natural attitudes of the Greeks and the Romans to nudity.

    Supernatural again refers to ratio. To cult. To form. It’s called supernatural because if you live your life according to it, it will alter nature around you. E.g. you have the Roman conceptions, and operate them, then you get a Roman empire.

    This refers to the Sacred conception of history of the Romans. They say “these god-figures live like this,” “if we apply it, we will be kings like the gods.”

    Equally, as it were, the British Empire had supernatural values only recently.

    The idea is e.g., glory, — if you live in a certain way the world (nature) will reward you.

    The way he uses ‘ascetic’ here is etymological. It means training. Originally, a Roman concept.

    Virtue, e.g. used to mean ‘power’ (virtus). E.g. if you are so virtuous as to tell the truth, probably it’s not likely that you’ll have a reputation as a liar. There’s power in that. Life-altering power. Just ask Jordan B Pterson.

    These etymological “re-evalutations” or returns are in big N also.

    The two powers again refer to the sun and moon.

    Or earth and sky. So the “wilder of two powers” is one who conforms to the ideal and has power over the earth. Imperator.

    His people are procreating, not masturbating to anime.

    They are truth tellers, not journos.

    They don’t need speculative-experimental method to tell them obvious things.

    They use technology to serve them, not to serve technology.

    E.g. the Romans used it to bring Roman culture and empire over the lands.

    They didn’t use it to collect bitcoins in Mario Bros 3D, while a Muslim is occupying your local neighborhood.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Fascinating exposition as per usual.

    “Simply, these things need to be translated to the dasacralised mundane.”

    Right, I think that Nietzsche had this “sub-caste” readership you mentioned in mind when he poeticized the Ubermensch. There are two Ubermensches: one is kind of a “God for dummies”. He was philosophizing in a period freshly jarred by the scientific revolution, Darwin being the arch-exemplar of a relativizing, immanentizing, materializing force. In this way he is much like Plato who had to fend off the Ionian physicists and their puppet-rhetors who had decimated the Olympian mythos, careening Athens into nihilistic anarchy wherein both the oikos and the polis were pushed to the brink of collapse. Both philosophers had a Janus-faced vocation: root out the rot of the old and sculpt new statues to serve as ideals, the latter coming in the form of Law-Giving, or as I like to call it, World-Building.

    So how do you appeal to a corrupted public who scoff, or even more often, go glazy-eyed at any talk of the Transcendent? Well, you have to meet them halfway. The Ubermensch is halfway between man and God as man is halfway between beast and Ubermensch. Likewise with the Will to Power, it is a pedagogical teaching for the bovine masses which appeals to their thymos and draws them nearer to the Good (what he intended with the W2P was to provide an ANCHOR more than anything, a transcendental principle disguised as an immanent “Lebensphilosophie” in order to weave together the chaotic strains of the disparate sciences of his day, but I digress).

    The second of the Ubermensches is the esoteric, which is hardly effable but I’ll give it a go: Once one follows the Nietzschean teaching of the Ubermensch–which is by its nature *past* the Ubermensch–to God, one eventually returns *back* to the Ubermensch in the sense of an immantentized transcendent. One can say without *entirely* misspeaking that it is as simple as the notion from Zen Buddhism that the sacred is in the ordinary, or from Buddhism generally that nirvana *is* samsara. This is where the eternal return of the same comes in, and it is what the Jews and Confucians are good at, and a little too good at: affirming what is (6cd’s Plan, the Way of Heaven) as opposed to perpetually Overcoming toward the Ubermensch. We need both, and Nietzsche had both, but it “must” be recognized with the similar honesty one points to the deficiencies of Judaism and Confucianism, that Nietzsche too is immoderate, just in the opposite direction. For this reason I appreciate Evola’s pointing up to the transcendent as Plato in the famous painting. Nietzsche falls into the error of immantentizing the eschaton, which amounts to releasing the Devil into the world. I think a fitting synthesis is to meet halfway between Nietzschean Ubermenschianism and Evolian Transcendentalism.

    [Reply]

    Malcolm Pollack Reply:

    So how do you appeal to a corrupted public who scoff, or even more often, go glazy-eyed at any talk of the Transcendent? Well, you have to meet them halfway. The Ubermensch is halfway between man and God as man is halfway between beast and Ubermensch.

    To bring in another esoteric thread — that of Gurdjieff — the Ubermensch completes a sacred triad by acting as the reconciling force between that which affirms, or is active (God, or the Sun) and that which denies, or is passive (Man, or the Moon).

    “The higher blends with the lower in order together to actualize the middle.”

    At every level such triads exist, just as in the Holy Trinity: the “noble man” occupies the active position relative to the slave, yet for the development of his own soul he must consciously stand in the passive position relative to God.

    (Evola on Gurdjieff, here.)

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    This is a must: http://www.hyperion-journal.net/the-sacred-in-the-roman-tradition.html

    Leaving aside weird ideas from Marxism, factually Russia never was as large and big of a superpower as it was under Stalinism.

    China became a superpower after having its ideological self-conception.

    The British, the same goes, and every empire. Zionism, Israel.

    Difference between Nazis and the Chinese, is that the Nazis lost their land.

    » The whole oracular Roman art meets a similar idea; and since, in its turn, the weaves of the oracular answers and of the oracles was inseparable from the whole deeds of Romanity, it can be said that the whole Roman history assumed, for our ancestors, the character of a true sacred history, of a story adumbrated constantly by divine meanings, revelations and symbols. The fact is that all this did not have as a counterpart an ecstatic and passive attitude, but rather an active, warlike attitude. It can well be said that the Roman made his history sacred, feeding invisible forces into it and acting united with them. »

    It can be stated that Leninism in the 20th century served as a sacred conception of sorts. We can though perhaps deduce from its short-livedness how ersatz a “sacred” conception it was. But it, so to speak, engulfed the world for at least half a century.

    The West is eating itself inside out, because it has almost no sacred conception (i.e. it is nihilistic).

    You’ll see that ‘sacare’ means ‘ immortalize; set apart, dedicate ‘.

    Like, having values dude.

    Brings us back to Jordan B Peterson.

    [Reply]

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdvy-LGiSJ0

    Wagner Reply:

    How natural, under a post entitled What is the Alt-Right?, for a dialogue to be had between a Nietzschean and an Evolian, eh? As far as background ideological masterminds those are the prime two, would you agree? The third influence I would say is Nature – the populist masses awakening to the truth those men expressed only without their help. Oh and I forgot to ask you in the last post:

    What is a god?

    Is an anthropomorphic god possible again or will it be an abstraction like the god Equality?

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    » Chinese mythology holds that the Jade Emperor was charged with running of the three realms: heaven, hell, and the realm of the living. The Jade Emperor adjudicated and meted out rewards and remedies to saints, the living, and the deceased according to a merit system loosely called the Jade Principles Golden Script (玉律金篇, Yù lǜ jīn piān). When proposed judgments were objected to, usually by other saints, the administration would occasionally resort to the counsels of advisory elders.

    Chinese people sometimes use the term “Descendants of the Dragon” as a sign of their ethnic identity. »

    I could have written all of the above with reference to the Chinese exclusively, all that solar & lunar symbolism. They simply know it as yin & yang.

    Funny, it brought me to this: https://japanesemythology.wordpress.com/frog-solar-symbolism-and-other-meanings/

    A sin to a Roman would just be going against fatherland, mores, etc. all the customs that were operated to set-up the Roman empire, and maintain the Romans. It’s the same in China and in every healthy nation.

    Incidentally, the word in the New Testament for sin is hamartía which means ‘to miss the mark’ or ‘to err’. Hence properly formulated sin is an error of conception.

    The word has long since been sentimentalised and relativised beyond all recognition.

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    God is a figuration of a process that happens in reality. It’s like a fantasy character, but it’s not arbitrary how they have developed in premodern history.

    » Like Laplace, we think God is a hypothesis that can be subjected to intellectual treatment, to be affirmed or denied.

    We completely forget that the reason mankind believes in the “daemon” has nothing whatever to do with external factors, but is simply due to a naive awareness of the tremendous inner effect of autonomous fragmentary systems [instinctual products of the unconscious].

    This effect is not abolished by criticizing it – or rather, the name we have given it – or by describing the name as false.

    If we deny the existence of the autonomous systems, imagining that we have got rid of them by a mere critique of the name, then the effect which they continue to exert can no longer be understood, nor can they be assimilated to consciousness.

    We think we can congratulate ourselves on having already reached such a pinnacle of clarity, imagining that we have left all these phantasmal gods far behind. But what we have left behind are only verbal spectres, not the psychic facts that were responsible for the birth of the gods.

    We are still as much possessed by autonomous psychic contents as if they were Olympians. Today they are called phobias, obsessions, and so forth; in a word, neurotic symptoms. The gods have become diseases; Zeus no longer rules Olympus but rather the solar plexus, and produces curious specimens for the doctor’s consulting room, or disorders the brains of politicians and journalists who unwittingly let loose psychic epidemics on the world.

    It is not a matter of indifference whether one calls something a “mania” or a “god.” To serve a mania is detestable and undignified, but to serve a god is full of meaning and promise because it is an act of submission to a higher, invisible, and spiritual being.

    [C.G. Jung. Psychology and the East, p.37, 38, 39] »

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    Or as Evola said, ‘traditional mythologies, with their various figures, are not creations of human imagination, but systems of forms in which imagination, with its images, expresses, corporealizes supra-sensitive experiences.’

    The beef, as it were, between Evolians and Jungians is purely idiotic.

    Evola had difficulty with Jung et al tracing man’s ideo-mythology to the depths. As Evola preferred the view of it coming from the heights. It is immaterial because they both mean the interior. I don’t think it matters for the certain type that Evola appeals to so far as whatever happens those images do come and are operable.

    Which brings us to hyperstition.

    Wagner Reply:

    “1. Tze-Kung wanted to eliminate the sheep from the sacrifice to the new moon.
    2. Confucius said: You, Ts’ze, love the sheep, I love the rite.
    1. Someone said: What does the sacrifice mean? Confucius said: I do not know. If one knew enough to tell that, one could govern the empire as easily as seeing the palm of one’s hand.
    1. Confucius sacrificed as if he had taken root-hold in the earth, he sacrificed to the circumvolent spirits as if they took root.
    2. Confucius said: If I do not enter into this light, it is as if I did not sacrifice. [Or, if I do not give, i.e. myself, to it.]”
    — The Analects [trans. Pound]

    You say a god is like a fantasy figure, I and many if not most millennials agree with you there. Nietzsche said that God is dead and WE have killed him. We kill him every moment when he’s a fantasy figure. Before Nietzsche, Meister Eckhart spoke of the Birth of God, that we should be like mothers giving birth to him every moment. Sounds gay but I think he’s right. How do we look at God as a non-fantasy, indeed, as Thee Ultimate Reality with zero pomo ironism? Evola says rite, and I agree, but how do we erect the God to discipline that rite in the first place? I think that is the question, the experiment, the West is facing right now. I don’t think we need to turn to Islam or China, I think we’re better than that.

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    It is said that you operate the images when you make use of them. Operating them properly is ritual action.

    http://www.mh.sinica.edu.tw/MHDocument/PublicationDetail/PublicationDetail_619.pdf

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    Let it suffice to say that god is not merely a fantasy figure.

    Nor even merely a figure.

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    The Way is full: use won’t empty it.

    Deep is the matrix of the myriad creatures.

    Blunt the sharp:

    Loosen the knots:

    Dim the glare:

    Follow old tracks.

    Shadowy, it seems hardly there.

    I don’t know whose child it is.

    It seems like the ancestral form.

    *

    Who is your god?

    Wagner Reply:

    That is a grave question. I went for a walk in the cold to contemplate it. I attained the realization that my god is Honesty. I don’t always live up to it but whether I like it or not that is my god.

    I say this as opposed to Hierarchy being the Zeus of gods. I think Equality and Hierarchy are subordinate to Honesty.

    My first reservation upon realizing this about myself is that Goodness is the chief competitor with Honesty and seeks Honesty’s subordination to it. I considered it but no, I think Goodness should subordinate itself to Honesty.

    Truth is always there no matter if you select Equality or Hierarchy or Goodness, because in any of the latter cases you are always believing that Equality is TRUE, Hierarchy is TRUE, Goodness is TRUE.

    I think that Honesty is my master-god, Ubermensch, transcendent.

    But the questions “What is a god?” and “What is your god?” are far, far different. I know what my god is, I still don’t know what A god is.

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    A god. It’s a figuration of processes, associations. Etymologically it means ‘that which is invoked’.

    It’s any symbol. Anything symbolic. Symbol means ‘puts you in a state’ or more mundanely ‘reminds you of something’.

    Seeing the cross a Christian will think of the associations with the concept of a god in his tradition. He will probably not think of Buddha. An Asian might think of other things seeing a cross.

    A god is a symbol. A device. Operable.

    An identifier. You put a personal name on types of events (processes).

    You can rally people around it. Probably a made-up god will not be experienced as involved with a groups psychic structure as one who evolved with them for centuries.

    ▬ » In ancient Roman religion, Sancus (also known as Sangus or Semo Sancus) was a god of trust (fides), honesty, and oaths. His cult, one of the most ancient amongst the Romans, probably derived from Umbrian influences.
    ancus was also the god who protected oaths of marriage, hospitality, law, commerce, and contracts in particular. Some forms of swearings were used in his name and honour at the moment of the signing of contracts and other important civil acts. »

    Maybe we’ve found a mittel grund for you and Land here.

    Wagner Reply:

    If a god is that which is invoked, what IS that which is invoked?

    If a god is a symbol, what is that symbol OF?

    I don’t expect an answer as words doesn’t real in the light of the divine but if one comes to mind please share.

    My stupid ego tends to fall back on the phenomenological understanding of a/god as mysterium tremendum et fascinans. Which essentially means “I feel very small right now”, “I thought I understood what life was about but I’m actually a base animal compared to – – – -.” “I MUST bring my life into conformity with this – – – -,” etc. God is the External Force, the Absolute Truth, our souls yearn to harmonize with but consistently fail to .. yeah, words distract from what God is ..

    The dao which one can explain is not the
    unchanging dao

    I like the way Yeats puts it in his Occultist book “A Vision”:

    “The ultimate reality because neither one nor many, concord nor discord, is symbolized as a phaseless sphere, but as all things fall into a series of antinomies in human experience it becomes, the moment it is thought of, what I shall presently describe as the thirteenth cone. All things are present as an eternal instant to our Daimon (or Ghostly Self as it is called, when it inhabits the sphere), but that instant is of necessity unintelligible to all bound to the antinomies… [A] system symbolizing the phenomenal world as irrational because a series of unresolved antinomies, must find representation in a perpetual return to the starting-point. The resolved antinomy appears not in a lofty source but in the whirlpool’s motionless centre, or beyond its edge.”

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    God for me is the world and the effect of my action. Providence, if you will.

    It is evident that there are processes and images, sounds and forms. There is the witnessing of things. I prefer to call everything a thing.

    God is a thing. That doesn’t reduce anything imo, as it’s simply an acknowledgement that we are linguistic beings. That doesn’t mean we are merely linguistic beings.

    As it says in scripture » And Sariputta rose and spake: “World-honored master, were the nature of man’s own existence. We were trying to grasp the mixture of our own being which is called Name and Form. Every human being consists of conformations … They are sensation, perception, and the dispositions; all three constitute consciousness and mind, being comprised under the term Name. »

    » By the word (logos) of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath (pneuma) of his mouth all their host (dynamis).
    — Psalm 33:6 (ESV) »

    This goes all the way down to our times as e.g. Lacan’s Name-of-the-Father. The latter being a sort of host of the symbolic order. Or an invasion of the symbolic order into the child’s Imaginary world. We see that the Father is sort of the prime mover of history in that he instantiates man’s game. So world-escaping religions will tell you that the name is false, that the Father is false, or they will subordinate him to nothingness (nihilism), to a meditative path or a communal experience (communism/gynaecocracy).

    All children have an image of the Father in mind. As do adults, indeed we carry the names of our fathers. Even children raised by a single mother, have the capital F Father in their psychies. If you ever spend time with a single mother and her kid, chances are you will hear him ask his mommy “Is this my father now?”

    » When the father intervenes, (at least when he is what Lacan calls the symbolic father) Lacan’s argument is that he does so less as a living enjoying individual than as the delegate and spokesperson of a body of social Law and convention that is also recognised by the mother, as a socialised being, to be decisive. This body of nomoi is what Lacan calls the big Other of the child’s given sociolinguistic community. Insofar as the force of its Law is what the child at castration perceives to be what moves the mother and gives the father’s words their “performative force” (Austin), Lacan also calls it the “phallic order.” »

    The matter is complex because most of the religions are a mix of the world affirming vs the world-escaping or communism. Communism is literally trying to escape your karma by achieving a pseudo-gnostic commune on earth. If you want a gnostic or quasi-gnostic commune, go join a monastery.

    Islam is a curious mix of the both. It is very affirming. Christianity succumbed to its inherit communism and lost its affirmative or Roman aspect.

    Ancient Roman religion or custom was affirmative nec plus ultra. War was a festival for them.

    Medieval Christianity as Catholicism is a curious mix of Buddhist-like meditative monasticism, Semitic shame culture and the Roman tradition.

    You’ll see that Buddhism sort of forgoes the name of the father, opting for a gnosis of nonverbal state of enjoyment which you can train your brain into. Then you’ll be walking nobly with a smile on your face all day. Not really a care in the world.

    Of course, you can even synthesize that with other traditions to get War Buddhism, or Imperial Zen.

    It it real? Yeah. As Nietzsche says it’s really your perspective that makes your life. Knowing who you are is sort of knowing what perspective is most agreeable to yourself.

    God as a figure for me is the God-Emperor, which the Chinese know under their own names and events.

    » By the Han dynasty, the universal God of early Shang-Zhou theology had found new expression by the names of Tàiyǐ (太乙 “Great Oneness”), “Supreme Oneness of the Central Yellow” (中黄太乙 Zhōnghuáng Tàiyǐ), or the “Yellow God of the Northern Dipper (i.e. Ursa Major)” (黄神北斗 Huángshén Běidǒu), other than by names inherited from the previous tradition. Although the name “Taiyi” became prominent in the Han, it harkens back to the Warring States, as attested in the poem The Supreme Oneness Gives Birth to Water, and possibly to the Shang dynasty as Dàyī (大一 “Big Oneness”), an alternative name for Shangs’ (and universe’s) greatest ancestor.[38] Han theology focalised on the Yellow Emperor, a culture hero and creator of civility, who, according to a definition in apocryphal texts related to the Hétú 河圖, “proceeds from the essence of the Yellow God”.
    In the myth, the Yellow Emperor was conceived by a virgin mother, Fubao, who was impregnated by Taiyi’s radiance (yuanqi, “primordial pneuma”) from the Big Dipper after she gazed at it. By his human side, he was a descendant of 有熊氏 Yǒuxióng, the lineage of the Bear (another reference to the Ursa Major). Didier has studied the parallels that the Yellow Emperor’s mythology has in other cultures, deducting a plausible ancient origin of the myth in Siberia or in north Asia.
    In latter Han dynasty’s Sima Qian’s codification of the cosmology of the five forms of God (五方上帝 Wǔfāng Shàngdì) it is important the portrait of the Yellow Emperor as the grandfather of Black Emperor (黑帝 Hēidì) of the north who personifies as well the pole stars, and as the tamer of the Flaming Emperor (炎帝 Yándì, otherwise known as the “Red Emperor”), his half-brother, who is the spirit of the southern Chinese populations known collectively as Chu in the Zhou dynasty.
    Emperor Wu of Han (142-87 BCE), under the influence of the scholar Dong Zhongshu (who incorporated into Confucianism the man-focused developments of the common religion, formulating the doctrine of the Interactions Between Heaven and Mankind), reinstituted Confucian state sacrifices to Taiyi or the Yellow God and his four cosmic faces inherited from Shang-Zhou cosmology, and outside state religion the Yellow God was the central focus of Huang-Lao religious movements which influenced the primitive Taoist Church. Before the Confucian turn of Emperor Wu and after him, early and latter Han dynasty had Huang-Lao as the state doctrine under various emperors; in Huang-Lao the philosopher-god Laozi was identified as the Yellow Emperor and received imperial sacrifices, for instance by Emperor Huan (146-168). »

    Doesn’t that the Romans and the Chinese both had Imperial Cults tell us something?

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 9:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    @wu-wei

    Yeah nick some of my best friends are jews and asians and blacks, But i respect them enough to admit the implications of my thinking lead to the conclusion that ultimately we are competitors.That this friendship is nothing more than some tommys and jerry’s sharing a fag some christmas eve on the western front. Thats fine christmas eve but if I kept sharing my fags with the jerrys Is hope my tribe would shoot me before i got them killed.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    diversity plus proximity equal war- ring a bell nick? Thats not to say diversity at arms length need lead to war though it might. The question is you seem to quibble, you seem like moldbug to want a patch that resembles san francisco while criticizing san francisco, which the fuck is it nick is san francisco the ideal patch or not. Its a given we all have nigger friends we all are acolytes of a jew tinkering in his imaginary garage, that we like indian food and negro music and are willing to risk a dash of diversity for these pleasures, half the fucking alt right are jews Nick as is most of reaction. who are so you kidding with these false choices and holiness tests? Do I deny that theres some real dopes in the white hinterlands, or am i just wondering why you harp on it so while equivocating on Diversity plus proximity equals war. I dont ever recall you telling us you have plumber friends Nick, Do you know any non degreed white guys or do you just guess what they are like.

    [Reply]

    Xoth Reply:

    San Francisco is in essence a lavishly funded university department, and that’s how we like our world.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 5th, 2017 at 7:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Xoth Says:

    A god imbues X with meaning.

    [Reply]

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    Xertainly. Its the spirit of a thing, to say the least.

    ‘Spirit’ refers to something that moves you or puts you in a state. E.g. a esprit de corps will keep a military unit moving. After the battle is won or lost, people will recognise its meaning as the figuration of one god or another. It’s a symbolic hermeneutic of events. It’s not pseudoscientific as it makes no claim to the modern scientific experimental method, the latter being concerned with other types of rationality. Yet even science works within the symbolic order, and obviously not without the imaginary.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method

    » 5.1 Creative and exploratory practices
    A problem with the distinction between the contexts of discovery and justification that figured so prominently in philosophy of science in the first half of the 20th century (see section 2) is that no such distinction can be clearly seen in scientific activity (see Arabatzis 2006). Thus, in recent decades, it has been recognized that study of conceptual innovation and change should not be confined to psychology and sociology of science, but are also important aspects of scientific practice which philosophy of science should address (see also the entry on scientific discovery). Looking for the practices that drive conceptual innovation has led philosophers to examine both the reasoning practices of scientists and the wide realm of experimental practices that are not directed narrowly at testing hypotheses, that is, exploratory experimentation.

    Examining the reasoning practices of historical and contemporary scientists, Nersessian (2008) has argued that new scientific concepts are constructed as solutions to specific problems by systematic reasoning, and that of analogy, visual representation and thought-experimentation are among the important reasoning practices employed. These ubiquitous forms of reasoning are reliable—but also fallible—methods of conceptual development and change. On her account, model-based reasoning consists of cycles of construction, simulation, evaluation and adaption of models that serve as interim interpretations of the target problem to be solved. »

    [Reply]

    Xoth Reply:

    I think you might be reducing it too far, at least compared to what I meant. But I’m in deep waters already so I won’t press the point. Needs more work.

    However, the scientific method is not very good at meaning — there is normally just a provisional interpretation of the data that can be cast aside at any time in the future.

    [Reply]

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    God hasn’t been reduced, except provisionally to form a comment within a certain action potential limit.

    However ‘god’ is a certain history. We cannot know him (rationally) but as events. Proclaim you know him mentally, or subtly, but these will still be events for you to remember or not.

    Thus we proclaim God is reasonable. I.e. logos.

    As for the “reduction” I think you might find it’s not very reductionistic.

    As a part of the chain of meaning a god cannot but move you, so far as you know of it at least. A spirit is merely another word for process, it’s a figuration of a process. Process implies motion. Change. The universal constant. It’s analogous. Its image is that of breath or wind. This is why Christians say ‘holy spirit’ or the ‘breath of god’ changes things.

    Action-appearance of a god is his spirit. I.e. it’s the change that he is proscribed to express. Hyperstition.

    Posted on March 9th, 2017 at 4:58 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment