Zacked

Whilst it’s undoubtedly flattering to be the target of a brutal, lazy, and dishonest hit piece, it’s also vaguely irritating. Couldn’t Kuznicki have stoked the hate sufficiently with the rejection of democracy, HBD sympathies, anti-egalitarianism, market-fundamentalism, disintegrationism, and Shoggoth-whispering, without also making up a bunch of stuff?

Anyway, just for the record:

* I’m not a proponent of “white nationalistic race ‘realism’.”
* I nowhere make the “case that white nationalism and market liberalism somehow belong together.”
* I have never made a “case against markets” of any kind, let alone that they “stand behind democracy with a tyrannical, unpredictable veto” [whatever than means]
* I have never advocated for “racial purity”

There’s no doubt a number of people who turn up here who wish that I did make some of these arguments, and by distancing myself from them I’m not wanting to endorse Kuznicki’s suggestion that they’re mere slurs.

As far as Kuznicki’s own substantial points are concerned — defense of dialectics, voice, meliorative politics — I’m not really interested enough to engage.

This sort of situation tends to stress objectivity, so I won’t pretend to perfect balance on the subject. There seem to be lessons, though, of a quite general nature.

To begin with, the problem of ‘engagement’ with the media is a real one, which can only get more pressing in strict proportion to ‘success’. They have to come after Mencius Moldbug at some point, insofar as anything interesting is brewing up, so there will probably be further test runs against secondary targets. The whole target selection question is potentially interesting, but I’ve no special insight to share on that topic at this point.

Clearly I’ve lucked out in this case. China doesn’t seem Cathedral-compliant (as Stirner points out in the excellent comments thread), so direct social pressure is seriously dulled. Kuznicki is neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, nor a pitbull, so weakness has been the ‘dominant’ impression. The site he posts from, despite its Magazine-style format, is quite incredibly marginal — the traffic from this little blog to his has been running at two-to-three times the reverse (which I would never have imagined — they have ten contributors listed there). Umlaut also allows comments, which has been a comprehensive fiasco for them this time (check it out). All the visitors have been ripping into Kuznicki, and using the up/down vote system to quantify the point. I’m biased, but I’ve found it utterly hilarious. It’s worth noting, however, that the left media machine has been stripping out its comment threads, which makes them far more effective as no-comeback attack machines. Finally, Twitter has been an extraordinary resource. It’s an absolutely critical component of our capability to defend ourselves.

Drawing all this together: We have to learn, prepare, and anticipate. The fights coming up are worth getting right. Any fatalistic depression about the might of our enemies is both self-fulfilling defeatism and to a considerable extent simply false. There’s no reason to think that the ‘destiny’ of media is under their control, or even that its trends are generally favorable to them. Practice is our friend. This stuff  is going to matter more and more. Luck won’t always run so obviously one way.

ADDED: Handle explores the limits of civility and reason.

ADDED: Nerves? Not to mention this, and this.

ADDED: Jason Kuznicki is magnanimous enough to write this. It’s appreciated.

October 17, 2013admin 94 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

94 Responses to this entry

  • Alrenous Says:

    Not making stuff up would have required actually reading your blog.

    It’s a classic symptom of clinical narcissim. They want to put on a morality play with themselves as heroes, and need someone to play antagonist. It’s not about you, you’re just a human-shaped prop.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “It’s not about you” — yes, that’s obviously true: he seems to have pasted in a pre-formulated straw-man-killing anti-racism screed at the first opportunity (about half way through).

    [Reply]

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    I thought you wouldn’t need to list what you’re not championing – it’s pretty clear. He really didn’t do much research – or it was purposive slander that need not be verified as it engages with the deontologies of the moral-bots from the get-go.

    More importantly, have you read Carlota Perez’s ‘Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital’? She’s a Neo-Schumpterian – I’m enjoy it so far.

    [Reply]

    peppermint Reply:

    also, nice of him to link to Moldbug’s article Why I am not a White Nationalist, apparently without having any sense of what that article actually says.

    Perhaps some people will click the link and get a red pill.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    His sleaziness is overwhelmed by his incompetence.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 17th, 2013 at 3:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    And Yet Admin you move.

    “VXXC is an Asshole”

    When I read that on the toilet stall, I knew I was making a difference. And it was forward movement indeed. I remarked as much to my NCOs.

    [how can we say progress or as I put it forward movement? “Progress” has been whored out].

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 17th, 2013 at 3:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    I remember what I was gonna ask.

    What would the Tao of War, or Tao period say…to do…If you know your enemy, but know you don’t quite yet know yourself?

    You do not know yourself because you know there are so many more probabilities if you can pull it off. IF. Past the middle word in LIFE, so…IF isn’t the question.

    The question is: Will it work?

    Doing nothing isn’t an option. Nor is “Dare” the issue.

    Interested in answers.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 17th, 2013 at 3:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Thales Says:

    I have to agree with his conclusion — not selling your children into bondage is leaving money on the table. I mean, I hope he at least gets 30 sheckles for 2,600 years of Western heritage…

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 17th, 2013 at 4:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Matt Olver Says:

    He aimed the sawed-off in the wrong direction. Look to some of the Bryan Caplan postings here for a suggestion.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 17th, 2013 at 4:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stirner Says:

    Congratulations.

    The whole white nationalist angle of attack seems to be the easiest route to propagandize against neoreactionaries. All the other points of attack are rather head turning and scandalous in an interesting way, while the white nationalist slur just makes us all look like knuckle draggers. We should probably get used to it, and prepare some quippy counter-offense strategies.

    I interpreted Moldbug’s “America is a communist country” post a poison pill against being hosed like Pax Dickinson. State the truths that they don’t want said, and allow that to be a first line of defense.

    You know who they never attack directly? Bob Whittaker and his BUGS swarm. Now THEY are white nationalists. Bob developed his “mantra” that gets spammed in comment forums far and wide. It’s crude. It’s effective. It’s memetic warfare. From a philosophical perspective you may find their semantic reframing of these issues interesting. But more importantly, discussing it (even in an analytical/critical way) introduces a poison pill into the information ecosystem when it comes to you and WN.

    In any case, clarify your position, but you might want to prepare yourself mentally for this sort of thing. As a prominent neoreactionary with some real-world intellectual credibility, you are probably on the top of the list for the “killing the chicken to frighten the monkey’s” strategy.

    The alt-right is beginning to make it into the mainstream. There was a takedown of the MRA’s/Manosphere on ABC News 20/20. http://abcn.ws/16gfmRL

    Interesting times!

    [Reply]

    Puzzle Pirate (@PuzzlePirate) Reply:

    The whole white nationalist angle of attack seems to be the easiest route to propagandize against neoreactionaries. All the other points of attack are rather head turning and scandalous in an interesting way, while the white nationalist slur just makes us all look like knuckle draggers. We should probably get used to it, and prepare some quippy counter-offense strategies.

    Here’s one: “It’s hard to be a white supremacist when I see the white race as degenerate.”

    Focus the criticism on whites and white liberals. Sure, mention that open borders will reduce the interest of native citizens but place the blame not on the immigrants but on the white liberals.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    An excellent barbed formulation.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Denying agency to the coloreds be rayciss, too.

    admin Reply:

    @ Stirner — siccing the SPLC on the Manosphere smells of bizarre desperation.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 17th, 2013 at 5:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Antisthenes Says:

    Wisest not to engage on race, even to denounce WN.

    Like Kuznicki, I’ve wondered why you don’t incorporate more of your Continental background into Neo Reaction. I guess you have your reasons.

    [Reply]

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    Wisest not to engage on race

    Bull.

    The insane beliefs around race are lies. In fact, they’re the most blatantly obvious lies that progressives tell. The rest of them are much more subtle. Hell, brain size differs by race. Brain size! What kind of a lunatic accepts that there are physical differences between races, that evolution is a correct theory, and that brain size differences aren’t meaningful?

    You don’t even need to understand any of the physical anthropological or psychometric evidence – all you have to understand is basic microeconomics. Irrational racial discrimination simply wouldn’t exist in a free market barring huge systemic cognitive biases – and you’re insane if you think the country that elected Barak Obama president and made Morgan Freeman a rich and famous man is one where people aren’t willing to engage in wishful thinking in the opposite direction than the one you’d have to see to explain the negative life outcomes that you do see.

    [Reply]

    Antisthenes Reply:

    This isn’t about science, it’s about discourse. It’s simply not a smart move to advance Reaction on the front of race, of all things. The wishful thinking you refer to is based on prejudices that are much more powerful than scientific fact.

    [Reply]

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    If you think it’s unwise to poke at liars for telling obvious lies because they shriek louder when you poke at the more obvious lies then maybe reaction isn’t right for you.

    Perhaps we can help you to the nice Republican or Libertarian section? They hardly ever offend progressives (except if they threaten to win on something – then look out!).

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    No, the gender stuff is the most blatantly obvious lie. People live that.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Find yourself a nice pseudonym and there’s a whole new hit piece right there. You could instantly become a hero of fluffy libertarianism.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    You’re damning me with faint praise, except without the faint praise.

    Konkvistador Reply:

    Neoreaction will never be popular because reaction is nothing else than pointing out a list of things Progressivism is insane on and then providing a working hypothesis for why they are so clearly insane.

    Race is extra radioactive only because it is an extra obvious case of insanity. Gender is comparable. It makes people mad precisely because they so easily imagine others being convinced of the truth of such differences. On race in a diverse society and gender the Progressive experiences daily micro-invalidations as a commenter put it so he is sensitized to it.

    Staying away from it certainly won’t protect people from calling you racist or neoconfederate or a white nationalist. Consider how much work mainstream conservatives or the tea party or libertarians put into denouncing that kind of “racism”… and that works exactly as well as you would imagine.

    It doesn’t. Racism is content free and formless any insufficiently leftist position is racist.

    [Reply]

    Antisthenes Reply:

    Good points, however:

    We can

    1) Denounce ‘racial realism’
    2) Support it
    3) Treat the issue as peripheral and instead examine the hidden motivations for Progs making an agenda item of it (The Last Psychiatrist would be good at this if he was further to the right).

    Are you suggesting we do none of the above?

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I don’t wholly agree. Its pretty apparent to me that neo-reactionary semi-racism is more of a product or reaction of the progressive position on race than it is fundamental to a sane outlook. Look at your own comment.

    There’s not even an obvious policy program that relies on race realism. Before I was exposed to HBD I thought the difficulties of black Americans as a class were due to some deep cultural and structural problems that couldn’t just be wished away by social engineering. Exposure to HBD only shifted the possible explanation for *why* the problems existed, not what to do about it.

    No, the only reason racism would be fundamental of the neoreactionary program is literal reaction to progressive mindsets and as kind of a Black Sabbath–by loudly engaging in transgressive activity, you signal the strength of your rejection of conventional mores.

    But if you forget about the signaling and just take a look at what is, its pretty clear that gender is more fundamental by leaps and bounds. You can imagine a humanity without races. You can imagine a humanity with different races and in fact historically the races and ethnicities have changes. But a humanity without gender would be something radically different.

    Besides, insisting on a racialist program is contrary to the insight that biology matters. If northwest Europeans are biologically disposed to a kind of universalism, which I think they are, then you in trying to persuade them otherwise you are trying to use words to combat their nature. Gender is a much easier sale, because complementarism and basic reproductive biology easily allow for the belief that gender differences can be recognized in law and custom without having to accept that one sex is basically inferior to the other.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    @Lesser Bull

    This comment is part of a trial habit, previously announced on this blog, of commenting when all I really have to say is ‘hear hear.’ This habit exists because I don’t see it done enough.

    Race sophistry is more fundamental to progressivism than gender sophistry…but are you trying to oppose progressivism, or to know true things? (I don’t think there’s anything wrong with just opposing progressivism unless that’s not what you’re after.)

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Thanks, Alrenous, and my apologies for posting a comment so badly in need of editing.

    Konkvistador Reply:

    I think you misunderstand what I’m saying.

    HBD has vital policy implications because it has important implications for why our history proceeded as it did.

    Even if not opposition to progressive insanity is in itself promotion of sanity. So very much of current progressive policy rests on the tacit assumption of group equality, things like using the crazy standard of “disparate impact” reveal this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

    “If northwest Europeans are biologically disposed to a kind of universalism, which I think they are, then you in trying to persuade them otherwise you are trying to use words to combat their nature. ”

    I don’t recall saying that I want to persuade NW Europeans of anything at all. Indeed I explicitly claim that restoration can not be done by persuading most people at all. You can’t beat demotism at a popularity contest, that is what demotism is. Also why do you assume I care about NW Europeans in particular that much? Last time I checked NW Europeans weren’t the only clever people from which one can find additional cognitive material to suit the intellectual needs of our project. I say we mine the East, in Europe and Asia.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I care about NW Europeans in particular that much, because I am an Anglo-American and because I am not an ideologue. Because I am an Anglo-American, I care about Anglo-Americans and the West. Because I’m not an ideologue, I don’t cease caring about them because they don’t ideally fit my policy prescriptions.
    ***

    “HBD has vital policy implications because it has important implications for why our history proceeded as it did.”

    Please elaborate. Like I said above, my views on policy were pretty much the same before I heard of HBD as after because my basic reality is the observed and intractable average differences in the Anglosphere between different racial groups, and racially speaking HBD is merely one explanation of that reality. I already knew disparate impact was crazy simply because of the results long before I was even aware of HBD.
    ***

    It is always possible that I misunderstood you, in which case I express my regret.

    James Reply:

    There’s not even an obvious policy program that relies on race realism.

    “Policy” and “public policy”, let alone “policy program”, are progressive Newspeak. These phrases subliminally promote the idea that political decisions ought to be made informally by the consensus of an administrative elite; I would give them a wide berth.

    Now of course race realism would undermine affirmative action and other “policies” that are designed to combat racial discrimination.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    You’re perpetrating gobbledygook. You’re trying to shift the discussion to world choices and still haven’t shown any “policies” that you can’t realize are stupid without HBD. I’m all for discussion of HBD. Let truth prevail and all that, and the HBD bloggers are generally pretty responsible about it–they’re trying to figure things out, not act like shock jocks.

    But this argument that we need to advance racism as an ideology because otherwise bad -word that means the same thing as policy but you prefer to use instead of policy- will happen, is bunk.

    You don’t need a theory of inheritance to know that when someone has low IQ or a criminal history or both, shouting racism! isn’t going to change the predictive value of either of those facts. That’s one example.

    Also, you forget that progressivism has quite comfortably assimilated racism in various of its incarnations. If you think you’re striking at progressivism’s secret heart by embracing racism, you’re laboring under a delusion. Progressivism is already de facto racist today and could easily become formally racist if minority communities ceased to be more useful than they are troublesome. “Equality” isn’t a fact about reality, its a goal to be willed into being, and if you can’t force people to be equal you can still achieve the goal by getting rid of them.

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    You’re trying to shift the discussion to world choices and still haven’t shown any “policies” that you can’t realize are stupid without HBD.

    You have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Here’s a very simple example from my hometown – NYC.

    New York has been well governed for about the last 20 years or so. One of the key elements has “stop and frisk” – which is, surprise surprise, applied mostly to NAMs. Progressives, of course, shrieked about it so much that they actually convinced themselves that “racially profiling” someone is a crime.

    How exactly are you supposed to govern a city in the United States without policies that don’t have “disparate impact”?

    How exactly can you explain the cause of the disparate impact without HBD?

    DB Reply:

    “There’s not even an obvious policy program that relies on race realism.”

    WTF? There are numerous policies with notable dysgenic or eugenic consequences. Dysgenic ones, such as insufficiently restricted welfare or permitting increased immigration from the third world, tend to involve (sometimes massive and geometrically increasing) resource transfers and a faulty claim that these transfers represent an investment in the future. Simply halting the most awful policies, and replacing with HBD-compatible variants aimed at similar goals (charter cities are one of the better ideas I’ve seen, I don’t care if Moldbug is a detractor), would already be a huge win.

    Of course, this is easier said than done; we all saw what happened to Jason Richwine when he simply attempted to accurately account for the effects of third world immigration.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Steve Johnson,
    It’s possible that you came to a sensible position on disparate impact through HBD. If so, congratulations, and its understandable that it colors your thinking. But your example of stop-and-frisk doesn’t do the work you think it does. It is simply not the case that HBD is the only alternative explanation for disparate impact to simple police racism. It could be a cultural thing. It could be a structural-historical thing where the poor and marginal in the 1960s were most affected by cultural dissolution and the welfare state, and the dysfunction was entrenched. It could random. It’s just an empirical fact that most opponents of disparate impact are not HBDers, so the necessity of the correlation fails as an observed reality.
    But more importantly, why by into the Leftist framing at all that unless we can come up with some kind of explanation for disparate impact, it must be racism? Who cares? When someone tells you that a program has disparate impact, the sane question is ‘why is there disparate impact?’ The sane question is “does the program work?” If it does, who cares? By arguing that you *must* embrace HBD to fight disparate impact, you’ve already conceded a big ol’ stolen base to the idiocy of the left.

    DB,
    you’re right that HBD brings a heckuva a lot of clarity. Even just being aware of the possiblity without being a believer per se brings a heckuva a lot of clarity. But none of the examples you cite would be sane in a world where racial differences didn’t exist in the way data shows the probably exist in ours. They’re all lunatic regardless.

    DB Reply:

    Lesser Bull,

    In a spherical cow world where not only (i) no relevant racial genetic differences exist, but also (ii) no other problematic genetic or cultural variation exists which can’t be solved by taking low-class kids away from their mothers for all their waking hours, those examples could be justified as long-term investments.

    Many people believe or at least hope that the real world’s departures from ideality are of small and decreasing importance. I’d be surprised if no readers of this blog were among the believers earlier in their lives, before they observed enough reality to reject that model.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I don’t think they could be justified in a spherical cow world, simply because the results aren’t there. You could come up with a number of explanations for it that don’t require you to necessarily accept your (i).

    The method of the Left is to insist that facts give way to theory. It is of course helpful to attack their theory with a robust counter-theory if you got one. But its even better to say, ‘bull, facts are facts.’ Taking kids away from their mothers doesn’t make much difference.

    Konkvistador Reply:

    The reason to clearly explain what is wrong with white nationalism and denounce it is not to gain mainstream acceptability or popularity, that is silly strategy, because once you do so, you just have to denounce the next unacceptably non leftist thing to gain more acceptability or popularity. It works as a strategy if the trade-off curve has a particular shape and you could say gain a lot of power through popularity by being a racist denouncing hard line rightist. I’d argue that if this was possible we would see them.

    The reason to signal against white nationalism is to prevent their low church flooding our discussions. The average low brow white nationalist is hopelessly leftist in all his other assumptions. I find the say spirited defenses of feminism and the democracy one finds on even their smarter blogs quite amusing. Socialism/Democracy does indeed suck less if you happen to have a country filled with only Swedes rather than Angolans , but that is hardly an argument for it. Also Feminism if anything tends to suck less if you fill up the country with nonwhite people, mostly because they don’t take it seriously.

    [Reply]

    Konkvistador Reply:

    I should qualify the last claim. If you have a feminist and nonfeminist ethnicity living somewhere feminism still sucks for the feminist group. For starters Feminism seems almost consistently evolved to change social circumstances to make actual rape easier and having sex harder (for a short time in the 1960s to 1970s the latter may not have been the case). If Feminism worked in say fighting rape, if its re-engineering away of “rape culture” did what it said on the label that instead of enabling it, feminism would self-extinguish.

    [Reply]

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    Also Feminism if anything tends to suck less if you fill up the country with nonwhite people, mostly because they don’t take it seriously.

    Agree on the conclusion, disagree on the reasoning.

    Feminism sucks less with Africans because they are genetically adapted to the feminist utopia. The men are violently impulsive non-industrious braggarts. They have none of the traits that civilization selects for while having all of the traits that women select for on the sexual market place. The women expect to provide for their offspring. A tiny percentage of the most thuggish men and a few sneaky lotharios mate with almost all the women – all the women get a shot at what they consider high quality sperm.

    It’s exactly what feminism aims for.

    Feminism, of course, being defined as “policies that allow women to mate with men who would make bad fathers without having to fear the consequences”.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    @ Konkvistador — great points. They want to do dialectics, so anything messing that up is worthwhile.

    [Reply]

    James Reply:

    The reason to clearly explain what is wrong with white nationalism and denounce it is not to gain mainstream acceptability or popularity, that is silly strategy, because once you do so, you just have to denounce the next unacceptably non leftist thing

    There are some ways around this problem (if it really is a problem, if talk isn’t just cheap).

    Firstly, it only takes a little light reading to discover that progressives have more in common with Nazism than they like to insinuate. Here is a beautiful quote found in Michael Burleigh’s history of the Third Reich, from a speech by Hitler in 1938:

    These boys join our organisation at the age of ten and get a breath of fresh air for the first time, then, four years later, they move from the Jungvolk to the Hitler Youth and there we keep them for another four years. And then we are even less prepared to give them back into the hands of those who create class and status barriers, rather we take then immediately into the SA or into the SS, into the NSKK [Nazi Motorised Transport Corps] and so on. And if they are there for eighteen months or two years and have still not become real National Socialists, then they go into the Labour Service and are polished there for six or seven months, and all of this under a single symbol, the German spade. And if, after six or seven months, there are still remnants of class consciousness or pride in status, then the Wehrmacht will take over the further treatment for two years and when they return after two or four years then, to prevent them from slipping back into old habits once again we take them immediately into the SA, SS etc. and they will not be free again for the rest of their lives.

    Sound familiar? So “white nationalism” is to be distinguished from various other kinds of racial discrimination, some of which are less totalitarian and herdist than progressivism or inane renditions of libertarianism.

    Secondly, if it is a worthwhile audience, one might frame a discussion of race in terms of banality: it is banal and OCD to obsess about other people’s skin colour and facial structure, and even more classless to obsess about whether other people are thinking about this. White nationalists and administrative anti-racism both fall into the latter category, and the former would not tend to affect politics.

    Thirdly, what does a thoughtful person gain from becoming involved in discussion about massive, lumpen human migrations and abstract relationships between millions of people, when the details of market order and law as they apply to an individual are scarcely mentioned? Why, that is, should one’s ideas be daubed using the broad brush of democratic-demagogic discourse?

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Hear hear.

    admin Reply:

    I’m not far from there either, but what it misses out is the fact that the Cathedral insists upon collaborative denunciation of its ‘thought crime’ targets, so getting roped into a fight need have very little to do with positive alignment, and much more to do with a refusal to join the ginned-up witch-burning mob. The line-in-the sand has to be drawn far deeper into problematic territory than one might altogether feel easy about, just in order to avoid participation in truly despicable things.

    VXXC Reply:

    The low churchers had an armed rally at the Alamo today.

    What did you do?

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 17th, 2013 at 8:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Couldn’t Kuznicki have stoked the hate sufficiently with the rejection of democracy, HBD sympathies, anti-egalitarianism, market-fundamentalism, disintegrationism, and Shoggoth-whispering

    Translation: Wnawnaw wnawnaw wnawnaa waanwnaw wnawnaw, HBD sympathies, wnawnaw waah wnaahwa whannnawh.

    <argument>HBD sympathies = Hitler. </argument>

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That does seem to be how it works. There’s a strong current of scarcely-suppressed panic in it though. It’s pretty obvious that Kuznicki is less than fully convinced by his own BS.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 17th, 2013 at 9:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • (Holiday)Bot-Rkd Says:

    Come on… Hang your colours to the sea-steading mast (or whatever the expression is):

    It’s part of what he terms the dark neo-reactionary movement, within which he appears to play the role of a participant-observer. (Is he serious? Does he mean it? It’s often hard to tell: a calculated ambiguity. At least I think.)

    That’s the real, delicious kicker. Do you like squid, Nick?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Whilst generally adoring squid questions, I found this one a little cryptic.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 17th, 2013 at 11:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    I expect more of the same from Sigl, but the author of ‘in which we list the 10 worst gays of all time” could surprise me.

    Shorter Kuznicki: ‘Das Raciss’

    So, I hereby dub the “Kuznicki Challenge” which is for some flavor of non-reactionary to write critically about the DEC without resorting to ‘Das Raciss’ but without the motive of just trying to win the challenge.

    I could set the prize money at any level and still not feel any risk aversion.

    Anyway, he’s got the slur wrong. Most of the folks around these parts would be perfectly content with ‘Gentry Nationalism’, even with Gentry watered down to some minimally pro-social self-sufficiency.

    Hell, I’d be content with a nationalism where ‘das raciss’ didn’t exist because it was widely recognized to be ludicrous and asinine charge. Or maybe even a nationalist where ‘das raciss’ couldn’t get anyone fired.

    But as I keep lowering this bar, it doesn’t matter how much it descends, it still stays above what we’ve got.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’m expecting more hipster irony, intelligence, and honesty from Sigl (which will probably make it more fiercely clawed). Let’s see.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    Hipster irony? Is that still a thing? Wow, just wow…

    [Reply]

    Antisthenes Reply:

    It’s a thing that hipster irony is still a thing.

    admin Reply:

    Don’t diss hipster irony — it’s the only thing keeping us out of reeducation-through-labor camps.

    Thales Reply:

    *snerk* Whatever. I was in a Siberian work camp before it was cool…

    Posted on October 17th, 2013 at 11:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • amosandgromar Says:

    This really was quite something today. Jason literally said that, admitting differences for the sake of argument, the only implication for public policy at most would be for trade. Because comparative advantage.

    Well, on that front what it would do is completely eliminate the idea of some structural (intentional or unintentional) setup oriented to putting racial minorities down, who also ‘happen’ to have lower IQs on average. It’d be explained through genetics, and then we’d invoke comparative advantage to explain why it is there’s such specialization or ‘disparities’ in particular areas.

    So I don’t think he quite understands that even given comparative advantage, that would support our point a lot more. But that aside, it’s hilarious that he sees no other _normative_ consequence to the idea that people–and racial groups–aren’t fungible. Remember that thing called ‘equality’ which is the normative driving force behind virtually _all _public policy? Yeah, that thing. That’s a lot.

    I could go on, but I should probably put this together and elaborate more on it in a post or something. Everything is pretty much scheduled up, so it might come out sometime next week.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    He’s a sophist, and the main function of his sophistry is to chill his own cognitive dissonance down to a tolerable temperature.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2013 at 12:45 am Reply | Quote
  • Stirner Says:

    @Antisthenes

    Nick can’t put the race genie back in the bottle.

    His lack of a strong denunciation of HBD, while willing to talk about HBD ideas and thinkers makes him a defacto raaaaacist.

    If you are newbie starting out in the reactionary blogosphere, you have the choice whether you want to wade into the deep end of the pool. One you commit to a public semi-acceptance of HBD, there is no walking it back. It may be wise to avoid the topic of race, it may be brave to grapple with the issues (especially when you post using a real name/identity), but if Dawkins, and Paula Deen, and all the rest have taught us is that no amount of pleading or groveling will save you if you are targeted when you have crossed that rubicon.

    You might as well stand strong, mock and belittle them, and at least save your sense of self dignity, because professionally you are fucked anyways. Nick is somewhat fortunate that he lives in the Sinosphere, where they would find Western denial of HBD vastly amusing…

    [Reply]

    Antisthenes Reply:

    It doesn’t follow, however, that you have to allow non-reactionaries to control the discourse and characterize Reaction purely in terms of race (a relatively peripheral issue.)

    And you know they will if you permit them to. Parrhesia is important, but discourse is like judo in that you have to consider its direction, not just the force or content of the stances taken.Race is first and foremost an issue that non reactionaries want to use to distract the course of Reaction.

    That said, someone needs to tell me what ‘HBD’ stands for.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “… someone needs to tell me what ‘HBD’ stands for.” — You could start with the link in the ‘Resources’ section of this blog.

    [Reply]

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    @Antisthenes

    Not focusing on race and differentiating oneself from WN droolers are certainly valid rhetorical strategies… strategies which admin has already pretty much followed.

    But if HBD is false then the need for neo-reaction diminishes. If Somalis and Swedes are fungible, then a lot of problematic progressive policies can be expected to work themselves out over the long term, as the next generations of blank immigrant slates are given the proper progressive environmental influences, etc.

    If HBD is false progressive policies look like short term annoyances that may even be beneficial in the long term. (Immigrants uplifted to become modern progressive people -> more modern progressive people producing science and wealth, etc). Reforming progressivism looks like a viable alternative to neo-reaction.

    On the other hand, if HBD is true, then progressive policies look like unmitigated disasters over the long term. Disasters of the sort that have rarely been seen in history. Disasters of the sort that will set the entire species back significantly.

    And that makes the need for a reaction against those progressive ideas pretty clear.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2013 at 12:57 am Reply | Quote
  • Antisthenes Says:

    @Steve Johnson

    Note where I said Parrhesia is important. Truth-telling doesn’t mean giving up, you know, doing things intelligently, though.

    If you think it makes sense to waste time addressing the symptom rather than the cause, maybe Reaction isn’t for you.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2013 at 1:37 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Discourse is irrelevant with Progs, and I daresay anyone.

    Action and Power is important. Progs have it, they are insane and evil and destructive of all ends – that they play against every middle.

    As for the rest of “anyone” most are ruled by permutations of force and gain.

    Anyone is open to reason, facts, right and wrong. But the Prog wields it for power. The rest will merely agree with the strong horse. Most of them.

    Liberty was established by Barons in contest with the Throne, and extended outward to other notables – the King of England extended it to the gentry, to gain power against the Barons.

    We have no Throne. We need some Barons.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Sure, we recognize Kuznicki as a prog, but he sees himself as a vulnerable dissident who’ll be strung up by the progs if they link him to us. Hence the hysterical distancing. Worst witch-burners are those scared of being thought witches themselves.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2013 at 2:02 am Reply | Quote
  • Steve Johnson Says:

    @Antisthenes

    Race is first and foremost an issue that non reactionaries want to use to distract the course of Reaction.

    You’re just wrong about this.

    Race is an issue that’s acutely embarrassing to progressives. You think they created hysterical taboos around obvious truths for fun?

    From a practical perspective anything that is effective will cause progressives to demonize you.

    Truth-telling doesn’t mean giving up, you know, doing things intelligently, though.

    How intelligent is avoiding a discussion about race? Sample dialog:

    Progressive: You reactionaries are evil – the progressive state got rid of slavery and instituted equality for all – and you’re opposed to that.
    Reactionary: Nuh uh – you’re the real racists because your policies have negative effects on NAMs

    Yeah, that “avoiding race discussions” idea will really let you sneak up on progressives.

    [Reply]

    Konkvistador Reply:

    I agree.

    “avoiding race discussions” is problematic call because most people will end up using it to cripple themselves to Republican “you’re the real racists!” levels as you nicely demonstrate.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2013 at 7:50 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    What exactly other than to tell them off is the point of discourse with Progs?

    If it’s to expose them as frauds, shame them if possible, call them a cult of theft dressed in priests robes, or to sway a 3d party then it moves. Fear camping in their camp too. But..

    You will never convince people who’ve prostituted their souls [and often enough bodies] for their own interest or status to change their course.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Setting the bar low, not rolling over, begging for mercy, and apologizing would be a start.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2013 at 2:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jack Crassus Says:

    The best defense against the Marxists, and those adopting their habits, is the distinction between modern and post-modernist discourse mentioned here. It’s too refined of a concept for the mass market, but modern discourse as described in that post fits the ideals and self-concept of the elite enough to maybe embarrass them a bit if they shift to post-modernism.

    It’s one of my favorite recent finds. Please spread it liberally.

    [Reply]

    Jack Crassus Reply:

    Basically, I want to establish a community that adheres to the principles of modern discourse as explicit social norm and point of pride. Pulling the “offensive” trigger in an argument will show non-membership in the group of “true intellectuals”.

    Maybe the principles can be distilled into something with a nice title and an easy 4 or 5 point summary. Then we could post a banner with a link to it at the top of our blogs (this blog adheres to the rules of rational argument, or something like that). It should be easy to integrate. It’s non-partisan enough that it might spread to lefty blogs (this is what they believe they are).

    Then they can be shamed for violating their own principles, and the range of discussion on their blogs will increase, countering the trend towards ever smaller and less offensive topics.

    [Reply]

    GC Reply:

    Rule of thumb: The “offended” party is usually the “factually wrong” party.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 19th, 2013 at 6:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • How Not To Help | Handle's Haus Says:

    […] there’s been quite a stir over Kuznicki’s inaccurate take on Land (Nick’s response here). It’s unfortunate that Kuznicki, who is after all the editor of the Cato Unbound debate […]

    Posted on October 19th, 2013 at 10:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    What you need Admin is your own Open Carry Rally.

    Like the one they had today at the Alamo.

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/19/21038963-texas-gun-owners-stage-rally-at-the-alamo?lite

    [Reply]

    Puzzle Pirate (@PuzzlePirate) Reply:

    Molon labe motherfucker!

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 20th, 2013 at 2:22 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    There’s a false dilemma here. The Progressives (the Elect) are telling everyone that minority underperformance is either the fault of (1) genetics (HBD) or the fault of (2) insufficiently progressive whites (the Unwashed). But there are other possibilities: minority underperformance could be caused by (3) perverse incentives created mostly by “progressive” laws, or by (4) minority subcultures that have developed with the encouragement of false friendship from progressives.

    It’s good to push back against the Elect for scientific fraud and witch burnings, but it seems to me that the Schwerpunkt of our attack should be the false friendship issue.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    From the other direction:

    Most of those focusing entirely on HBD say this: we have a complex, chaotic system, yet not only are all its outputs dominated by a single variable – IQ – the variable’s effects are strictly linear. y = mx + b. Technically speaking this is possible but it is incredibly unlikely.

    For a counter-example, hbdchick, whose obsession is clannishness, rather than IQ per se, and as far as I know she doesn’t claim that a society’s outcomes are entirely dominated by whether they’re inbred or outbred.

    As Lesser Bull brought up, you don’t need IQ or clannishness anyway. The fact is these groups reliably perform as they have in the past. One can successfully predict it, regardless of why it happens. Or: imagine HBD were debunked tomorrow. Well, guess what, proggie interventions are still useless at raising black class averages. Nobody else knows how to do it either. It’s just a thing a ruler has to plan around.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 20th, 2013 at 3:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Says:

    The best way to defeat neo-reactionary critiques of modernity is to shrug your shoulders and say “Ok, those are good points, *in theory*, but the fact remains that the situation today is, in many ways, the best that it has ever been. Why risk ruining a good thing by making these drastic changes?”

    And they’re correct, the present isn’t that bad, the problem is that the future doesn’t look so good to the darkly enlightened.

    Convince someone that HBD is true and you’ll convince them that the future doesn’t look so good for many Western countries. You’ll convince them that current trends should not continue.

    Otherwise, good luck. The future doesn’t really look bad enough to justify a drastic reaction if HBD is false and immigrants will be magically transformed by progressive environmental influences.

    [Reply]

    vimothy Reply:

    “And they’re correct, the present isn’t that bad”

    Isn’t that bad — compared to what? By what measure?

    Perhaps the present isn’t that bad if you accept progressive assumptions about the nature of reality, but what if you don’t?

    [Reply]

    Antisthenes Reply:

    Those gosh darned conservative progressives are at it again!

    [Reply]

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    “Isn’t that bad — compared to what? By what measure?”

    Compared to the world historical average (or world average). What measure? Material well being, physical safety, whether or not society offers the opportunity to live a tolerable life, that sort of stuff.

    Piggish concerns, but ones that still do tend to come up. Most first world Western countries are not doing too badly by these metrics. But they’re headed for a fall. It’s easier to explain why that fall is coming if you are allowed to use HBD in your analysis, instead of treating people as blank slates.

    Similarly, one is constructing a comprehensive case about how progressivism is bad for science, it will be helpful to be able to explain exactly why turning the demographics of the United States into Uruguay and eventually Brazil is problematic.

    “Perhaps the present isn’t that bad if you accept progressive assumptions about the nature of reality, but what if you don’t?”

    Probably depends what you believe instead. I think that most people in Western first world countries can still live tolerable lives, but the ongoing trends in many issue areas are very bad. I’m very scared for my hypothetical grandchildren.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Let’s look at the country 50 years ago.

    Let’s look at the Rust Belt 50 years ago [it was at that time the Industrial Heartland of the World].

    Let’s look at Detroit 50 years ago.

    Let’s look at CA or NJ 50 years ago.

    Let’s understand we have Anti-Majority government, which by definition and necessity is bad for most people.

    Let’s project 50 years.

    [Reply]

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    @VXXC

    I think that the tactic you use above is not going to be all that effective because people do not habitually think about technological progress and social progress separately.

    Therefore, most of them believe that we’re better off today because we have facebook, twitter and smart phones. Who needs dark Satanic steel mills?

    As a reactionary, I agree that we were (in some significant ways) better off 50 years ago, even though that means no internet, computers, cell phones, facebook, etc. And personally, I don’t regard our technological progress since then as particularly impressive.

    But nowadays a significant percentage of the population lives on their cellphones and on the internet. I certainly don’t think it is healthy, but starting off by trying to convince technology addicts that they’d have been better off without technology does not sound like a winning strategy.

    You can try to argue that social forms should be analyzed separate from technology and that technology aside we were better off back then, but it’s another time consuming and tedious argument, which is ultimately difficult to resolve conclusively. And after that, you still haven’t reached a compelling argument for reaction or for looking for an alternative to the current system.

    You have to beat down all the progressive excuses for the decline of real wages, loss of manufacturing jobs, etc, then you have to start summarizing Moldbug for them, etc. Tough sledding.

    By comparison, HBD is basically a silver bullet.

    Use science and empirical evidence to sell someone on HBD (It’s really not hard unless they’re a true believer, start small with stuff like lactose tolerance and work your way up, Cochran’s book is basically a step by step guide) –> Disastrous near future consequences of current policies become apparent to them –> Person begins to consider alternatives to current paradigm.

    vimothy Reply:

    “Attainability of Pig’s-wash” is what progressive arguments that we’ve never had it so good boil down to. And if the attainability of pig’s-wash is the only thing that matters, the arguments have merit: the swine’s-trough is wider and deeper than ever, and all line up to feed (though perhaps my share could be a little bigger; and what proportion of the pig’s-wash should be credited to progressive policies, or progressive philosophy, or even the fervent prayers of pigs, is another matter).

    If there’s more to life than lining up at the swine’s-trough as often as possible, progressive arguments don’t look so good. They don’t look so good because progressives refuse to countenance the existence of any good other than that of hog’s-wash maximisation–“the mission of Universal Pighood, and the Duty of all Pigs”–and we’re assuming that this is not sufficient. In that case, we’ll need to go elsewhere, Duty of all Pigs be damned.

    You could argue that, because it’s a lot easier, it is better to try to convince progressives that failure to recognise the truth of HBD threatens the supply of swill than to convince them that they are not actually pigs, which is likely nigh on impossible. HBD and Pig-science–for the greater glory of Pighood, and the greater supply of Pig’s-wash! If progressives are right, this certainly seems like the way to go. And even if they’re not, we might as well get our fill.

    Posted on October 20th, 2013 at 6:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Cathedral gets nervous: twofer hit-pieces this week! | Occam's Razor Says:

    […] Cato Institute’s Jason Kuznicki writes this hit-piece on British philosopher Nick Land.  (Land responds here.) […]

    Posted on October 21st, 2013 at 12:11 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    @DB

    Two points regarding the relative importance of genetics vs. law and culture:

    1. As Mark Steyn put it,

    “Why is Haiti Haiti and Barbados Barbados? Why is India India and Pakistan Pakistan? Skin color and biological determinism don’t get you very far on that.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295591/re-derb-mark-steyn

    2. The problems didn’t used to be this bad. See _Losing Ground_, by Charles Murray, or “The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies”, by Kay Hymowitz/

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html

    Saying that “The problem is mainly HBD, therefore Progressive policies are ineffective” is not nearly as damning as saying “The problems are mainly policy and culture, therefore Progressive policies are counter-productive, and in so far as they are deliberate, represent false friendship.”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Unfortunately, I don’t think this admittedly very sane option is open to us. The progressives (including establishment conservatives and fluffy libertarians) force a show down on HBD, and then the the choice is only ritualistic self-criticism (lies) or a defense of the simple fact that HBD is real, and at least partially explanatory,

    I generally like Steyn, but he’s being a cowardly sophist here. Fine-tuned HBD (which doesn’t stop at some Kuznicki-culturalist BS about ‘black people’) has no difficulty discriminating between Barbados and Haiti. Of course, shallower aspects of deep heritage also play important roles. As for Pakistan / India, how closely is Steyn actually looking at India? It’s not as if we’re comparing Afghanistan with China.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Care to elaborate about Haiti / Barbados and India / Pakistan?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The Haitians were the sole Caribbean society to genocide their European population. The consequences of that decision are quite evident in the relevant hate fact statistics.

    India has one of the most complex racial structures in the world, with corresponding diversity stabilized in the caste system. Large parts of the population are very highly challenged by the demands of modernity. Ideological and institutional factors cannot be expected to more than partially ameliorate that. Whilst Islam has left Pakistan with one of the most thoroughly rotten cultures on earth, there can be little doubt that it has a modest advantage in average IQ.

    Posted on October 22nd, 2013 at 1:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Steve Johnson Says:

    “The problems are mainly policy and culture, therefore Progressive policies are counter-productive, and in so far as they are deliberate, represent false friendship.”

    The extremely effective “you’re the real racist” tack.

    Progressive policies are counter-productive because of HBD – but they’re mainly counterproductive in making NAMs decent citizens – men who can hold down jobs, not commit crimes, and not menace people. Progressives, of course, actively stigmatize those traits in their client NAMs. They venerate thugs – because they’re “authentic”. They approve of menacing – because of “privilege”.

    If you argue that the problem is policy and culture progressives will trump you every time – because your “better” policies will turn out “Uncle Toms” and milquetoast NAMs who are afraid of the police and polite to whites – which to progressives isn’t a sign of success – it’s a sign of failure! Current NAM culture in the United States is a huge success to progressives. Blacks have high self esteem! They’re much scarier than those disgusting whites in flyover country – in fact, those whites are weak and cowardly because they’re scared of NAMs!

    On the other hand if you start from the premise that HBD is true then all of a sudden menacing NAMs seem a lot less like “justice for racism” and a lot more like dangerously feral people. Progressives, of course, act exactly like they think NAMs are dangerously feral but demonize anyone who suggests that NAMs act dangerously feral.

    NAMs will always be less successful than whites because HBD is (plainly, obviously, undeniably) true. Progressives have set up an alternate status hierarchy for NAMs where they can be venerated for being thuggish. NAMs eagerly adopt this status hierarchy because they can be on the top of it (any non-NAM who tries to get to the top of a thuggish status hierarchy quickly discovers the “tyranny” portion of anarcho-tyranny (witness the extinction of the Italian mafia) – they’re then sent to jail to be raped by physically larger and more numerous NAMs). Progressives love it because it neuters lower class whites who can’t compete on the thuggish scale (where they would easily dominate if permitted) and the provider / decent citizen scale where they still do dominate is denigrated.

    You’ll have no success with the “progressives are the real racists” approach.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “You’ll have no success with the ‘progressives are the real racists’ approach.” — I can only recommend that people think seriously about this, and try to be scrupulously honest about the point being made here.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Attack their many weaknesses, that is the strength of DE and reaction.

    It’s not an argument, it’s a struggle for power. Which they are too insane and venal to wield. Reveal the venality and the insanity and evil follows.

    Venality – the difference between the Walmart looters and the government we actually have – as opposed to arguing the respective merits of castles in the sky – is scale.

    The Walmart looters at most made off with a million. This government has stolen tens of trillions, they’ll be at another trillion by Jan deadline on the next installment of What’s My Default reality TV. They were 1/3 there [$328 Billion] the very day they could borrow again.

    These people are getting ready to RUN and abandon their carts..

    Which doesn’t mean they and their overflowing carts of loot won’t need pushing out the door, not at all. Absent the push they’ll continue to steal. Men with Honor and Shame do not approach within 50 miles of Washington except on dire necessity.

    Dire Necessity is FortinBrass already marching, while the Court of Hamlets dither over “thinking” it entirely overmuch.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 22nd, 2013 at 2:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    @admin

    Thanks.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 24th, 2013 at 1:16 am Reply | Quote
  • The 2013 Anti-Progress Report | Radish Says:

    […] Nick Land is the subject of what he accurately describes as “a brutal, lazy, and dishonest hit piece” by Jason Kuznicki (Cato Unbound). (Handle tries to be civil with him.) […]

    Posted on January 8th, 2014 at 6:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Umlaut Says:

    […] Adam Gurri. (This blog has a limited, and schizoid, relationship with the magazine, from fear and loathing last October, to intrigued. Two further — excellent — Umlaut articles bridged the gap […]

    Posted on February 17th, 2014 at 4:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Hate Says:

    […] The SPLC honors Richard Lynn with a place in the stocks. (He’s a “white supremacist” apparently, despite thinking the future of human civilization lies in the Far East. (*yawn*)) […]

    Posted on March 4th, 2014 at 3:07 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment