Moron bites (#10)

Senseless religious fanaticism spouted portentously from the world’s most grandiose soap-box (and comically self-evident institutional train-wreck), check.

March 27, 2016admin 20 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

20 Responses to this entry

  • Moron bites (#10) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Moron bites (#10) […]

    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 6:00 am Reply | Quote
  • Yakimi Says:

    From the same institution that was founded ostensibly to further “national self-determination” no less. All those liberal nationalists who fought under the banner of progressivism must be weeping in hell right now.


    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 7:56 am Reply | Quote
  • Dark Psy-Ops Says:

    How on earth did this insidious and illegitimate institutionalized mass lunacy and dystopian tyranny gain such preeminence on the international stage? … *reads Genealogy of Morals* … ahh fascinating…

    “A system of law conceived as sovereign and general, not as a means for use in the fight between units of power but as a means against fighting in general, rather like Dühring’s communistic slogan that every will should regard every other will as its equal, this would be a principle hostile to life, an attempt to assassinate the future of man, a sign of fatigue and a secret path to nothingness.” – GoM

    What we are looking at is not a man, but something that has passed the point of caricature, such in the way that formless slime can not be parodied by exaggerating its features, having already reached the maximum of its unshapen character. We are ruled by blobs and flabby amorphous clouds of toxic gases, ready to descend and choke the world in their wafting contaminants.


    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 8:44 am Reply | Quote
  • Old OddJobs Says:

    What is incorrect about Sutherland’s remark? One could just as easily say that “extreme nationalism is indistinguishable from racism” and a bloody good thing, too! Yes, it rejects the “equal dignity of mankind” because such a notion is vapid bollox.

    Sure, Sutherland’s own definition of “extreme nationalism” is probably anything more nationalistic than his own worldview, but hey. The guy’s a conniving druid.


    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 8:47 am Reply | Quote
  • Tentative Joiner Says:

    >comically self-evident institutional train-wreck

    Speaking of: Don’t be a UN intern.


    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 11:27 am Reply | Quote
  • Dark Psy-Ops Says:

    How does this welfarist Cathedralite essay bemoaning the lack of direct-democratic proletarian influence in government policy refute Moldbuggianism?


    admin Reply:

    He’ll come out as national socialist at some point, and then we’ll know where the months of rancorous snark have come from.


    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 11:40 am Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    Portentously is right. From an ideological perspective, Sutherland rides at the vanguard of the Cathedral — always a few steps ahead of mainstream progressive opinion. His “nationalism equals racism” position seems fanatical and unusual to us right now, but will likely grace the Washington Post’s editorial pages within a couple of years, and may become a downright fashionable opinion to hold in the years thereafter.

    Sutherland himself is an example of what happens when a man takes egalitarianism to its logical conclusion — and this to the exclusion of all else, as he evidently cares nothing for the fate of nations, religions, or even the future of humanity, but only that all men shall be rendered perfectly “equal.” There’s a certain misguided ideological purity here. It goes beyond pseudo-religiosity and may be something more akin to monomania.


    Tentative Joiner Reply:

    Sounds like a paperclip maximizer.


    Tentative Joiner Reply:

    Elaborating on that, I would speculate a form of the orthogonality thesis applies to humans, but not just in the “smart people believe dumb things because they are better at convincing themselves” kind of way.

    It is likely that in the ancestral environment humans gravitated to sets of values (a utility function) they were biologically predisposed towards having. Modern human systems consist of humans with similar predispositions, however, they are conductive — and as of recent superconductive — to spreading memetic parasites that overwrite human intelligences’ utility functions (or at least force them to behave as though they have had them overwritten) to help spread the parasite. As such, leftism may be more properly understood as a disease of memetic environments, not individual humans. Questions of health, spread and immunity are more meaningful at this level.


    Tentative Joiner Reply:

    (Pseudoedit) Least I be accused of plagiarism, I want to acknowledge Moldbug as the source of the idea of leftism being a particularly potent memetic parasite. My speculation consists in thinking of leftism as a decease of the memetic environment itself. Thinking of it as subverting the utility function of its host’s cells, the individual humans, transforms Moldbug’s metaphor of cancer from literary to structural.

    Tentative Joiner Reply:

    (Pseudoedit^2) “Lest”.

    michael Reply:

    really cause in NYC nationalism has been a dirty word roughly equatable to nazi for decades, Sure me and a couple of guys wonder when exactly did patriotism become a bad thing but even in the USA where nationalism and patriotism have no ethnic flava its still a bad thing. Whats new is how open the new world order has become they are pretty confident they cant be stopped i guess when you have the commies and the bankers on the same team things are sewed up


    Pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    “You shall have no other gods before me.”

    The conception of the divine held by most, particularly in the west today, is essentially protestant in character. Or in other words, it is moral therapeutic deism. Or in other words, it is *anthropomorphic*.

    This is, obviously, a grave error. Systems break down when applied outside their operating envelopes. And just so, the same sort of logic that would apply to beings like you or me does not apply to something so much more transcendent.

    One of the most common, and most damaging, intellectual sins man can commit is the inflation of some contingent concept to universality. It may be ‘justice’, it may be ‘equality’. It may be ‘power’, or ‘survival’, or any other thing. The lionization of such concepts, taking them outside their natural contexts and upholding them as an ultimate object by which all matters may be weighed, is the wellspring of malaptive thinking and dangerous ideologies.

    Not all concepts are created equal though. Some may encapsulate more or less of being, of gods will, and hence slavish devotion to which may not lead to as much dysfunction as others, nor may the areas in which it goes outside its envelope be as obvious. But all jump the tracks at one point or another; our ideas of being cannot totally encapsulate being, it is so much bigger than we are.

    ‘The Kantian bias’ you might call it, as it was the great conceit of enlightenment thinking, though of course such modes of thought predated them. Kant was really not kidding when he said he has written nothing that townhome housewife does not already know because *that is how most humans tend to think*. That is why ideologies that operate in such terms become so popular, as ideologies that are formulaic and ‘calculative’ take advantage of the tendencies and limitations inherent to the current agents populating this rock.

    Thinking of morals in terms of categorical imperatives dominates the discourse today. Every time someone says something like ‘not all X are like that!’, and feels as though she or it has delivered a devastating rebuttal, they are repeating a semiconscious assumption of the old new enlightenment epistemology and standards of evidence (such that a single exception to any proposition anywhere renders it a calumny [which of course for them rendered ‘knowledge’ impossible (and there hence came postmodernism)]).

    You know there are entities, systems or forces, beyond the single being (and indeed, within the being as well, a man is not a monolith), with their own teleologies, tending towards certain ends, and these in turn serve to advance even greater and more transcendent teleologies. The gods are real, and must atleast be acknowledged to prosper and avoid ruin or ill fortune. But the lesser gods must also not be confused for or idolized as the deity, the god head. As we have seen, this invites even greater ruin, though in this, it may be ones descendants that pay the ultimate price. Sins of the father.


    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 12:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    he does not have a slightest idea about what his secretary typing on Twitter


    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 12:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    We see the root of Leftism in egalitarianism here: either everyone is equally welcome, or you are a bad Hitler-Satan.

    What would motivate that kind of thinking? Individualism, of course: no individual wants to be refused, no matter their failings, and so they motivate the group to demand equal inclusion.


    Sidney Carton Reply:

    Well, the loser individuals respond that way. But they don’t appeal to individualism, do they? It’s all about groups for them, at least outwardly. Smarter or stronger individuals either work on themselves or, if that won’t get them accepted to the club, start their own thing.


    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 12:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    De Jouvenel’s ‘On Power’ predicts this, just as Tocqueville does, as noted by Houellebecq in a recent interview when he observed how Tocqueville saw how men would become without the metaphysical guff of Nietzsche.


    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 2:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • massiv Says:

    Modifier: “Extreme”. You can all stop clutching your pearls now.


    admin Reply:

    It’s not a matter of defending nationalism (here), but of deriding the utterly nonsensical “equal dignity of mankind”. Of course, if you think that means anything outside the framework of abstracted religious frenzy, you’re welcome to explain what it does.


    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 4:31 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment