Sentences (#89)

Steve Bannon’s world:

And so I think we are in a crisis of the underpinnings of capitalism, and on top of that we’re now, I believe, at the beginning stages of a global war against Islamic fascism.

The entire profile is exceptionally interesting. The explicit call-out of contemporary Russian (Hyperborean) Eurasianism is especially note-worthy, since it distances Bannon from the ideological core of the Alt-Right.

ADDED: More here.

February 5, 2017admin 32 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Sentences

TAGGED WITH : , , , , ,

32 Responses to this entry

  • slumlord Says:

    Define Alt-Right.

    Bannon’s not Fasc, he’s a paleoconservative.


    admin Reply:

    The Alt-Right, in its intellectual core (which is not, of course, its demographic core) is the Hyperborean revolt against decayed Atlanteanism, as most lucidly articulated by Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin. Atlantean Restoration is the (NRx) right-wing alternative. Rear-guard defense of the Atlantean demotic decay-trend (aka ‘The Cathedral’) is the left-wing version.


    slumlord Reply:

    Heiddegerian mumbo jumbo. Dugin is proposing subjectivity as a basis for reality, it’s Romanticism v2.0. (Btw it strongly snyches with the strong subjective component that Eastern orthodoxy accords to the Truth, hence the Russian luv angle.)

    The profit is to be found in attacking Positivism(Atlanteanism) and it’s idiotic variants which both corrupted the Enlightenment (while always insisting it was the only true interpretation of it) and Metaphysics by ditching God, the source of transcendental values.


    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    >Btw it strongly snyches with the strong subjective component that Eastern orthodoxy accords to the Truth, hence the Russian luv angle.

    Actually Russians were never particularly orthodox Orthodox. They sort of always had this Western envy, used Catholic literature, etc. And Dugin is a heretic to boot. What I can’t understand however, is why anyone takes him seriously at all? He’s ridiculed in Russia, why would anyone in the West even pay attention to him at all?!?

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    What I can’t understand however, is why anyone takes him seriously at all? He’s ridiculed in Russia, why would anyone in the West even pay attention to him at all?!?

    What is this, normiehood? It´s not intellectual to disregard argumentation per ad hominem.

    Haven´t you noticed that Land frequently employs Dugin´s lingo?

    God, I don´t know why Land caters to this crowd.

    Nor why they are so attracted to him.

    Wagner Reply:

    Dis da Normie Hood

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    >Atlantean Restoration is the (NRx) right-wing alternative.

    Yeah, about that. Remember that Juche France thingie?


    Friedrich von Uexküll Reply:

    The majority of the Alt-Right do not subscribe to Dugin’s views even in derived form, not sure how you could be under such a (gravely) mistaken impression. He denies race realism for instance, which is a pillar of the Alt-Right:


    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 8:44 am Reply | Quote
  • tsk Says:

    “One of the reasons is that they believe that at least Putin is standing up for traditional institutions, and he’s trying to do it in a form of nationalism — and I think that people, particularly in certain countries, want to see the sovereignty for their country, they want to see nationalism for their country. They don’t believe in this kind of pan-European Union or they don’t believe in the centralized government in the United States. They’d rather see more of a states-based entity that the founders originally set up where freedoms were controlled at the local level.

    I’m not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy that he represents, because he eventually is the state capitalist of kleptocracy. However, we the Judeo-Christian West really have to look at what he’s talking about as far as traditionalism goes — particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism — and I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing. I think strong countries and strong nationalist movements in countries make strong neighbors, and that is really the building blocks that built Western Europe and the United States, and I think it’s what can see us forward.”

    He doesn’t sound very unsympathetic or call-outy to me. Calling Putin a kleptocrat is barely a throat-clearing to the rest of what he’s saying… IE, Russia is right, and Putinist Nationalism is the future.


    slumlord Reply:

    There is no Judeo-Christian ethic. The Judaic weltanschauung and the Christian one are different. Shit, the Ten Commandments were pretty much derived by anyone who could get a functional civilisation going. It would be quite correct to call it the Judeo/Christian/Muslim/Tao/Hindu ethic. Christianity has a limited set of propositions which are exclusive to Judaism, and the others, which were the motive elements of the West’s superpowers.


    tsk Reply:

    Yeah, Bannon is actually sort of an oldfag, and bears the cognitive hallmarks. It’s funny how the MSM keep saying that Breitbart is the hub of the Alt-Right, when in reality Bannon’s been this story of slowly adopting Alt-Right positions and terminology by osmosis, often months after even older oldfags like Ann Coulter. To her credit, Ann retired “Judeo-Christian” a while ago.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    older oldfags like Ann Coulter

    Skip the nihilistic feels, will ya?

    michael ryan Reply:

    Ann may turn out to have been the brains behind the whole thing in as much as she was first to make the case mainstream anti immigrant, and had been increasingly proving you could win while pissing on the Cathedral.

    But yes youre right Bannon is no alt righter hes a Reagan democrat of the Irish Catholic made good variety, a variety I know real well, His thing is the tea party and the wisdom of the salt of the earth,His first interest was Palin. Remember how the tea party started; Rick Santelli Another Blue collar catholic made good has one of his numerous Howard Beale meltdowns live on camera and calls the Bailout bullshit and calls for a second tea party The CBOT floor traders go wild and in moments the NYSE traders are doing the same.Guys like that god love them remember their steamfitter uncles and never quite go Land economically, but they cant go Hitler either. Oh Theyre race realists born and bred even Podhoretz couldnt grow up in brooklyn and not get niggers. But they are never going to make a nazi policy Its going to have to have another basis national interests works. Alt Rights going to be disappointed if trump and Bannon and the generals ever conquer washcorp because its not going to be fashy< Land will get more out of it because it will be capitalistic, But actually I suspect its going to be way to prole for Land union Ironworkers will be favored cheap labor. Of course id land were smart he would understand by now why this is right and just and most important wise

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [slumlord] “There is no Judeo-Christian ethic.”

    {AK}: The foundation of Christian ethics is the teaching of Jesus.
    The teachings of Jesus are claimed as the fulfilment of Law, by his own declaration.
    That ‘Law’, is the Judaic ‘God’s Law’, constituting Judaic ethics.
    Christ’s ‘fulfilment of Law’, is usually interpreted as ‘Love’, and as the ‘Spirit of the Law’.
    Christianity arises as a direct result of the tension between the spirit of Christian fulfilment and the letter of Judaic (Pharisaical) injunction; this tension is exemplified in Christ’s parables, narrative compromises between the letter of formulaic ritual and the spirit of love actually at parabolic work. The parables wouldn’t work without a background predisposition toward ethical behaviour already provisioned by Judaic culture; they were, after all, spoken for Hebrew ears. On this basis alone, one has to speak of Judaeo-Christian ethics.


    [slumlord] “The Judaic weltanschauung and the Christian one are different.”

    {AK}: Of course, they’re different. But that difference doesn’t obviate their connection, that the Christian derives from the Judaic. The entire Messianic tradition contextually empowering Christ, is Judaic.


    [slumlord] “Shit, the Ten Commandments were pretty much derived by anyone who could get a functional civilisation going.

    {AK}: There is a very specific line at work in the west: Code of Hammurabi > Mosaic code > Greco-Christian and Greco-Islamic ethics. Although that line may share particular features with other cultural sequences, that doesn’t quite reduce them all down to a core ethical identity component that can be plugged into a civilisation production machine. Such an attitude, is a naive and lazy functionalism.


    [slumlord] “It would be quite correct to call it the Christian/Muslim/Tao/Hindu ethic.

    {AK}: No, it wouldn’t be at all correct. That it is possible to perceive certain universal, or near universal, values; in such a way, as to suggest a universal ethics; does not equate different ethical traditions with each other, according to the binary model of ‘universal ethical core’ and ‘differential cultural ornamentation’. The differences are equally germane, radically altering the relations and significance of any proposed ‘universal ethical core’.
    Secondly, the Christian and Muslim traditions are outgrowths of the Western line mentioned above; Taoism and Hinduism are not, and are from very different worlds then the Occidental sequence.

    [slumlord] “Christianity has a limited set of propositions which are exclusive to Judaism, and the others, which were the motive elements of the West’s superpowers.

    {AK}: Among those ‘others’, the cliché would be to cite Greek influences, for almost everything; & Roman influences, for Law.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    There is no Judeo-Christian ethic.

    Yes, there is. It is the synthesis of the ethics of Jewish scripture and of the teachings of the Christ.

    All of Christianity is Jewish to some regard, and to claim otherwise is sub-intellectual particularism, reminiscent of medieval credo quia absurdum.


    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 10:14 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    The Alt Right is the restoration of Western Civilization with a Nietzschean tinge. Calling it Hyperboreanism is an effective metaphor but in this time of ego-maniacs, will cause people to interpret the Alt Right as “more weight lifting and profit,” instead of what it is: restoration of civilization, with Hyperboreanism/Overmanism as one of its methods.

    Interestingly it may be a revolution of the land/space based people against the sea/city based ones…


    slumlord Reply:

    I’ve said it before, that Spencer– with the help of the media–has successfully captured the Alt-Right brand. So definition is improvement.

    I prefer to think of the Dissident Right as restoration of faith, reason and empiricism against the German navel gazing that came with the triumph of Positivism in the 19th C.


    Wagner Reply:

    Brett, show me an English philosopher or Jew of the calibre of Nietzsche…. excuse me while I ROFL while crying.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    How would ye describe overmanism?

    So far as I can see it is not to be engulfed by petty mimesis.

    The mimetic desire is one of the most important and effective dissolving forces at work within the modern society. It is the queen of Leftism.


    Wagner Reply:

    Erikson, I would argue that the rejection of mimetic emulation is a more intimate bedfellow (groace) of leftism than “hero-worship”. Allow me to mimic Leo Paul de Alvarez’s mimicking of Machiavelli:

    “We can only imitate founders of orders; we follow an already traveled path. We cannot attain their height, but to the extent that we can, we must be like them. We are to be like prudent archers, aiming high in order to hit low.”

    As is clear by now I think the closest thing to an Overman to light upon this devil-ruled planet is Nietzsche/Zarathustra, and we should have no shame in aiming higher than him as the target. Your equation of this technology of the spirit with leftism is perplexing, I’m compelled to say you’re dead wrong here bub.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Neither of us are necessarily wrong as we refer to different conceptions of the concept, and different operations of the ‘thing’. Mimesis is e.g. imitation, such as fuels ‘”virtue” signalling’ when people imitate the images and figures mediated by proselytizers of the Cathedral such as the Lamestream Media.

    Incidentally : « According to Girard, the “internal mediation” of this mimetic dynamic “operates along the same lines as what Gregory Bateson called the ‘double bind’.” …

    “Far from being restricted to a limited number of pathological cases, as American theoreticians suggest, the double bind—a contradictory double imperative, or rather a whole network of contradictory imperatives—is an extremely common phenomenon. In fact, it is so common that it might be said to form the basis of all human relationships.

    Bateson is undoubtedly correct in believing that the effects of the double bind on the child are particularly devastating. All the grown-up voices around him, beginning with those of the father and mother (voices which, in our society at least, speak for the culture with the force of established authority) exclaim in a variety of accents, “Imitate us!” “Imitate me!” “I bear the secret of life, of true being!” The more attentive the child is to these seductive words, and the more earnestly he responds to the suggestions emanating from all sides, the more devastating will be the eventual conflicts. The child possesses no perspective that will allow him to see things as they are. He has no basis for reasoned judgements, no means of foreseeing the metamorphosis of his model into a rival. This model’s opposition reverberates in his mind like a terrible condemnation; he can only regard it as an act of excommunication. The future orientation of his desires—that is, the choice of his future models—will be significantly affected by the dichotomies of his childhood. In fact, these models will determine the shape of his personality.

    If desire is allowed its own bent, its mimetic nature will almost always lead it into a double bind. The unchanneled mimetic impulse hurls itself blindly against the obstacle of a conflicting desire. It invites its own rebuffs and these rebuffs will in turn strengthen the mimetic inclination. We have, then, a self-perpetuating process, constantly increasing in simplicity and fervor. Whenever the disciple borrows from his model what he believes to be the “true” object, he tries to possess that truth by desiring precisely what this model desires. Whenever he sees himself closest to the supreme goal, he comes into violent conflict with a rival. By a mental shortcut that is both eminently logical and self-defeating, he convinces himself that the violence itself is the most distinctive attribute of this supreme goal! Ever afterward, violence will invariably awaken desire…”

    While critical of Freud’s doctrine of the unconscious mind, Girard sees the ancient Greek tragedy, Oedipus the King, and key elements of Freud’s Oedipus complex, patricidal and incestuous desire, to serve as prototypes for his own analysis of the mimetic double bind. »

    « At that time, the Pharisees went and consulted among themselves, how to ensnare Jesus in His speech. … But Jesus knowin g their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites? (Matthew 22) »

    michael ryan Reply:

    Thats pretty clever coastal atlanteans v flyovereans.


    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 1:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Duke of Qin Says:

    The foundations of Bannon’s ideology is incoherent mush because so much of it is wrong. For example, he completely misunderstands what the actual “Church Militant” is, which is unsurprising given the dramatic decline in Catholic education in the United States. He seems to think it embodies collective mass of Christianity united in actual conflict against “barbarity” (i.e. muslims) when in it actually a spiritual metaphor for humanity living on earth in combat against sin as against the church triumphant which are those already living in heaven, and hence already victorious. The fight that the church militant is engaged in is not against physical Muslims or Russians but for the salvation of souls.

    Second all the references to so-called “Judeo-Christianity” really just makes my eyeballs twitch. There is no such thing. There is Judaism, or more accurately Talmudism, and there is Christianity. Conflating the two is a theological “error” that seems to have been founded by yet another historically unaware American whose ignorance seems to have been catching. Jewish theologians will themselves tell you there is no such thing, and the only Jews who actually use the term are political opportunists who have no problem taking advantage of gullible gentiles for Israel’s benefit. The people who use and abuse so-called “Judeo-Christianity” are as John Chrysostom put it, shameless “Judaizers” whose lack of faith is exposed by their necessity to grab on to the temporal trappings of older Judaism for religious validation when no such thing is required. Honestly, the low-church theological ignorance of American’s protestant denominations is unsurprising but Bannon is supposed to be a Catholic.

    Finally his dissimulation of Capitalism into state “crony” capitalism, libertarian “hyper” capitalism, and so-called “Judeo-Christian” enlightened capitalism is complete nonsense. You can ctrl+f any version of the bible you want and you won’t find a single mention of the term Capitalism at all. He is again committing another theological “error” by adding text to the bible that is simply not present, in essence committing heresy.

    His idea that Modi’s electoral victory was due to his “Reaganesque” principles rather than playing on the divided and sectarian nature of India’s demographics is again simply laughable. Modi is prime minister not because he promised Indian’s freedom and apple pie, but because he promised Hindus (pagan idolaters at that) that he wouldn’t let them be pushed around by Muslims.

    That Bannon is supposed to be some sort of alt-right evil genius is the biggest joke of them all only betraying just how grossly ignorant and intellectually myopic the press is in the West.

    Bannon is just another so-called right-wing jew cuck, a dime a dozen in Washington.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    he completely misunderstands what the actual “Church Militant” is

    How do you know he misunderstands it rather than the case being that he´s appropriating it?

    Second all the references to so-called “Judeo-Christianity” really just makes my eyeballs twitch. There is no such thing. There is Judaism, or more accurately Talmudism, and there is Christianity.

    There is both. Judeo-Christianity is e.g. Christianity based also on the Old Testament vs. merely being based on the New Testament. Different Christian groups (this simply means people believing in Christ) have different emphasis of scripture. Some leave out wholly the Old Testament. Normally Christians include it, but some have far more emphasis on the OT comparatively than others (e.g. types of ‘theonomists’ & ‘dominationists’.)

    It´s always a pseudointellectual move to claim about a thing that there is no such thing.


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    ‘the actual “Church Militant” we however need is Urban II, and if all we got is Bannon then we work with what we’ve got. We can get more later – Urban II didn’t arise in one go but began a century earlier with the peace of God at Cluny.

    You’re absolutely correct about Judeo-Christian, like most things evangelical it’s probably about Television. [who bullshits whom].

    Never mind theological correctness. Bannon is bad? Look at Francis!


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    You can ctrl+f any version of the bible you want and you won’t find a single mention of the term Capitalism at all.

    Capitalism is variously defined. Wikipedia transmits the concept simply as « an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. »

    Merriam-Webster—more accurately—as « an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free [sic] market ».

    One Robert Hessen in the Concice Encylopedia of Economics relays that « [Capitalism is a] term of disparagement coined by socialists in the mid-nineteenth century, is a misnomer for “economic individualism,” which Adam Smith earlier called “the obvious and simple system of natural liberty” (Wealth of Nations) ».

    He further relays that « German sociologist Max Weber, writing in 1903, stated that the catalyst for capitalism was in seventeenth-century England, where members of a religious sect, the Puritans, under the sway of John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, channeled their energies into hard work, reinvestment, and modest living, and then carried these attitudes to New England. Weber’s thesis breaks down, however. The same [sic] attitudes toward work and savings are exhibited by Jews and Japanese, whose value systems contain no Calvinist component. »

    Incidentally, Mr. Land has a thread specifically on the definition of ‘capitalism’ : « From the perspective of Outside in, however, this post misses the most crucial level of the question. Capitalism — like any ideologically contested term — is cross-cut by multiple meanings. Of these, its generic sense, which “simply means that private individuals own the means of production” is far from the most objectionable.

    Yet, far more significant is the singular sense of capitalism, as a proper name, for a ‘thing’ or real individual. To grasp this, it probably helps to consider the word as a contraction of ‘terrestrial capitalism’ — not describing a generic type of social organization, but designating an event. »

    Now outside of Land´s development of the formations of the concept, he doesn´t wholly abhor its meaning of ‘private individuals own the means of production’.

    This is what you want to ask yourself, if it exists in the Bible?

    It certainly does. The in the Bible is not

    communally owned.

    « a right to acquire property is present in Scripture:

    Two of the Ten Commandments assume the right. Exodus 20: 15 exhorts, “You shall not steal,” while Deuteronomy 5:21 commands, “You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land…or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Neither of these commandments makes sense unless there are some things that rightly belong to other people.

    Speaking of Exodus 20:15, [Old Testament scholar] Kaiser writes, “With this command, not only was the principle of individual ownership recognized, but it also thereby regarded as criminal all attempts to take that property from a person in a fraudulent way and to then regard it as one’s own.”

    One of the fifty chapters of the book of Genesis, chapter twenty-three, is devoted to describing in detail Abraham’s purchase of a plot of land to bury his wife Sarah. This suggests that standards for buying and selling property were already well developed in 2000 B.C. in the ancient Near East.

    Kaiser further explains what the Old Testament says about the acquisition of property:

    We can be rewarded for our work. Kaiser cites 1 Corinthians 9:9-11 as evidence that human beings are “…entitled to appropriate rewards for their labors.” This is what makes withholding wages so grievous in the Bible. Doing so is condemned in Leviticus 19:13 because, as Kaiser explains, “Fairness and justice demands the proper pay for honest labor.”

    Property can be acquired via inheritance (see Deuteronomy 21:16 and Proverbs 19:14).
    Virtues such as “industriousness, wisdom, and the development of insight” are also means by which possessions and property may be acquired (Proverbs 10:4, 13:4, and 14:23; Proverbs 3:16, and Proverbs 14:15, respectively). ».

    Incidentally, Mr. Land, in the comments to aforementioned defines the « commercialization of authority » as a necessary of capitalism, or, I don´t see why, as capitalism itself.

    If that is in the Bible?, one might frame as the question, to steelman your argument.

    Mercenarisation of everything then. Incidentally, Jesus does love whores.

    The term ‘mercy’ is derived from Latin ‘merx’ which means merchendise. We begin here to see the Luciferian roots of the Roman Catholic Church, which has done all manners of sin through the ages.

    It was, given as the reason anyway, why Luther departed, no? They were commercialising salvation.

    One of the names of the RCC after all, is Casta Meretrix, and meretrices were registed prostitutes in the imperium of Rome.


    Wagner Reply:

    ^^^^ This post, among a few other recent ones you’ve made, is clear evidence that Kwisatz Haderach is a bumbling imbecile.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    The man was simply triggered, embarrassing as that may be in a scene where circa everyone likes to pretend to be wholly cool all the time and to be so O very rational and omnigrasping — with quite varied apparent successes. Happens to us all. In trying to silence me, he simply turned me on. I don´t blame him. I remember when I used to get offended more. How much truth doth a poster dare?

    If you´d believe a significant part of the world turned on your very near ancestors, or was very nonsupportive or hostile to them, while at the same time a civilized military state (in ca top 3 of inventions in world history) was secretly gassing and otherwise executing 6.000.000 of your ethnicity only some decades ago … you´d probably be pathological about it too.

    Like he, believes someone wrote a master-tract of political science just to discredit les Juifs, and that this tract was forged as having belonged to Jewish contra-gentile revolutionaries and was a significant influence on said 6k x 1.000 killings, you´d have a “reason”, as it were, to get your pathos triggered even if someone was merely quoting from that document without commentary.

    Let us say a prayer to the mother of trigger sings: Kali

    « In relation to Siva, she appears to play the opposite role from that of Parvati. Parvati calms Siva, counterbalancing his antisocial or destructive tendencies; she brings him within the sphere of domesticity and with her soft glances urges him to moderate the destructive aspects of his tandava dance. Kali is Shiva’s “other wife,” as it were, provoking him and encouraging him in his mad, antisocial, disruptive habits. »

    Or shalln´t we rather pay to dear Parvati?

    « It is never Kali who tames Siva, but Siva who must calm Kali. »

    michael ryan Reply:

    Judeo /christianity is just cuck signaling the Jews that they wont be gassed by this form of nationalism. Its not a bad ploy i think the Jews should be given a chance to repent, They dont deserve it but thats the point of Grace, and besides it will make the job easier.

    But yeah Bannons a tea Party Palin-ite cum Trumpster-ite. but hes gotten this far so more than MM can say.


    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 6:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Outliers (#43) « Amerika Says:

    […] The Alt Right: Hyperboreanism Versus The Bourgeois Port Cities (Nick Land/Outside In) […]

    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 10:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    If we can convert R. L. Stein to Hyperboreanism we’ll be like the Manhattan Project inventing the nuclear bomb.


    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 10:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    You can ctrl+f any version of the bible you want and you won’t find a single mention of the term Capitalism at all.

    This is one of the stupidest lines ever submitted here.

    Anyway; « what does the Bible say about managing money? The answer can be summarized with a single word—wisdom. We are to be wise with our money. We are to save money, but not hoard it. We are to spend money, but with discretion and control. We are to give back to the Lord, joyfully and sacrificially. We are to use our money to help others, but with discernment and the guidance of God’s Spirit. It is not wrong to be rich, but it is wrong to love money. It is not wrong to be poor, but it is wrong to waste money on trivial things. The Bible’s consistent message on managing money is to be wise. »

    Stephen K. Bannon at The Liberty Restoration Foundation:

    Uploaded on Nov 20, 2011


    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 11:03 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment