This Week In Reaction (2016/02/28)

Thanks to two over-the-top, balls to the wall, award-winning articles (among other things), this week turned out to be Sex Realism Week in This Week in Reaction®. It didn’t start out that way. So I’m leavin’ that Zuckerberg pic up top. Because it’s destined to be a classic. Get yer sex realism below the fold. Also…

Pax Dickinson comes out as The Duck: He of the late auto-defenestration says a big I Told You So: Twitter’s Crackdown on Free Speech.


The identity of His Duckiness remained a remarkably well-kept secret. I guessed it within days, and I’m sure many others must have too. Yet, there was never any internet evidence of it, until the time was right. (Score +1 for The Conspiracy.) He’s readily adapted to trolling under his real name. Pax has a delicious overturning of the tables: Twitter Accused of Harassment.

Nick Land has a prophetic bit of commentary on that headline picture above: Zuckerberg with Journos in VR Goggles.

Clark Hat decided to ask What is “neoreaction”? Unfortunately, he didn’t manage, nor apparently intend, to answer the question. What comes out is a passable essay against democracy. Vox Day says that’s representative democracy, but real democracy has never been tried?! (LOLWUT??!!) RF imputes far more meaning to Clark’s essay than actually exists. It’s his hobby. My only comment: If anyone actually cared about preserving the legacy of Mencius Moldbug, or honoring him for his contributions, or living up to basic decency, they would at least take seriously his request to be known by his pen name. No one writes analyses of Eric Blair.

By the way, Free Northerner is in a good position to answer Clark’s question. And he does so.

Three Heaping Tablespoons of Sex Realism

Jim has a big one, an instant classic, this week: Emancipation of women was a fitness test that we failed. It was overdue, but welcome. Stark but entirely accurate:

Since we don’t want to pay for eighteen thuglets, and we don’t want women giving birth in a dark alley in the rain, we have to keep women under male authority that supervises and restrains their sexual choices.

Sex realism went off the rails in the 60s. The 1860s. (If not earlier.) To get back to a sane era of sexual relations (in the English-speaking world at any rate), Jim looks to the late 18th century. Marriage customs for rich independent-minded women are well-documented and well-known. But what of poor, independent-minded 18th century women? Australian settlement provides an almost laboratory perfect case. At first, it was a moral—i.e., social—disaster:

When the convict ships landed in Australia, the convict women, now far away from family restraints, and free to mingle with men, acted like it was spring break in Cancun or Woodstock Revival. None of these women were there because of convictions for prostitution, and though they all acted like whores in eighteenth century meaning of the term, they don’t seem to have been selling sex, rather the reverse. The popular stereotype of a transported woman was a servant girl who stole something from her employer to give to her unreliable bad boy lover, who showed up at infrequent and unpredictable intervals to rough her up, have sex with her, and take her stuff. These days we [no] longer call such women whores, because all women are like that, except for those few who have chosen to submit themselves for life to the firm hand of a strong man who is better than that.

Jim finds primary sources document this “Girls Gone Wild” atmosphere, which was later covered up by subsequent histories, identifying these women as poor victims. Well, of course, they were victims, of their own lack of self-control and the absence of a stern shepherding hand. Authorities in Oz soon wised up and implemented strong incentives to accomodate newly arriving women in a more orderly way for the benefit of the whole country. The differences between 18th and 19th century notions of female sexuality could not be more stark:

Eliza Rosanna Gilbert aka. Lola Montez, Henry Clive Cover The American Weekly, November 17, 1946

Eliza Rosanna Gilbert aka. Lola Montez, Henry Clive Cover The American Weekly, November 17, 1946

While the nineteenty century theory was that women were so naturally pure and chaste that all the apparatus of coercion to keep them from misbehaving was sheer cruelty and could safely be discarded, the eighteenth century view was that women had to be in the custody of someone with a duty and practical motive to keep them from engaging in sex, and the authority and power to coercively prevent them from engaging in sex, or else married to a husband who had the authority and power to coercively prevent them from engaging in extra marital sex. Eighteenth century people believed that fertile age women urgently needed sex, and if prevented from getting some were apt to take alarmingly drastic measures or go into hysterics, while from the mid nineteenth century to the present, people seem to think that sex is something alarming and unpleasant imposed on women by men. The nineteenth century treatment for hysteria reflects the realistic but unmentionable eighteenth century belief as to what caused it.

Jim goes on to formulate a just-so story of the development of socially enforced monogamy chastity: “understood as socialism in pussy, the seizure of the means of reproduction by beta males.” In this case a type of “socialism” that actually works. Another ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀ for Jim.

Richard A. Brookes has commentary on Rotherham. He reaches past the standard Alt-Right Narrative™ to shine a light on what’s really went wrong. There, as well as Cologne and elsewhere. Exhibit 1:

The first thing about Rotherham is how enormously fucked up white British working-class society is today. The victims were overwhelmingly girls “in care”, wards of the state living in childrens’ homes or foster homes. A few weren’t, but involving them was the act of stupidity that eventually blew the racket away. It was actual parents who went to the media after the local authorities and the police failed them.

The girls were being raised to be whores. The Paki gangs played with the cards they were dealt. Not at all that this excuses them, but healthy families in healthy societies are not ready targets for this kind of abuse. About the Paki gangs, Exibit 2:

This is not a story of immigrant thugs committing violent crime because they’re not part of society. Quite the reverse: the gang was all too integrated into Rotherham’s society, economy and politics. This is straightforward organised crime, with the usual organised crime aspects of political and police connections. In a large immigrant community, like Rotherham’s Pakistanis, those links are easier to form.

Pakis had integrated themselves well into the landscape: the local Labour party, and thus the local bureaucracies. “Integration” is arguably worse than “No Go” Zones. Much worse. Brookes earns an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀ for this superb essay.

Completing the Sex Realism Trifecta, Sydney Trads embed that Black Pigeon video I linked to last week: Guest Video: “Why Women Destroy Nations / Civilizations – and Other Uncomfortable Truths”, adding a bit of commentary.

In Other News…

Esoteric Trad finds Out of Hollow States a Hollow People— an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀. Loyalty is currency. If you print more to buy the loyalty of certain constituencies, you may indeed get it, but it necessarily degrades the currency that everyone holds. Time preferences go up, and primary loyalties become much less sticky.

Arthur was On Fire™ this week, also adding this superb essay on Leftism and Islam. Liberalism hates Islam, about like it hates all particularities. Leftism is a related, but separate kettle of fish. It is has a long history of antagonism to Western culture and Western hegemony. Leftism is the West at war with itself, and so finds all sorts of bedfellows…

Islam preaches continual revolution against the West, it also preaches a one world view. All the world shall be remade for Allah – is this so removed from remaking it for Marx? That continual revolution and struggle against ‘Western Oppressors’ mirrors the lefts own narratives at home. They see no problem in campaigning against the patriarchy on campus for not being sufficiently progressive enough and also supporting Islamic men’s right to force their women to wear the veil. Both are attacks against the Christian West and so both are acceptable.

He walks away with the ☀☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Award☀☀ for that one.

Mark Citadel goes up on RoK with How To Kill The Left’s Killswitch Lexicon. A thoroughgoing analysis of Leftist Black Magic:

There exists a “dictionary” containing certain words that have more power than others, almost always descriptors that can be applied to those who dissent from modern orthodoxy. These function as accusations of heresy, and once accused, the person has the plug pulled on whatever argument they might be making.

… and how to turn that power into a curse:


If we are tarred with this brush of sickness, caped in the words that single us out in a crowd for either isolation or vilification (certainly not rebuttal), then it would seem that the power of this lexicon needs to be subverted and defused. Such a thing can only be done through brute force. Put another way, we have to make the denotations of these words so ubiquitous that they lose their power.

So then the proper response to “You’re a racist?!” is… Actually, I can think of a lot of good ones. But not one of them is: “Of course not.” Nor is a spergy attempt to arrive at a definition of the word. You’ve been called a “poopyhead”; respond accordingly.

Speaking of Citadel, he joins West Coast Reactionary Adam Wallace and a cast of impressive panelists for episode 2 of Paganism, Christianity and the European Soul: The Rise of Christianity.

Giovanni Gentile, talking to Mussolini, Rome 1937.

Giovanni Gentile, talking to Mussolini, Rome 1937.

Reactionary Future (RF) hauls out some More Gentile. And by more he means the entire (English) text of The Doctrine of Fascism, Gentile & Mussolini (1932). RF also notices the similarities between Alasdair MacIntyre and René Girard with regard to Modernity and desire.

Filed under By Whom?, RF scratches some lines in the sand: Decisions to be made. 1) False dilemma (in spite of itself); 2) I vote “non-“, but not nearly as central RF thinks; 3) “post-“, of course, can we move on already? 4) No, of course, move on…; 5) MM 101 duh; 6) MM 102 duh. He looks to create a Menciian Journal. The “minimum 5000 word limit” is a must for any endeavor true to MM’s spirit.

Also from RF: this brief, but historically important note from The Round Table—another instance of the Worm in the Act of Turning. It’s a bit like Great Britain’s own American Malvern, except a generation earlier.

Seth Long has thoughts on Disintegrating Syria and Iraq. For their own good. Also from Seth, FT and Forbes: “We got rid of gold, now let’s get rid of the cash money standard”. The crime fighting subtext to the removal of cash appears to be little more than a ploy to get buy in from the Good & Decent Set.

Inevitable, then, that the electronic age would necessitate the removal of cash from the world monetary system, just as the removal of gold was necessary in 1973. The total politicization of money—which is necessary for infinite neoliberal growth—cannot suffer any unit of account in finite supply.

Thus the neoliberals are already musing that one outcome of negative interest rates may be a punitive tax on cash or, at some point, an inability to convert “dollars” into green slips of paper at all, just as today it is impossible to convert dollars into gold.

The trouble with unintended consequences is that it’s difficult to prove unintent.

And this from Seth Long: Death by utopianism.

Neocolonial is, as usual, spot on here: No Enemies to the Right. This:

Understand that, in terms of acceptance, how much worth anyone possesses now is irrelevant compared to whether or not they are in the process of Becoming Worthy.

Speaking of friends Down Undah, Slumlord delivers Rethinking Race and Identity: Part III.

Count ∅-Face hosts a guest essay from Watson: The Michigan Plot, which I would subtitle: A Detailed Case Study of the Science of the Manufacture of Consent. It’s the sausage in the act of being made in all its revolting detail, and a stark reminder that a coherent and powerful minority always rules over an incoherent and weak majority. This was an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀.

Retro Chronal does a bit of Trepanning on his own skull. Hopefully figuratively.

E. Antony Gray has an ode to The Future.

Neovictorian has some pint-sized thoughts on Kim Philby, Matthew Crawford and Other Sundries.

Spandrell has a short but provocative note on Natural Selection. LOL.


Butch Leghorn has been concentrating his efforts of late in Memetic Warfare. Two examples of which include Gay Culture concern troll, and a Meme o’ The Week, just before the end of “black fake history month”: We Wuz Kangz.

Jim’s got a quick note of good news regarding Trump and testosterone.

Free Northerner has some thoughts on Institutional Capture and how the NRA has managed to do that. Personally I think the NRA’s relative success (as well as that of homeschooling) is due mainly to it’s alignment with America’s fundamentally liberal values. I don’t see these so much as rightist victories, as successful liberal rear guard actions against encroaching leftism. Tho’ I will say, they can take away my homeschooling when they pry it from my dead cold fingers.

Cambria Will Not Yield notes Feminism Is from Hell. Literally. And therefore not so much a problem fixed by reason (tho’ that’s absolutely necessary), but by spiritual exercises:

[T]here is a weakness in works of men like Spengler and Unwin, and the weakness is not that they misrepresent the facts. Their weakness is that they see rationalist man as the end product of civilization. For instance, Unwin concludes his work on Sex and Culture, in which he tells us it was the restrictive, patriarchal societies such as England from the 1500’s up to the 20th century that thrived and prospered, with the wishful hope that women can be given economic freedom, but then they will voluntarily give it up to become wives and mothers, because they will see it is the rational thing to do. Unwin, like all those committed to a belief that rational man is the ultimate man, greatly exaggerates the power of reason to alter human behavior.

Hat tip to Mark Yuray for that link to Unwin’s work.

This Week in Social Matter

Ryan Landry kicks off the “Official” Week on Sunday with Modernity Destroys the Middle East Mosaic. To see what is being, and largely has been, destroyed, Landry’s first stop is a history and anthropology lesson. Diverse people groups adapted to fill niches in the challenging physical environment of the Middle East, and developed fine-tuned norms of inter-group and intra-group order. The arrival of Western ideas and Western goods radically upended centuries of relative stability


When we shared our technology and our mass-produced goods, we destroyed the local markets and producers. If you think automation hurts the small towns with manufacturing in America, imagine mass-produced goods for societies that were built on thousands of actual artisans and specialized craft workers from the 13th century. The double punch is that we did not just destroy the worker, but we destroyed the specific ethnicity’s excuse for the Sunni Muslims tolerating and protecting them. Who needs the Syrian Christian class or Jewish community for bookkeeping when you have Quickbooks?

What remains is a war of all against all.

David Grant takes the Monday slot with Alexander The Great: A Good Conqueror, But A Less Than Noteworthy Ruler. Too great by half, apparently. Grant sees much more to like in his father Philip of Macedon as a civic leader. And as a military genius, it appears that some fair crediting for that may have been stolen from Alexander’s largely forgotten general Parmenion, whom he later murdered to secure power. In short, Alexander the OK isn’t much of a model to build a new civilization upon.

Mark Yuray (who did not die) shows up on Tuesday after about a year absence with a didactic Männerbund 101. He makes the case that Männerbund, and not the family (or anything else), is the very bedrock for civilized society. It is not terribly controversial once you understand the logic of it. So too is it not obvious. Property rights, sexual morality, and all the hallmarks of civilization derive from social agreements among men and are necessarily prior to any development of division of labor or positive law. Requisite to our understanding is a rejection of the gnostic constitution of man in society where rational souls are not tied to bodies:


There is a tendency among modern people to avoid thinking of themselves as what they are (a sack of flesh occupying physical territory) and to instead think of themselves as a disembodied entity that exists primarily in idea-space and social-media-space. The younger someone is these days, the more likely they are to feel that changing the text in the “Political Views” box on Facebook is a profound statement – Facebook is real life, real life is only real if it’s photographed and published electronically somewhere, […]

Despite this, humans exist primarily in real-space, and not idea-space or social-media-space, and, like all living things, have irreversibly adapted to occupy and survive in real-space, and, when resources permit, to expand in it. The nature of the universe pushes us to accumulate physical space and resources, not “likes.”

The Männerbund arises out of real-world competition for real-world resources. Cohesive groups outcompete individuals. We are all descendants of those who won.

Landry comes back on Wednesday with Weimar Weekly—Superbowl Ads: What Sucked and What Sucked Worse Edition.

And Sonja Sonnerström graces the pages of SM again with an exposé The Great Melting: Swedish Immigration Propaganda. Like most Western countries, Sweden continues to “diversify” and “integrate”. Unusual is the extent to which sane and rational voices who ask what these words even mean are suppressed there.

This Week in 28 Sherman

A lighter than average week over at the home blog of The Hardest Working Man in Neoreaction. But still plenty to see:

Monday, Ryan Landry helpfully fisks annotates a glowing Sarasota FL (LOL, is there any stereotype this story doesn’t validate?) Herald Tribune obituary of NYC-born 93-yo Spanish Civil War vet Milt ((((Felsen)))): A Life-Long Commie (but nobody knew it). Betcha can’t guess which side he fought on in the Spanish Civil War. During WW2, he went to work for the ((((OSS)))), which of course later became the (((((CIA))))).

This week in WW1 pics: German Pistols. Cool.

Landry also has a bit of analysis on the The Nevada Fraud Meme, as mainstream GOP operators voices grow more desperate to stop the Trump Train.

This Week in Kakistocracy

Porter kicks it off with election coverage Under the Carolina Sun. Trumps GOP unorthodoxy doesn’t seem to be phasing him with the voters. Why?


Dismissing candidates that benefit your welfare due to some particularist heresy is the luxury of a comfortable people. It’s like walking into an empty emergency room with impacted ear wax. Your trifle is given grave consideration. But in times of conflict or want, people begin to prioritize.

That’s what formerly staunch republican reservationists are now doing. Some like everything Trump says, some may like very little, and some couldn’t care less. A political triage is being calculated, and a great many are prioritizing having jobs and not being invaded over sniffles about etiquette. I don’t know if Martel completely “shared the values” of most Franks. But I’ll wager the sight of massed Saracen cavalry lessened the question’s urgency.

Charlie Martel could not be reached for comment.

Next: Tolerance for The Other for thee and not for me.

Porter advocates Moving Beyond the Bean-Based Economy. In which an ER doc opens up to him, after being plied with doses of truth serum, about the nature of 21st century Aztec warfare. A lot like 14th century Aztec warfare, apparently.

Finally, It’s not the thought that counts. Sometimes, the most effective altruism is no altruism at all.

This Week in Evolutionist X

Evolutionist X has some IQ vs. Per Capita GDP by State. Too many moving parts to infer too much from that I think.

Next, filed under Inside Genetic Baseball, she has very extensive research and analysis on The Indigenous People of Europe. I was actually fooled by the Daily Mash story in the lede. For a few moments. It’s actually a pretty good bet that a “Bronze age village” was “furious about Iron Age migrants”. (Tho’ they may not have used those exact terms.)

Evolutionist X delves into mirror neurons and the adaptive basis for conformity in a two-part series: The neurology of cross-cultural authority (part one) and part two. Good stuff here.

Highly non-conformist people probably have “defective” or low-functioning [mirroring] feedback loops. They simply feel less compulsion to imitate others–it doesn’t even occur to them to imitate others! These folks might die in interesting ways, but in the meanwhile, they’re good sources for ideas other people just wouldn’t have thought of.

Sounds like just about the entirety of the dissident right. But what about the opposite problem?


Highly conformist people’s feedback loops are probably over-active, making them feel awkward or uncomfortable while simply observing other people not imitating the group. This discomfort can only be relieved by getting those other people to conform. These folks tend to favor more restrictive social policies and can’t understand why other people would possibly want to do those horrible, non-conforming things.

Sounds like Thaddeus Stevens… Or Anil Dash. The infamous Milgram experiment, among others, showed that a majority of people will conform to authority figures even when they are unsure they should. What interests Evolutionist X is whether they will do so with an authority figure from across cultural or ethnic boundaries, which is where part 2 probes. Unfortunately this precise study has not apparently been attempted. But she looks at other studies for clues.

This Week around the Orthosphere

Matt Briggs kicks off the week looking at Physicians’ Oaths: Then & Now. The World Medical Association, satellite of the AMA no doubt, is apparently revamping the Declaration of Geneva, which is the modern day Hippocratic Oath. Except it’s less like an oath these days, and more like a pinky swear.


Filed under Democracy Good, Politics Evil: Saying “He’s A No-Good, Pandering Populist” In A Democracy Is Funny. Extremely enjoyable video. LOL. Filed under scienciness: Science Shows How Not To Get Killed By A Cow. And it bears repeating: Health Insurance Isn’t Health Care.

Bonald considers The role of evidence in choosing a religion. It’s important, but mostly so only after you’ve chosen the religion, or rather the religion has chosen you.

He also considers the question: Do broader impacts corrupt science? The phrase “broader impacts” appears to be a term of art in research funding proposals, the convergence of which, i.e., into widely understood terms of art, is clearly an effect of the bureaucratization of science. It’s not necessarily a euphemism for soft totalitarian, politically correct outcomes. But it certainly seems to be a placeholder for them.

And… Bonald reads Dividuals? Who knew?!! The subject was Dividual’s excellent essay on Prophets vs. Kings. Bonald agrees and shares his own thoughts:

Kings rule. They maintain the order of the social world. Priests sanctify the world. They put the order of the world in a context of eternity. Prophets are destructive. They make a conflict between the natural, human world and the supernatural realm. At best, they are symptoms of problems for kings and priests to solve.

Bonald was extremely busy this week. He also touches on The psychological weakness of white advocacy, with which I largely agree. Political activism is rent seeking. Rent seeking is admission of lack of agency. It’s a losing proposition even if you win. Especially if you win.

He also has an apology, if you will, for the Wisdom of Hypocrisy.

Completely gratuitous picture of Sophia Loren smoking

Completely gratuitous picture of Sophia Loren smoking

Something I sort of admire about the Renaissance:

  1. Adultery was rampant;

  2. Adultery was acknowledged to be rampant;

  3. Adultery was even romanticized in fiction; and yet…

  4. There were very few voices calling for Church and state to accept adultery because monogamy “has failed” and is “not suited to our times”.

Precisely so. The alternative? Do as the Puritans did: Outlaw hypocrisy and declare war on human nature. Also in this Holy Jubilee of (Selectively Construed) Mercy, Bonald has not the Reductio ad Absurdum we need, but the Reductio ad Absurdum we deserve.

J. M. Smith helps us Exercise Geographical Imagination. When it comes to the Abrahamic Covenant among other things.

Filed under Really Really Timeless Essays, Imaginative Conservative has a nice slice of John Henry Cardinal Newman: Reaching the Heart through Imagination. Science is important, but never enough. A taste:

Science gives us the grounds or premisses from which religious truths are to be inferred; but it does not set about inferring them, much less does it reach the inference;—that is not its province. It brings before us phenomena, and it leaves us, if we will, to call them works of design, wisdom, or benevolence; and further still, if we will, to proceed to confess an Intelligent Creator. We have to take its facts, and to give them a meaning, and to draw our own conclusions from them. First comes Knowledge, then a view, then reasoning, and then belief. This is why Science has so little of a religious tendency; deductions have no power of persuasion.

Kristor considers The Mandate of Heaven.

This Week… Elsewhere

Alf considers two Paradoxes. One of which isn’t one.

Carlos Esteban speaks of El rojo vive de la fe. Confirming once again that leftism is both a heresy and a Christian heresy.

Dante goes into a rather extended stream of consciousness in Trump Isn’t the Best Christian. So Fucking What? There’s a certain breed of nominal Christian, who, because he’s nominal and knows it and knows everyone else knows it, can actually be more trustworthy than the sort of people who are more faithful and know it and know everyone else knows it. It’s certainly true for Catholics. I never trust a “good” Catholic.

Chris Gale scores some interesting points in Another hole in PTSD. Like:

PTSD is unique in psychiatry in that a cause is assumed. All other diagnoses are syndromic: they are based on clusters of symptoms that lead to patterns of behaviour over time. We may have been premature in our enthusiasm to find a cause, and fallen into error.

More on that topic here. Also from Chris, a reminder of the propriety (and necessity) of Excommunication. If you can’t police your own, they you don’t own your own. As well, I Corinthians is proving fertile: “[I]f you can no longer control yourself, marry”. Props for great Shawn Colvin video also.

Richard Carroll reads G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy. He thinks it not as strong as its predecessor Heretics. Chesterton’s romanticism for the common man makes a rude appearance. Carroll retorts:

The affairs of state are absolutely something I “do not wish a man to do at all unless he does them well.” The issues involved in political office are complex, and is certainly an example of “skilled labour,” making politics more analogous to playing the church organ than blowing one’s nose.

Regarding Chesterton’s famous quip about tradition being a democracy of the dead, Carroll suggests more rigor: “Perhaps, then, ‘aristocracy of the dead’ is a better analogy for tradition.” Had Chesterton lived to see the full fruit of democracy, one might reasonably hope he’d agree.

Reactionary Ferret is having utterly expected School Troubles. He’ll live.

Greg Cochran has startling conclusion from the Pygmy Split.

Sunshine Thiry has a word of thanks for feminists

Real Gary awaits The Great Uncucking of Western Christianity. So say we all.

Giovanni Dannato considers Desert Plants vs. Garden Plants as a social analogy. Also: Trump and Sanders Are Part of the Same Political Movement. Defining Middle-American disgust with establishment candidates as a movement, I totally agree. It’d be pretty funny if Trump asked Bernie to be his running mate. I bet Bernie would accept. Danatto also thinks Politics is Changing Because of Internet and Social Media. I think that’s true, but in a manner that is not as simple as the inherently decentralized nature of the internet might suggest. I’ve opined elsewhere that I think the great multiplicity of “channels” seems to work counterintuitively against small players and in favor of large centralized institutions. The verdict, in any case, is still out.

Filed under Funniest Thing This Week: Scott Adams contemplates Scalia and the Pillow.

…in his final seconds of life, realizing he would not survive, he thought it would be hilarious to put a pillow over his head and make it look like a political murder

Filed under Just in Before the Deadline: Kill to Party has another of his patented mashups Black Lives Matter and “The Dark Knight” (2008). Let’s have a taste:


[T]he Joker exploits the rules which Batman feels bound by; as a result, the Joker stays one-step ahead and Gotham burns. When Batman hesitates in taking action people die. While he reaches a kind of moralistic compromise, suspending Gotham’s right to privacy in favor of public safety, he ultimately doesn’t murder the Joker; I suspect a true follow-up film would see Batman pay dearly for that decision.

Black Lives Matter smartly takes its game-plan from Feminism; why reinvent the wheel? If you create a landscape where all actions are permissible, or at least understandable, for your in-group, and all-actions for whom you consider opposing forces must be highly scrutinized, there is no limit to the demands that can be made.

I’m actually shocked more hasn’t been made around Da Sphere of Alicia Garza’s Jewish half, because… sometimes… you really can’t make this shit up.

Well, that’s all for now. Think local; act local. And go to Church LOL. Keep on Reactin’! Til next week… NBS, over and out!!

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. Real democracy as in the Swiss model that appears to be working well so far.

    Direct democracy not a Republican or Representative democracy.

    1. Nick B. Steves March 1, 2016 at 11:24 am

      That’s about like saying locating a baseball team in The Bronx and naming them The Yankees has been working well so far.

      1. I am not American so could you explain? I do not get your analogy.

        1. Nick B. Steves March 1, 2016 at 1:28 pm

          Yours is an explanation of success which leaves out the most important explanatory features of the success: The people involved. Obviously human systems work better with higher quality people. The Swiss are obviously high functioning people. They resisted female franchise until the 1970s. Yet they failed to resist. If men were angels, any government would would work equally and supremely well. Men are not angels. Need more data.

  2. The absolute lack of care in response to my questions on the six points is disastrous. I don’t see how point one is a false dilemma. Either centers of power underneath the state are subservient to the state and not in any way weaponised or defended against it, or they are, which is a solecism as Moldbug argue from start to finish. The seriousness of this point is just hand waved off in the most obscene way which has facilitated a complete collapse of any intellectually coherent development. As for point two, this cannot be something which is open to multiple interpretations within a coherent tradition. At root, a deterministic concept is a base for modernity, and again, the lack of gravity in approaching this is ridiculous. As for point three, again, the lack of understanding of the significance of this is frustrating. If desire and wants are post-societal, then this cuts out all enlightenment thought at base, as well as all modern philosophy, even Girard notes that with his attack on Cartesian Liberalism – this puts you at complete opposition to libertarians, anarcho-capitalists and all other derivatives of Liberalism. Point four cuts out all constitutionalism – think about that. Point five links back to point one, if the sovereign unconstrained, then all subjects and lesser powers can have no protection beyond what is granted by the sovereign, think that through in detail. As for point six, again, this is pure rejection of constitutionalism and republicanism.

    1. Nick B. Steves March 1, 2016 at 11:04 am

      Obviously a weekly roundup is not the place for 5000+ word answers to every question that comes up. Your self-appointed magisterium for the Propagation of Moldbug Orthodoxy had put me in a snarky mood, thus I snarked.

      What is an empire but “states” (of a sort) within a “state” (of a sort)? What is a household within a state but a primordial version of the same? Are you saying Reactionary Future Brand™ Menciism is 100% against the HRE or the Hapsburgs? That’s a mighty big leap. Feel free to make it yourself, but don’t expect all Moldbug’s disciples to make the leap with you.

      As for the rest, I trust you notice that I am basically agreeing with you. Regarding determinism, obviously I’m not a determinist. I’m Catholic for gosh-sakes. One can believe in an ultimate determinism (one would be required to if one were atheist), without necessarily believing that all things are determinable by humans. If one believed the universe were governed by a googleplex order differential equation, then he’d believe in that determinism about the same way I believe in God. I.e., no overwhelming empirical evidence exists one way or the other for the foreseeable history of our solar system. Chances are we can work together, bracketing off our disagreement to preferences in style.

      1. You are missing the point in a big way. Imperium in Imperio is the assertion of sovereign states within a state. This is pretty key to Moldbug, I will need to elaborate on this in a post because if you don’t grasp this, you don’t understand Moldbugs entire theory.

        1. Nick B. Steves March 2, 2016 at 8:47 am

          For the benefit of us non-graspers, could you please explain how an Empire is not a “sovereign states within a state” sort of arrangement?

      2. I’m puredy sure that any Christian is going to be, well, not really in favor of an all-powerful state, even if it is a monarchy. We all remember Leo the Isaurian, Henry VIII or Albert of Prussia (or even Napoleon and Peter the-not-really-great-at-all) to name a few. I know that Chris probably considers subsidiarity a “liberal nonsense” that leads to “insecure power,” and he hopes to prevent leftward leaps via high-low mechanism by securing power, but I don’t see how does it matter if power is secure or not when you’ve turned your country into DPRK. Even Chris wouldn’t dare call De Maistre a liberal, and yet De Maistre claimed that Religion, laws, customs, opinion, and class and corporate privileges restrain the sovereign and prevent him from abusing his power. By all accounts any pre-Enlightenment state was far more libertarian than any liberal democracy, and could not even really be called a state in the modern sense of the word.

  3. Nick B. Steves March 1, 2016 at 11:33 am

    Thanks for that, Brett. I trust all will see that “Elsewhere” doesn’t mean unimportant. We have “Award winning” articles show up there from time to time. It just means “less easy to classify”. Sometimes it even means “was late in the week”. LOL. Kill to Party in particular is hard to classify, but very talented writer. And he’s got a strong schtick.

Comments are closed.