Over at Future Primaeval, Neil Devers sets down four “archaic, bizarre, and positively illiberal” Rules for Brotherhood. This was an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀. He notes that:
[T]hese rules are much discouraged these days, and may become illegal at some point, as the cohesive male groups they form are difficult for the modern state to control politically. Male groups are not inherently a defection against the rest of society, but they only really fit within an organically ordered society in which the interests of the state are aligned with the interests of the people, because they tend to become powerful and usually end up quite “right-wing”. The state no longer understands how to organically align everyone’s interests under ordered leadership, so it is opposed to powerful intermediate groups like brotherhoods.
Spandrell pulls up another of his inimitable Chinese history lessons and gets an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀: The Law:
The law gets enforced because the people in power want in enforced. If they don’t want it enforced, it doesn’t. Border security is the law. It’s not enforced. Firing employees for being opposed to gaymarriage isn’t in the law. But it does get enforced. As Moldbug said of the Constitution, either a law reflects the will of the powerful, and it’s thus superfluous, or it doesn’t, and is then deceitful. It’s not that simple in practice: putting things to writing is not superfluous. It creates a small milepost, a Schelling point, which people can point at in order to use in their status competition. But it only works so far as people in power find it useful, or there’s a culture which upholds respect for agreements beyond their actual use.
China never developed any tradition of jurisprudence, because they understood this very principle of politics. I sometimes think that the Chinese were too smart and realistic for their own good. Delusion can be good. The rule of law is pretty great if it works. Europe conquered China, not the other way around. But again, delusions only last so long, and in the end reality always asserts itself.
Also Spandrell is happy to welcome Nassim Taleb to the Dark Side.
Reactionary Future stays above the fray and drops a lot of de Toqueville in Leftism is power, or more precisely a deliberate arrangement of rules and devices to keep power from concentrating back to where it naturally belongs.
Social Pathologist takes his turn whacking this execrable Radix article with a stick: Being anti-Left is not Right. Being correct on racial differences doesn’t make you a rightist. It didn’t make Margaret Sanger a rightist. Also he is concerned about illicit entry from the Stromfornt Right. I think those concerns are overblown as concerns NRx proper. So far as the wider Dissident Right is concerned, well that needs to be owned property if someone wants to bar the door.
Me & Mark Citadel joined William Scott for a (hastily arranged but pretty good) google hangout on the topic of What is Right? Scott also permits himself a Sentimental Journey from a bit of (extremely well done, N. C. Wyeth) commercial art from the 1940s. And speaking of something completely different: Something Completely Different.
Butch Leghorn has a brief review of Jared (((((Diamond’s))))) Guns, Germs and Steel. Which goes approximately like one would ((((expect)))).
Also this was a thing that needed a name: Tactical Freudianism.
Tactical Freudianism is a label applied to the psychological state or motivations of the arguer. In the scale of sophistry, Tactical Freudianism is a step above the basic-bitch tactic of calling your opponent a racist or a fascist. It’s still nothing more than sophistry.
Sydney Trads have up a blurb from Jim Kalb’s Against Inclusiveness. Also a disturbing follow-up: Pro Marriage Campaigners Get the #RainbowNoose (Again). The irony runs deep: Not only can you not talk about it; you cannot talk about not being allowed to talk about it. And, as is their wont, another @WrathOfGnon masterpiece: Francis Bacon on Aristocracy and Justice.
Alrenous brings us Social Justice War, Very Short History. It sounds about right.
He also has a Hypothetical Unified Theory of Cuckservatism. Why, in other words, does anyone join the outer party at all?
[W]hy do Republicants accept such a tiny fraction of the monetary rewards that Demobrats get? Why not convert to Demobracy?
The answer is guilt. They feel particularly holy when flagellated. Republicants, fundamentally, think they win in the next life by abasing themselves in this life. They loudly admit their wickedness so as to demand to be punished for it. Demobrats are delighted to self-righteously provide the shaming they so crave.
This is also why Republicants are so ashamed of their voters, and so tentative when they do gain office. Their voters vote for them unironically! Such sin!
Darwinian Reactionary Empedocles kicks off a very promising series The Biosemantics of Self-Representation: Part 1.
Esoteric Trad has a another briefly noted post: No Tears for London, Signalling games, Low-Trust differences. Also, sometimes when folks get tired of misunderstanding “passivism”, they start misunderstanding its opposite.
Fortunately Free Northerner was busy creating the complete response: Passivism.
Activism is democratic politics. It is action by the people for the people to influence the people’s laws. Activism is necessarily leftist because it assumes the people should be involved in politics and in the power of the people to change politics, which are both inherently leftist concepts. In an ordered, right-wing society, the people do not engage in politics (at least, until society becomes disordered and the people throw a revolution), so there is no activism. Activism should be avoided for this reason alone.
Activism, being politics, only has authority to change things if it is viewed as legitimate by the overarching culture and metapolitics. Any action not viewed as legitimate is a crime, or, if not, is viewed as something beyond the pale that most people want to distance themselves from.
In our culture, racism is illegitimate. So a group of racist, well-behaved Tea Party protesters marching for lower taxes are extremists, while a group of blacks burning down their shopping district in support of other blacks’ right to assault police officers and asian shopkeepers with impunity are a human rights movement.
Slowclap.gif. Because of its importance, timeliness, and quality, FN wins the ☀☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Award☀☀. RTWT.
Also from FN: What Mutual Submission doesn’t mean.
AntiDem has his own edition of Short Takes: April 2016. They are short takes… but he has a whole lot of ’em.
Alf offers his own €0.02 on the the Dutch EU-referendum and why he thinks “GeenStijl won’t save the Netherlands”. Alf disclaims, “I do not actively follow mainstream Dutch media or politics. This is just my interpretation of the referendum at this point in time.” Well, at least he knew Dutch media and politics existed.
Mark Citadel decided to finally Debunk the Myth of Female Oppression . This myth works hand in glove with the view that feminism up to year X was really OK, which is almost perfectly analogous with the view that a little bit of sewage in your wine is really OK. Regarding so-called “oppression”…
The complaint women have is that they are treated differently to men, but this does not equal an oppression. We do not leash cats, so does it therefore follow that dogs are oppressed? There could be nothing more demonstrably ruinous as to treat that which is unequal (meaning ‘not the same’ in the world of mathematics) as equal. If you were to treat 2+5 as equal to 20+8, you’d never balance a checkbook. Women have been kept from politics and business, confined to the industry of child-rearing, not because of some conspiracy to exclude them from society and thus oppress them within its borders, but because psychologically, physiologically, biologically, anatomically, genetically, and spiritually, they are entirely different to men. Yet, they remain absolutely essential to any nation that wishes to survive beyond one generation, and so in all civilized societies throughout traditional history they have been active participants, just not male participants.
The war between the sexes cannot be won. There’s too much fraternizing with the enemy. Mark cruises to an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀ with this one.
Over at Malcolm Pollack’s and interesting link (with commentary): Nature Vs. Nurture.
CWNY writes of Europe as The Christ-Bearing Race.
This Week in Social Matter
Ryan Landry kicks of the week over at Neoreaction’s Flagship Publication by explaining how Progressives Will Pay The Crime Away. This is Not the Onion writ large. In a soon-to-copied nationwide plan, Richmond CA is now offering select criminals up to $1000 per month to not commit gun crimes. Other crimes, however, appear to be covered under a don’t ask, don’t tell policy. Other ex-cons are hired as mentors—surrogate dads—for “at-risk” youths. Nice work if you can get it…
The horror of a program paying criminals to not commit crime yet allowing the same criminals to keep committing crime does not even have a positive per the progressive claims. The veracity of such claims is challenged by others who say that the program was not designed to properly measure if it was effective. That is in fact the perfect progressive program: unverifiable, but squishy results that get touted as positive, while handing money to reliably progressive voters. Richmond’s murder rate did drop but has recently popped back up, but this is not stopping other big cities from reviewing the program as a potential savior.
This is because no one has the will, or even wants to properly address our expanding underclass and the social and cultural problems there.
And Landry returns Wednesday for Weimerica Weekly – Episode 20 – “Hamilton” The Musical. Characterization of the musical as the most SWPL thing on earth is purrrdy damning I think.
There was me too last week. But I don’t usually link that. Hey… It was a slow week over at the ol’ SM, but the editors are going quality over quantity. Whaddaya gonna do. (Already next week looks quite a bit busier. Grant’s back. Yuray’s back. And who knows what else.)
This Week in 28 Sherman
Over on the home blog, Ryan Landry wonders Do Progs Know Where Sesame Street Is Now? It’s become so dependent on government funding that it moved to HBO; safe from the arrows of right-wing meanies like Mitt Romney. Prog sophists will remain free to characterize him as the guy who tried to kill Big Bird.
On Tuesday, a few selected thoughts on When Does Musk Go To The Moon .
I am torn on Musk. He is brilliant and he is also the most industrious welfare queen ever. Tesla cars are fantastic, but why don’t they ramp up production if they have so many people signing up to buy them? it is fun to watch though, and I wonder when he gets to the moon. Musk standing in a moon base doing a press conference streamed online or on television is where I see this going. SpaceX will put men and material in space, and acts in the gambling, ambitious manner one would hope a billionaire would be.
It’s nice to see the Space Race start up gain. It ought never to have stopped. Hopefully, it is not too late.
In this week in WW1 pics: When the Tsar Sealed His Fate .
Closing out this week, Landry makes a few remarks on The Left’s Hodgepodge (a mashup of liberal whites and a whole bunch of groups who hate them) and previews the next week (which is already this week).
This Week in Kakistocracy
Porter sees the Invasion Turning Proper. A picture-rich (and analogy-rich) article. Well, it was only a matter of time. Half-invasions are so… informal.
In Keeping up on the News, Porter gazes into cnn.com, and finds “they” gazes back. (Or as that “them”?)
And speaking of emergent Bulgarian border patrols, Porter has expert commentary on it: We Are Dinko Valev.
We’ve talked previously about the valiant Visegrad Group, and will discuss today an impoverished nation on its farthest periphery: Bulgaria. As a country sharing a lengthy border with Turkey, it has naturally become one of Eastern Europe’s many pedways to Merkelville. In response, a 59 mile razor wire No Trespassing sign was erected. As you will predict, honoring the intent of locked doors isn’t one of Our Values, and so foot traffic has continued largely unabated.
This has generated something even more at odds with the values regime: a native immune response.
This Week in Evolutionist X
Evolutionist X kicks off the week with some brief notes on Native Americans and Neanderthal DNA. Apparently it is a (or the) leading web search that brings people to her blog: Evolutionist X problems.
She has Quick thoughts on the “replication crisis” and calls to make the field more mathematically rigorous. That field being Social Psychology. That of course would be most welcome, but calling for social psychology to be more mathematically literate is to ignore the reason the field exists in the first place. I suspect a firmer grounding in metaphysics would be at least as important. But then again, same thing.
When ideology rather than correctness become the standard for publication (not to mention hiring and tenure,) the natural result is incorrectness.
More statistical knowledge is not, by itself, going to resolve the problem. The fields must first recognize that they have an ideological bias problem, and then work to remedy it by letting in and publishing work by researchers outside the social science ideological mainstream. It is very easy to think your ideas sound rigorous when you are only debating with people who already agree with you; it is much more difficult to defend your views against people who disagree, or come from very different intellectual backgrounds.
They could start with–hahahaha–letting in a Republican.
Next Evolutionist X takes up the “Rural Purge” and wonders Does advertising’s desire for young consumers drive ignorance?
What happens when most TV programming for 40 or 50 years is intended to appeal primarily to people who don’t yet know much about the world?
Well, the last 40 or 50 years is what happens. When everyone has a TV. The internet has only made it worse. On average. IMO.
She begins another of her trademark series on Thursday: What Ails Appalachia? A lot of data showing the largely white misery there, but few good explanations in part 1. Part 2 steps back and looks at the history of settlement in Appalachia. Hearty Scotch-Irish with more than its fair share of conflicts with the Indians.
This Week in West Coast Reactionaries
Adam Wallace really grapples with some deep issues here On European Religious Particularism. Many posit the need for a religion, or religious changes, specially designed for Europe (or ). Wallace says this is precisely the wrong way around.
Christianity—Catholicism, Protestantism, Anglicanism, et cetera included—does not need to be changed at a doctrinal level, at the esoteric level. What must be changed is actually Europe. The box is not big enough.
The visible Church (irrespective of your preferred flavor) is a mess, so far as the eye can see. But is fixing the Church prerequisite to fixing the World? It isn’t supposed to work that way…
The Age of Destruction must come and pass; the wheel must turn; it is unavoidable. Regarding the religion of Europe, perhaps it is necessary that it falls apart to be replaced by something we are yet to see? I do not think for a second that Islam will fill the void, but perhaps its presence will act as a catalyst through which the European soul can be refound and recontextualised, fit for the next age and its men.
Whether we are in this process proper or not, however, is quite irrelevant. One’s actions are aligned with principle, not potential. European men should be inwardly strong first and foremost, not liberalised, weak and effeminate. Religion—Christianity—can facilitate this, as it did with the Crusades, with Charles Martel, with the Iron Guard, with Charlemagne, et cetera. It is not that Christian doctrine has changed, but that man has changed. And so can he be changed for the better.
An ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀. RTWT.
Then Wallace has a fair number of expert remarks On Rootedness. The poisons of modernity are manifold. And a sense of belonging, deriving from a natural sense of place is one of the many victims. If I’m reading him aright, Wallace traces a slavish and ahistorical devotion to racial consciousness to be yet another system of this profound loss. If so, I fully agree with him.
And that topic gets fleshed out more in The Problem of Race. Race alone does not make a people, and is therefore a poor basis for forming group loyalty. I’d argue its very nearly as useless as shared species. “My people” share much more than race, or they are simply not “my people”.
This Week around the The Orthosphere
Matt Briggs goes to the Thomistic Institute Symposium for a report on The Future of Catholicism in America. Doesn’t seem like anyone was too terribly sanguine, but hey, nowhere to go but up, right? Also breaking, Climate Witch Hunt Now Official: Think Tank Subpoenaed. Also, another edition of The W. M. Briggs Show—Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité ou la mort! Edition.
Being an epistemological stickler is One Cool Trick. (Well, it’s one several cool tricks.) But repetition does the reader no harm. And Dr. Briggs dips his toe into The Stream with a review of George Gilder’s The Scandal of Money: Why Wall Street Recovers but the Economy Never Does.
Briggs also goes for something completely different and contemplates the Future Of AM Radio. Or at least it’s present.
Over at Imaginative Conservative, Frohnen has Edmund Burke & the American Revolution: The Whole Story. This was the Whig Burke, not the anti-revolutionary hero we’ve all come to know and love. Also: Eva Brann on Socrates on Music and Poetry.
This was interesting: The Catholic Enlightenment: A Forgotten History:
From the standpoint of the Catholic Enlighteners, Dr. Lehner argues, Catholics should liberally embrace the latest science and philosophy, debating, dissecting, and incorporating such new notions as long as they support rather than harm the fundamentals of the nature of the Incarnation, the sacraments, and the Trinity. In other words, as in the long tradition of the Church, they hope to baptize what they find rather than exterminate or ignore.
I’m sure there are subtle points to be made here, but the “exterminate” option sounds awfully attractive right now. Also at Imaginative Conservative, a 1979-80 essay: Abraham Lincoln Reconsidered—i.e., as probably not the great hero in whom we’re supposed to believe.
Cato the Younger lays out An Ancient Case Against Democracy. He delves into Athenian democracy and finds that the masses are too easily persuaded to fight costly wars. Democracy has always been a liability—be it in the 21st century or the 5th century BC.
Bonald engages in a bit of Swiftian satire regarding Abortion’s other victim.
Also another installment in the series: The scandal of the idea of mortal sin III: Amoris laetitia. The Pope’s timing could not have been better in delivering this urn hot steaming barrel of theological mush smack dab in the middle of Bonald’s great series.
Hasn’t this been the main strategy for decades of Catholics who want to weaken the Church’s doctrine on marriage, to rarify “consent” into a spiritual state so idealized and pure that real humans can never attain it? Before, they said my consent to marriage was lacking because I was influenced by social pressure. Now they say my consent to adultery is lacking because I was influenced by biological pressure. Is temptation itself now a form of coercion? If so, does anybody ever actually sin?
It is intolerable for people to not be able to know if they are actually married. The Church would be failing in her basic function of sanctifying life if she allows that to happen […]. On the other hand, not knowing whether one is in a state of mortal or venial sin is actually a good thing, good as in motivating.
Bonald sums up where all this seems to be going: trading a sin of weakness for the much greater sin of defiance.
I can believe that two adulterers, separated from their real spouses, having sex is a sin of weakness. Sexual sins are practically the quintessential sins of weakness (although I think sins motivated by cowardice deserve even more sympathy, because self preservation is the most powerful instinct). On the other hand, demanding that their friends, the Church, and the world recognize the adulterers as in fact husband and wife is straight-up defiance. One can’t say that they act in ignorance. It’s their vexation at the Church’s refusal to recognize their adulterous union that is, after all, the “pastoral” problem in question. Promoting a lie like this is worse, less pitiable, less ambiguous in severity, than quietly satisfying their lust together.
Feel like you can’t live up to Catholic moral teachings? Fine. Almost no one can. But, on this basis, to feel that one must therefore change Catholic moral teaching? You’ve gone from the category of ordinary sinner to traitor. And Pope Francis is leading the charge. Just because David wouldn’t strike down King Saul because he was the Lord’s Anointed didn’t mean that King Saul was a worthy king. For this pair of related posts, Bonald gets a well-earned ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀.
He also offers a related passage from The Brothers Karamazov.
Over at The Orthosphere proper, Richard Cocks has a couple selected quotations from Roger Scruton. J. M. Smith describes three Sucker Punches of the Left: The Black Sheep, the Cuckoo’s Egg, and Looking-Glass World are all logical fallacies that you’ll see in any ordinary interactions with leftist. And Kristor puts this quite well Miracles are Natural ↔ Nature is Miraculous.
Also there, Thomas Bertonneau is Proposing a New Word: Subscendence. It definitely patches a semantic hole.
This Week… Elsewhere
Dissident Right has some tips for Living Under Enemy Occupation. His suggestion of private clubs is very much in line with the almost universally (often intentionally) misunderstood NRx-sponsored strategy of Passivism.
Al Fin has a lot of good advice (and video) for Combat Flow Training: Relaxing into Dynamic Linked Chaos. And here’s more: Reactive vs. Proactive Strategies and Tactics.
Mariani makes some interesting (to say the least) predictions about the future of Future Things.
Speaking of which, Vox Day doesn’t get enough recognition in our corner of the sphere. Part of that is he doesn’t need it. But that’s a dude that can get shit done: SJW list materialized seemingly overnight. Obviously it’s not all Vox. But he commands people who can get shit done. And when you do that, you get shit done. Unfortunately moral deontologists gonna moral deontology. Not to mention, skirt clutch. Look, the good folks over at status451 did a great thing: they gave out of their own pockets and attracted a lot of principled money to bail out Lambdaconf, who themselves did a great thing in not allowing Curtis Yarvin to be no-platformed. But there is no moral principle here except the truth. The SJWs, antifa, and commies who lick their chops to see Yarvin’s kids starve are liars. They are morally reprehensible. They deserve to be blacklisted. They deserve to have their kids starve. LOL. Like they have any kids. Being against tribalism is about as strong a principle as being against lactose intolerance.
AMK takes a long hard look at the effect of material technology on morality in The Consenting Llama. He doesn’t like what he sees:
How can reason support morality in a future where immoral actions have no consequences? It can’t. Technology destroys morality, self-discipline, and realism by removing the consequences that temper humans into rational creatures. It even undermines our ability to stay grounded to reality itself. It changes human cognition for the worse. The very existence of the left is the outcome of a deluded state, induced by prosperity, and prosperity caused by technology.
I think he overstates the case slightly, but I continue to maintain that it is imperative that social technology keep pace with material technology. Or exactly this sort of thing happens. Also a brief note on why A Controlled Opposition is Worse than Nothing —no opposition.
Giovanni Danatto muses on his experiences in the Imperial Capital and waxes eloquent on The Need For Grandeur.
I went everywhere on the DC metro and was amazed at how often there were major delays and track shutdowns at peak hours. What should easily be a clean, reliable, safe system is instead notorious for its corruption, minor repairs that take months, and fatal accidents. This sort of incompetence just comes to be met with sullen shrugs after awhile. Everyone knows the metro is a big affirmative action jobs mill and everyone suffers for it. This kind of nonsense makes a mockery of the system’s legitimacy. At least most fools have the common sense to make sure it’s other people suitably far away who get burdened by their bad decisions. Who can but laugh when even the city of the rulers gets punished by their own stupid policies? They can’t even get incompetence right. In a glorious system, it would be a point of pride that the trains arrive on time, especially in the Imperial Capital. Only the best would be allowed anywhere near infrastructure that millions of people see every day. When people see the system can get basic things done right, they can focus on higher things, their faith in the rulers is preserved.
Danatto wins an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀ for this fine essay.
On the eve of the “Thousand Year Trumpenreich”: Cheshire Ocelot reviews The Art of the Deal. He seems to have liked it.
Narm No has an in-depth discussion on Molyneux’s “Indian Race Troll”. Covers an immense amount of ground, even if you’re not much interested in Molyneux. (Which, sorry to say, I’m not.)
Welp… That’s all I had time for. Keep on reactin’! Til next week… NBS, over and out!!