This Week in Reaction (2016/09/18)

The Chelsea Bombing happened late in the week. Matthew Hennessey at City Journal is on the scene with details and editorial opinion: Target City. We’ll probably get more of this, and the completely predictable Islamo-sensitive media coverage next week.

What else was going on…?

Titus Cincinnatus asks (and answers): What is the Natural Aristocracy?

[W]e should understand the term to be describing those who make the effort to adopt, cultivate, and perfect certain traits and capabilities in their own lives that will “naturally” make them stand out from and excel the general run of the masses, simply because the possession of these derived traits will make one superior to those who lack them. In other words, it is not an aristocracy that exists through no merit of its own. Rather, it is an aristocracy that rises to the top as the cream does from the milk, through nourishing their inborn traits by self-discipline while fostering new ones through effort and activity.

The caste ought not be purely hereditary, but it mustn’t be easy to obtain, either. Democracy seems to run off the idea that We’re All Aristocrats Now (cf. the demise of vocational track in education). This makes about as much sense as the idea that We’re All Priests Now, with equally chaotic results. This part was particularly well put in this ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀:

The superior man, lastly, will be a man of activity and industriousness. He will actively seek to improve the world around him in real and tangible ways which benefit both himself and his community and society. He will understand what Carlyle meant when he said, “conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct.” He won’t just complain about what ought to be done – he will take it upon himself to get out there and do it. Yet, he will also understand that mere rabble-rousing will not solve problems. Rather, he will act intelligently in ways which will advance his goals without undermining his own efforts or those of other good men.

Also at Neo-Ciceronian Times, Cincinnatus has an excellent, suitable for normies, primer On Power, Authority, and Legitimacy. A taste:

Statue of Confucius at Confucian Temple in Shanghai, China

Statue of Confucius at Confucian Temple in Shanghai, China

The power, authority, and legitimacy that a king exercises at the top should be faithfully mirrored in the power, authority, and legitimacy enjoyed by a father and husband in his family. When these elements are all present, a society will reflect the sort of social harmony that we desire. Once the obstacles of disorder are removed, relationships even between individuals will be set on a right footing – Confucius’ five relationships will be ordered properly: the ruler and the subject, the father and the son, the husband and the wife, the older brother and the younger, and the elder friend with the junior. Indeed, even the individual life that yields to these will itself be rightly ordered in comparison to the sort of disorder, shame, and cravenness so common in modern Western lives today.

A guest post over at Ribbonfarm concerns Crowds and Technology. Well worth reading. For example:

Social networks are the greatest facilitators of crowds that the world has ever seen. The best-run platforms have taken the human predilection for organizing into mission-driven, passionate groups and turned it into multi-billion dollar businesses. Social platforms are The Great Enabler. They eliminate the need for physical proximity, yet provide a readily available standing group of individuals to call to action at any moment in time. The effort required to participate in a digital crowd is much lower than in the real world: you don’t have to yell or march or carry a sign, just click the Share or Retweet button from your couch.

Spandrell has examples of Real News and Fake News. One of each… from the same source. Sort of.

Shylock Holmes has commentary On Kings and the Accident of Birth, beginning with a spirited assault on our current presentist malaise:

In the eternal present tense of the liberal mind, the past is not only alien, but almost incomprehensible. Whig history gets imbibed deeply without even understanding what it is. The net effect is that nobody is encouraged to think honestly about why people in the past thought the things they did. Most strikingly, there is no empathy towards one’s ancestors as having genuinely-held beliefs which may have had sensible underpinnings. The only acceptable explanations are those that flatter our own conceit. So the mass of people in the past must either have been evil (by comparison with which we are virtuous), or they must have been naïve dupes who were conned by a small evil elite (by comparison with which we are savvy and worldly).

A hereditary monarch may have inherited his position by “accident” of birth, but the beginning of almost any dynasty is no accident:

A man that can command, inspire and make wise choices in war has at least a decent shot of doing the same thing in peace. At the barest minimum, he has a much better chance of doing so than a randomly chosen citizen at the time.

In the language of economics, Kings are endogenous. It makes no sense to ask what would happen if we elevated a random person to be king. The only person who would ever get to be the first king is someone with enough personal qualities to establish themselves as such.

Shylock scores an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀ for his efforts here.

Mark Citadel's Standard for the Reactionary School. Kewl.

Mark Citadel’s Standard for the Reactionary School. Kewl.

Social Pathologist has some clarifying remarks on Reality—i.e., what’s wrong with Positivism.

Mark Citadel Announces his Youtube Channel, and quite a bit more. He also has what I might call a round-up of news and points of interest, but he calls it a Quick Thoughtcast, so we’ll go with that.

Nick Land quotes: “you can’t rise from the toilet to suddenly preach from a great moral height.” He liked a quote from me concerning the irreducible anarchy between sovereigns. Which is purely is not ought in my book. Also there: some based tweets from @BrowningMachine, whom I happened to meet earlier this year.

One wonders, occasionally, if Reactionary Future realizes that Mencius Moldbug has not ascended to return to The Father yet.

Count ∅-face comments On Whores. Or “sex-workers”. There’s a war raging, has been for a while, between “sex-positive” (except for the telos of sex) feminists and anti-porn feminists. I think we know who will win. Anti-porn feminists are (rightly) against porn… but for all the wrong reasons:

The left can call porn sexist, misogynist, or racist, but we on the right have our own word for porn: degenerate. Indeed, how could anything defined as “the graphic depiction of vile whores,” be anything but degenerate?

What feminists are not able to admit, no matter how much they hate porn:

Sex has a function, a telos, and that function is both unitive and procreative. It’s purpose is to unite a man and a woman for the sake of building a family and contributing to their community. The pimp, the whore, the pornographer, and others one might sportively refer to as “sex workers” violate this function by reducing sex to a base transaction. As such, they have taken something sacred and made it profane. You would be hard-pressed to find a feminist, even one stridently opposed to pornography, willing to defend this conception of sex.

Meghan Murphy and other anti-porn feminists have their hearts in the right place in the sense that they see how profane porn is and refuse to tolerate it. However, they lack the language to describe porn as profane, or degenerate, and can only call it misogynistic. Anti-porn feminists betray this tendency by emphasizing how women are exploited and objectified by men instead of emphasizing how porn sullies the act of sex itself.

And to admit the authoritative nature of telos is tantamount to putting feminism in a shallow grave. The Count earns an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀ from The Committee for this one.

Over at Lawrence Glarus’, it’s biological geekery week: Notes #8 Brain Levers etc. Well above my paygrade, but perhaps of interest to those who are following his theoretical work.

William Scott had the deplorable taste to link Daily Stormer, but it was all for a good cause I suppose. French presidential hopeful, Nicolas Sarkozy, has come out of the closet as a Global Warming of Doom skeptic. Scott is thus inspired to declare Today the Global Warming Hoax ended.

I am befuddled by this denial happening now though. Is it a bone tossed to the Right. The only one he can give. But after the Hollowcaust there is no greater mega meme of social control than Global Warming. The two have become intertwined, each earning skeptics the derision of ‘denier’. We can be guaranteed to be guilt-tripped by someone somewhere every single day over one of these; in the media and in the coffee houses. The social panic of being labeled as ‘a negative person’, someone who would be mean and who denies the existence of pure evil as well as science’s apocalyptic doom, has been profoundly efficacious in shaping public discourse and policy. Did the Frenchman get the thumbs up from the Illuminati on this one?

Also over at Teleologic (European (mostly)) Folkways, Scott delivers the next installment in his series On the Metaphysics of Meme pt 2. And in order for there to be a metaphysics of meme, there must first be metaphysics.

The lovely Melissa Benoist, barefooted.

The lovely Melissa Benoist, barefooted.

Once you reject metaphysics you must reject God and once you accept metaphysics, God is there. The Atheist either merely intuits this, or may be fully conscious, but their epistemology is governed by this prejudice. For some it manifests from a need to rid themselves and the whole world of God. For others it is the result of their materialism. These reject metaphysics as a relic of religion, of the fore-enlightenment world. But both have thrown the bathwater out with the baby; they destroyed metaphysics to destroy God. Oh sure they dip into it as needed, it is unavoidable, but they limit it to logic and maths and prefer to stay in the cold factual world of nothing more than matter bumping into itself for no reason whatsoever. This is supposed to be infinitely preferable to living in a world with a virile metaphysics and God.

There seems to be nevertheless, irrespective of whether one believes there can ever be a “meta” to physics, an outsized commitment to truth among humans, proportional approximately to their material and moral success. Which in meme science, leads to the question:

How much of this ‘truth sensitivity’ is genetic? That is, how much of it develops as a capacity of our cells independent of experience? There seems to be little truth content that we get from the metamorphosis of our genetic code into flesh. Our intuition is that truth assessment must be learned. The things we believe are certainly learned. It may be though, and this is a question to be answered by material science, that we have an innate capacity to learn to value truth, or at least to value things as true. But this later is an emotional sense of truth not a logical or empirical one. Conviction more than truth. And our convictions can be both erroneous and harmful, that is, run counter to nature; the Tao if you will. It is reasonable to accept an innate ability to assign truth value to our perceptions.

Mr. Scott takes home another ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀ for this one.

An old friend, Michael Rothblatt (not his real name and I don’t think he’s Jewish) has returned under a newly minted blog. This week’s offering Power, testosterone, and corruption seems to be aimed squarely at Moldbug’s teeth. I’ll let discerning readers be the judge of whether that is a hit or a miss. I suppose absolutely secure power the spherical cow in a vacuum of political theory anyway.

I bet you didn’t know that Fritz Pendleton had his own weblog. Well I didn’t. Until this week that is. He has here a bit of satire: Never Trumpers Insist Satan Better Than Trump. Come to think of it, that may not actually be satire.

Jon Frost has been tinkering around in his garage lately… He has penned A Thumotic Manifesto.

Alf, who joined us for “Descending the Tower” below, has a quick Dumdiedum, which is apparently Dutch for “Random Blurbs”.

Finally this week over at Cambria Will Not Yield: By What Right Do Liberals Rule? Inspired, as usual…

A Trump victory will not be a victory for white people. It will be a rearguard action that will give the white Europeans a little breathing time before their inevitable defeat. And their defeat is inevitable if they don’t reconnect with their past and learn to see existence feelingly. There is a passion gap between the modern Europeans and their ancestors. The antique Europeans had hearts of flesh that responded to any attack on His reign of charity. When innocence was attacked, when their people were attacked, they responded with the hatred that stems from love. You can’t sustain a long war—and a very long war is necessary to defeat the liberals—with a war cry of ‘We want our share of the Jacobin pie!’


This Week in Jim Donald

Jim offers an absolutely magisterial restatement The Puritan Hypothesis in short. It’s not that short, but it’s short for all it says. Probably the best single place the thesis has been stated. A lot of the nuance is missing, but this is the place to start. If I excerpted it, I’d have to excerpt the whole damn thing. So just go read it…. I’ll wait. Second week in a row Jim has won the ☀☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Award☀☀, which he’ll have to share this time. This was very important and very well constructed synopsis. We’ll be coming back to it often.

On a hopeful note, Yes, Trump legally can fire the bastards. But it’s bound to result in a constitutional crisis, Jim admits, if the congress decides that the executive branch must spend money they appropriate under their “oversight”. Trump will have 100 days. At most.

From political realism to sex realism in one week, Jim is a wearer of many expert hats. He considers Hitting your woman with a stick. This is classic Jim, and I believe he is 110% serious. For example:

The best place for a moderate blow with a stick is probably the palm of the hand. For heavier whacks with a stick, backside, upper back and thighs. Hitting them in the lower back can kill them, women are very fragile and need to be punished with care and love.

The take away…

1371610142875-cachedObviously any behavior that is good reason for hitting your woman with a stick is good reason for dumping her. And in our society that is legally loaded against men, the sensible thing to do, the safe thing to do, the easy thing to do, the sane and obvious thing to do, is to dump her rather than beat her.

But in fact every woman prefers a man who would beat her for misbehavior to a man who would dump her for misbehavior, and every woman prefers both the man who would beat her and the man who would dump her, to the nice guy who politely endures her misbehavior.

This was an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀.


This Week in Social Matter

Congratulations are due Ryan Landry on the birth of his third (3rd) child. Written well in advance of that event, he has another of his invaluable “Hidden Histories” series: The Black Mutinies Of World War II, where the details hide in plain sight, because they contradict whichever narrative the Government Media Academic Complex (GMAC) is trying to spin. He’s got descriptions of quite a few of them, in some of which African Americans appear to be innocent victims. But in most of them, they don’t. A few are downright sinister, like:

Were some of these trial runs for the coming civil rights movement? Of course they were. There was the Freedom Field Mutiny in Indiana. This event was more political in nature and had to do simply with segregated social spaces. Considering all that had happened elsewhere with black units, segregation of black and non-black at the end of World War II might have looked more appealing, not less appealing. There was a mutiny in Florida, as black soldiers did not even deal well with locals. Note in this document, if you search, you will find accusations of communists brainwashing the black soldiers into asking for preferential treatment.

Fritz Pendleton offers his second contribution (in an as many months): English And The Slow Death. “English” as in the language, once widely spoken in the English diaspora nations. “The slow death” as in what’s happening to the language (and the diaspora) right here in the USA.

Because of the New Babby in the Landry household, Weimerica Weekly which normally runs like clockwork was missing this Wednesday, and may continue to be for one or two more. Either babby, or new OS/electronic device. Not sure which. But we’re going with babby.

Mark Christensen makes a return Thursday with a Book Review: The North American High Tory Tradition from Ron Dart published just this year. For those not familiar with Canadian and Anglican history, it is a lesson in these as well. Christensen’s account is narrative in style, so no one excerpt well captures the spirit of the piece, but it is chock full of interesting and remarkably relevant historical sketches.

Gratuitous pic of girl in Colombia.

Gratuitous pic of girl in Colombia.

One of the aspects of [George] Grant’s life which Dart examines in detail is George and his wife Sheila’s relationship with C. S. Lewis and the Socratic Club at Oxford. Lewis’ rejection of scientism and “value-free” technological progress deeply influenced both the Grants and their future work. George Grant and Lewis both understood that without a conception of order and ethics to ground the mind, any discussion of freedom was meaningless and absurd. Furthermore, both took as their foundation the patristic Christian tradition. Lewis and Grant believed this tradition still existed in the Church of England , even if the modern Anglican was required to see past both the errors of the Reformation and Modernism to find it. However, Grant went further than Lewis in his embrace of a political expression of this ethos and its embodiment in the state. Dart points out that unlike Lewis, Grant’s political expression of his worldview could not be subsumed by the American republican tradition.

Grant’s less well-known work is Philosophy in the Mass Age. Published in 1959, the work grapples with the Hegelian liberalism which informed the Canadian philosophical establishment. Grant attacked the liberal rejection of a natural order and its focus on dialectic rather than the Good. Dart defines the work as a rejection of Hegel in favour of Plato—a rejection which sent waves of fury throughout the academic establishment, which Dart bitingly describes as Canada’s “philosophical Sanhedrin”.

“Philosophical Sanhendrin”… Perfect! And Christensen pens a pitch-perfect take away in this ☀☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Award☀☀ Winner:

Dissidents from liberalism in the Anglosphere have often recognized that the continent has always maintained its older traditions far better. De Maistre and Maurras in France; Schmitt and Heidegger in Germany; Donoso Cortes in Spain. The Anglosphere, being the geopolitical foundation of the liberal order, has more actively suppressed it. The Canadian student learns in school about Mackenzie and Trudeau, but not about Strachan or Grant. University students learn about T. S. Eliot’s criticisms of modernity, but not about his intellectual and personal ties to a more ancient ethos of English civilization. The Anglosphere has long experienced a condition of civilizational amnesia. The North American High Tory Tradition is a contribution to the cure. This cure is not only of historical interest. As Strachan, Leacock, and Grant realized, the destruction of the Anglo-Tory ethos was not carried out by dialectic and historical inevitability, but by men. The cure and redemption of the Anglo-American order will also come only from men.

We gathered a great bunch of guys together for Descending The Tower – Episode 8. We said it was verbal shitpoasting, but there’s a lot of serious stuff in there.

Finally, it’s prose this week in Saturday’s “Prose & Poetry”. Neville A. Graham provides the next installment of his fiction: Inversion, IV.


This Week in 28 Sherman

Over on the home blog, the 15th anniversary of 9/11 takes a back seat as Landry has A Note On Clinton. Well, it’s more than a note. “Where were you,” he asks, “When a random New Yorker Rodney Kinged this election with video of the #ClintonCollapse?” (Did I mention Landry was an expert at verbing things?)

crazy-conspiracy-hillaryLost in this is a nice juxtaposition. Clinton spent August barely campaigning, hiding out in her gurney most likely. The fringe right spent the month talking about her health issues, pressing on in the aftermath of the ridiculous Khan controversy. She walks out, wastes a speech to give the little blogs and twitter accounts the label of fringe jerks to smear Trump. Since then, the fringe is proven right. She is a stumbling, collapsing image of the establishment. It is fair to be frightened that people would still vote for a woman this ill and corrupt. That is the marker of our degraded voter pool. I’m more troubled by the elite’s paving of her road to power for their use.

They are delegitimizing their own system far more effectively than we can.

On Tuesday, he has another “Note”… this time on Synthetic Heroin. It’s cheap, easy to manufacture locally, and 10-20 times more powerful than the real stuff. What’s not to like?

This Week in WW1 Pics, it’s Red Cross Doge.


This Week in Kakistocracy

Porter has a (slightly belated) remembrance: The Butterfly Wings of 9/11.

9/11 was the bar mitzvah for neocon interventionism. Of course America has never been reticent about minding other people’s business, but in the empty expanse of GWB’s brain the neocons found their global ambitions for once wholly unimpeded.

I doubt most people, even in hindsight, would begrudge a punitive Afghan expedition in the red glow of rage after 9/11. Though with counselors’ urging, buttressed by his own naive universalism, Bush commenced the nation building he had explicitly denounced while campaigning a year earlier.

(“Bar mitzvah for neocon interventionism”… LOL!) And the string of foreign policy failures, notes Porter, has continued unabated.

In Consider Me Your Greatest Ally, Porter examines some recent research showing close familial relationships lead to better outcomes than close friendships, and manages to apply it to international politics without ever, ya know, mentioning international politics…

Erez Shmueli has found that people are incompetent judges of who their friends really are, with an astounding 45% delta between perception and reality. And because we presume the existence of benign reciprocity, where in actuality none exists whatsoever, we are limited in our ability to engage in the cooperative arrangements that would actually benefit us.

Sound familiar?

Porter is inspired by the (virtual) pages of WSJ, whose delivery of some Hard Truths to the stereotypical Trump-voter, to deliver a few of his own. But not before slicing Journal resident concern troll reporter William Gaston with some icy ripostage:

Emilia, dressed for rain, Stockholm, Sweden.

Emilia, dressed for rain, Stockholm, Sweden.

[A] society needs brave porters to carry such harsh news. It’s a burden liberals bear with dutiful determination. Particularly so, you might notice, when Hard Truths are being delivered to poor white people with zero political or plutocratic advocacy. That’s what I like about the world’s William Galstons: they’re always primed to speak truth to powerlessness. I mean let’s be realistic, men who tell Hard Truths to those who can potently retaliate have a short career of truth telling. Best to be brutally honest with people who can’t get you fired or hanged on meat hooks. Watch for his next column where he really gives the what-for to elderly white janitors.

On the strength of atomic levels of vituperous witty banter alone this one earns an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀.

Finally, in Dances with Hajis (the title alone is almost worth an honorable mention… LOL), Porter relates the spiritual journey of British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, one Simon Colis and his recent conversion to Islam. Hey, what better way to represent the interests of the British?!


This Week in Evolutionist X

Evolutionist X kicks off the week with a new theory: Weight, Taste, and Politics: A Theory of Republican Over-Indulgence. She’s interested in whether super-tasting, associated with an aversion to bitter things (like healthy foods, coffee, and beer (healthy drinks!!)) is associated with obesity and conservative political orientation.

Also this week in Evolutionist X: She and Lawrence Glarus trade guest posts at each other’s blogs. (Which I guess is a thing.) Glarus looks at other “market dominant minorities” (other than the you-know-whos) in Guest Families. The Hakka are the “rootless cosmpolitans” of China… at least by traditional Han standards.

It is certainly interesting that these people who focused on education would have a language called “rough border talk”. It is probable that any successful Hakka would learn and speak Madarin (or whatever was the court dialect de jour) well though. All the famous (at least famous outside China) Hakka we know of spoke other languages very well and did not seemingly utilize Hakka language in their public persona. In fact, the Hakka seem to do much better in other people’s areas than in their own, where they have tended to be poor farmers.

Hmmm… where have we seen this pattern before? The list of prominent Hakka is quite impressive indeed, given the group’s small relative size. They are well-represented in revolutionary movements as well, but whether this is an artifact of their overrepresentation in elite roles in general, or some special dispostion toward revolution remains, as yet, unanswered.

And over at Glarus’ blog, Evolutionist X sets her hand to rewriting some of the most important works of science If Famous Scientists wrote like Gender Scholars. For example, Gender-queer Einstein:

untitledThe move from a structuralist account in which “electricity” is understood to structure activities between magnets and conductors in relatively homologous way to a view of hegemony in which electrodynamic powers are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of space structure, and marked a shift from a form of Maxwellian theory that takes structural, atomic totalities as theoretical objects (eg, photons, electrons,) to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of unified spacetime structures inaugurate a renewed conception of electrodynamics as bound up with contingent bodies.

That is, by the way, one (1) sentence.

On Thursday she answers When did Whites Evolve? Which turns out to be an easier question than deciding Who is White? Not that long ago, it turns out… for vaguely definitive versions of “white”. Along the way, we get this gem:

The first known modern humans in Europe (i.e., not Neanderthals nor Homo Erectuses) popularly known as Cro-Magnons and unpopularly known as European early modern humans, (because anthropologists hate being understood dislike sounding like commoners) lived around 43,000-45,000 years ago in Italy. By 41,000 years ago, Cro-Magnons had reached the southern coast of England.

LOL. (NB: the Cro-Magnons were not white (or huwhite), but they were European, or at least they would’ve been if they had known the name of the continent they lived on.)

And it appears that Anthropology Friday has gone on vacation. In it’s place Maps Maps Maps: A short history (pt 1/2). The map is not the territory… unless the territory is maps. Which, this time, it is.


This Week in West Coast Reactionaries

Over at West Coast Reactionaries, Dissenting Sociologist (whom I’ve discovered has his own very fine weblog… check that out!) takes a long look at The Genealogy of “Progressive” Government. He compares and contrasts Hindu and Western Enlightenment traditions for the state—”Science of Chastisement” versus “Police Science” respectively. The Committee liked this one, awarding an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀.

Cygnus X has a very scholarly Neoplatonism and Plotinus, in which, inter alia, he argues that monotheism owes more to the Pythagoreans than to the Hebrews. It is a question well above my paygrade, but interesting nonetheless.

And for Saturday, newcomer Aedan Clarke discusses The Spirituality of Art—and the impoverishment of both in recent times.


This Week Around The Orthosphere

Kristor, drawing apparently from a real-life experience, has The Hummingbird: an Allegory. I have my own theory about of what the story is an allegory. But I don’t wanna spoil it for ye. He also has some quotage from SM Hutchens in the latest (print) edition of Touchstone, who thinks The Ultimate Target of Diversity is Christ-likeness (ergo white, male). Not so sure about that, but Hutchens was always my fav Touchstone editor.

Matt Briggs really did apply for the job of New York Times Climate Change Editor. They will, no doubt, “get back to him”. Some Facebook censorship hillarity ensues. And he has an excellent reflection On Habits Good & Bad. Also at Briggs’ yet more Comments on The Flight 93 Election: Let’s Roll.

Briggs is over at The Stream with Global Warming Alarmists Promote XKCD Time Series Cartoon, Ignore Its Mistakes.

Also Briggs permits a guest post by Oswald Spengler: On Ethical Socialism. Did I mention the dude’s got gonnegsions?

In light of a slightly risky (and now totally over) operation, Bonald reflects upon What men want… The other thing, he means. Actually, they’re both related. This insight came along for the ride:

Gratuitous pic of girl with big feet  on suspension bridge.

Gratuitous pic of girl with big feet on suspension bridge.

While I was in the hospital, the Democratic candidate for President took the unprecedented step of delivering a speech attacking illiberal internet sites. The Alt Right is naturally thrilled, and I am happy for them if also a little jealous. Religious conservatives are, one regrets to admit, now too unimportant to be worth attacking. And to think this wasn’t so a mere decade ago, back when George W. Bush, and not Donald Trump, was Hitler. I’ve learned not to let the Democrat attack machine get my hopes up. I doubt Trump is any more a principled racist than GWB was a theocrat. Nor should we imagine that the Alternative Right, which by and large has no interest in preserving Christendom or the patriarchal family, could really deliver us from the evils of the modern world, even if serious persecutions were not coming its way. Still, the spread of particularist ideas is to be welcomed, especially in Catholic circles.

While he may be wrong about just about everything else, Bonald notes: President Obama is right about one thing.

Mark Richardson has simply fantastic Distribution Piece. Well, the full text of it at any rate. It’s an effective primer, suitable for normies, on what exactly is wrong with liberalism.

Cane Caldo listens to Ascending the Tower, among other things. Perhaps there is hope for him yet!

Chris Gale has an excellent Quote of the week. What’s done in bedrooms is private. But social norms are not. Why is the former invariably used as a cudgel upon the latter?


This Week in Arts & Letters

Dr. Richard Cocks is over at Sydney Trads to tackle The Reflexive Problem in Analytic Philosophy: Illogical Logicians. From which…

Denying the existence of consciousness marks the apogee of a consistent materialism. Materialism also seems to imply determinism and thus one finds grown men ignoring all sorts of contradictions and absurdities, all in a good cause. With the incentive of reinforcing materialism, arguments and contradictions are accepted that would result in an F if an undergraduate were to offer them in an essay.

Speaking of analytic philosophy… Thomas Bertonneau is inspired to offer Suggested Reading For Analytical Philosophers: Wordsworth’s Prelude.

This Week in Obligatory @WrathOfGnon Classics… Every Act of Beauty, Irving Babbitt on the Conceits of Progressive Ideologues (from 1924!!), Oswald Spengler on Pacifism, and Thomas Merton on Suffering.

Richard Carroll has a bone to pick with Aristotle in Is There a Hierarchy Among the Arts?

Poet Laureate of the Neoreaction, and Organist Thereof, E. Antony Gray pens a fresh ode: Love and Hate—one that even I find comprehensible.


This Week… Elsewhere

Writing in support of Jim’s award-winning article last week, Atavisionary notes that The desire for race war is a result of confusion. Badly behaved minorities are, of course, a problem: One that can easily be solved if you fix the real problem, and can’t be fixed at all if you don’t. He also conducts the post-mortem on the (reproductive) life of a woman who wanted it all, and ended up with nothing, except a forum to write about it: Learning from the mistakes of others.

Northern Reaction—aka. Bill Marchant—asks: What Is Meme Magic? He asks not because he has the answer, but because he’s compiling a host of links on the subject.

Giovanni Dannato thinks It’s Over: The Fall of Hillary Clinton. We, as they say, shall see. Admittedly, it looks bad for her, and it couldn’t happen to a more deserving person. The way the mainstream media carries water for her is astonishing. More on the Illary Saga: The Calm Before She Sinks, with some nice vids (not of Hillary).

Roman Dmowski has a very extensive review of Trump’s America First Foreign Policy.

Publius Decius Mus, who last week ripped the Conservative Establishment™ a new one, this week responds to his critics in a Restatement on Flight 93. Clearly, he is, like most paleocons, a true believer in Muh Constitutional Politics, but it’s hard not to love a guy who holds establishment conservatism in so much, so articulate, and so well-targeted contempt:

160122001346-national-review-magazine-opposes-donald-trump-sot-nr-00000830-full-169One must also wonder what is so “immoderate” about Trump’s program. As noted, it’s to the left of the last several decades of Republican-conservative orthodoxy. “Moderate” in the modern political (as opposed to the Aristotelean) sense tends to be synonymous with “centrist.” By that definition, Trump is a moderate. That’s why National Review and the rest of the conservatives came out of the gate so strongly against him. I admit that, not all that long ago, I probably would have too. But I have come to see conservatism in a different light. To oversimplify (again), the only “eternal principle” is the good. What, specifically, is good in a political context varies with the times and with circumstance, as does how best to achieve the good in a given context. The good is not tax rates or free trade. Those aren’t even principles. In the American political context, the good is the well-being of the physical America and its people, well-being defined (in terms that reflect both Aristotle and the American Founding) as their “safety and happiness.” That’s what conservatism should be working to conserve.

Over at City Journal: Edward Glaesar looks at “myths and realities about America’s infrastructure spending” in If You Build It . . . The tl;dr:

America needs an infrastructure renaissance, but we won’t get it by the federal government simply writing big checks. A far better model would be for infrastructure to be managed by independent but focused local public and private entities and funded primarily by user fees, not federal tax dollars.

Eddie “Crazy Eddie” Antar, a Syrian Jew whose grandparents migrated from Aleppo to Brooklyn, died last week. Steven Malanga has a fond and fair remembrance: His Life Was Insane. Also the story of a “near miss” during the currently unprecedented string of non-fatalities in American aviation: Runaway Plane: Delta Flight 1086.

And this was quite good: Dangerous Distortions: Our leaders do us a disservice when they conflate terrorism with tragedy.

Gratuitous pic of Erin Clare.

Gratuitous pic of Erin Clare.

By calling terrorist attacks tragedies, Obama implies that citizens should accept terrorism as though it were compelled by the universe. The president has even said that tragedies simply “occur.” As such, we should be stoic in our anger, while full of pity for the victims, just as one pities Oedipus for his predetermined suffering. Believing that we suffer tragedies because of fate disarms us. It drives citizens deeper into their private, apolitical lives, suggesting that neither willfulness nor anger can adequately address suffering. Describing political and religious violence as tragic is in some sense a denial that such attacks are planned and executed by our enemies. This kind of rhetoric allows us to overlook that righteous anger must occasionally be mobilized in defense of our democratic system—and that it is a system worth defending.

Heartiste was pretty good here: The Seven Deplorable Sins Of Secularism:

The Secularist’s Seven Deplorable Sins are outgrowths of temporal sensibilities and the detritus of verbally dexterous status whores jockeying for power, distinct in nature from the Seven Deadly Sins which resonate precisely because they tap into timeless truths about humanity and fallen man.

Also there: A Return To Noblesse Oblige. A solid—not entirely “poolside” plan—plan, whether Trump turns out to be the Great Huwhite Hope or not.

Butch Leghorn and Curt Doolittle have up another edition of the Propertarian Podcast: Evolutionary Strategy of Western Civilization. Lots of interesting stuff there.

Adam, over at Generative Anthropology seems to be having a long (very long) conversation with Reactionary Future here: Reaction as Political Praxis. Well, somebody’s gotta do it. Antinomia Imediata is also hard at it.

The Anti-Puritan discusses What it Takes to be a Neoreactionary. YMMV.

Unorthodoxy has some interesting coverage from the Jerusalem Post: Twilight of American Jewry. It’s almost like they’re not “good for the Jews” anymore.


That’s it for now. This article is clocking in at over 6200 words, which may be a record. It’s always a joy keeping track of the ‘Sphere for you. Even if it is a bit grueling. Keep on reactin’! Til next week… NBS, over and out!!

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


  1. Thanks Nick! It’s ‘uge this week.

    >seems to be aimed squarely at Moldbug’s teeth

    But I wouldn’t say Moldbug’s teeth, rather RF’s teeh. Moldbug has said a lots and lots of substantial things, and RF developed doctrine out of, what I (and some other people much better than me) would say is the weakest part of Moldbug thought (’tis in Jewish nature to try and push a thing to its very end, e.g. Marx’s scientific socialism, Moldbug’s absolutism, Rothbard’s non-agression axiom, etc. famed Jewish ’tism I suppose; it’s wise to be skeptical of reductionist “theories of everything”) which is a real shame, ’cause it isn’t so much wrong, as too extreme. I don’t think Moldbug himself would approve of RF’s interpretation of Moldbug. Also, I’ve inserted a bit of history because I think reactionaries tend to romanticize the past, constructing fairy tale kingdoms in their minds, rather than dealing with historical realities. The peoples of the past were truly remarkable, with, to us who live in this pornographic “age of de Sade” incomprehensible mindset and incomprehensibly low time preference, but also incomprehensible poverty. My opinion is that we should look up to them and strive to get back their mindset, and not their poverty.

    1. “But I wouldn’t say Moldbug’s teeth, rather RF’s teeh. Moldbug has said a lots and lots of substantial things, and RF developed doctrine out of, what I (and some other people much better than me) would say is the weakest part of Moldbug thought (’tis in Jewish nature to try and push a thing to its very end, e.g. Marx’s scientific socialism, Moldbug’s absolutism, Rothbard’s non-agression axiom, etc. famed Jewish ’tism I suppose; it’s wise to be skeptical of reductionist “theories of everything”) which is a real shame, ’cause it isn’t so much wrong, as too extreme.”

      Say something is “too extreme” isn’t a argument at all nor is crying how “Jewish” something is. This sound like anti-intellectual Alt-Rightism. Taking ideas to their logical conclusion isn’t being “extreme” at all. That is absurd.

      “I don’t think Moldbug himself would approve of RF’s interpretation of Moldbug.”

      Projecting you own opinions onto Moldbug isn’t a argument either. Until Moldbug himself actually comes back and tells us who is right about him none of us know for sure but based on my own readings of Moldbug RF’s interpretation is correct as far as i know.

      “Also, I’ve inserted a bit of history because I think reactionaries tend to romanticize the past, constructing fairy tale kingdoms in their minds, rather than dealing with historical realities.”

      More Projection. That is just what you prefer to believe about reactionaries in order for you to dismiss them without actually having to deal with their arguments in anyway. This is a typical modernist baseless accusation against reaction, an extremely exhausted one at that.

      It pretty obvious that you have no real rebuttal to RF or reaction at all. Pretty lame really.

      1. >Say something is “too extreme” isn’t a argument at all nor is crying how “Jewish” something is. This sound like anti-intellectual Alt-Rightism. Taking ideas to their logical conclusion isn’t being “extreme” at all. That is absurd.

        Reducing a multi-variable function to a single-variable function without providing how and why, a justification, is absurd. Everyone has their pet theory, personal preference doesn’t make it objective theory of everything however.

        >Projecting you own opinions onto Moldbug isn’t a argument either. Until Moldbug himself actually comes back and tells us who is right about him none of us know for sure but based on my own readings of Moldbug RF’s interpretation is correct as far as i know.

        It’s a personal opinion, not a projection. I don’t care either way, really. I’m not into all this Moldbug-worship stuff. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas.

        >More Projection. That is just what you prefer to believe about reactionaries in order for you to dismiss them without actually having to deal with their arguments in anyway. This is a typical modernist baseless accusation against reaction, an extremely exhausted one at that.

        I don’t need to project, or to chose to believe anything. I’ve interacted with people. And why would I dismiss reactionaries, when I’m a reactionary myself? Before having a knee-jerk emotionally driven reaction (heh, pun intended), first check what is actually being said. Especially if you’re trying to avoid accusation of being an overly emotional reality-ignoring romantic.

        >It pretty obvious that you have no real rebuttal to RF or reaction at all. Pretty lame really.

        1. “Reducing a multi-variable function to a single-variable function without providing how and why, a justification, is absurd.Everyone has their pet theory, personal preference doesn’t make it objective theory of everything however. ”

          When did RF, Moldbug or anyone else ever did this? Actually explain what you are talking about otherwise no one can understand you.

          1. >Seems like RF responds to you here:

            No. That post is from before my blog was even up. While he may be right on Land’s views (not that Nick hides it) being liberal (for him, in fact, the entire point of NRx is to find a way to create a liberal state that won’t give in to structural weaknesses of liberalism and degenerate into social liberal totalitarianism i.e. the present state of affairs), he’s been bitching about the rest of NRx for a relatively long time now, for the sheer reason of failing to be the Church of Moldbug (PBUH). On the other hand he squarely rejects the parts of Moldbug (PBUH) he does not like, justifying it by saying that Moldbug (PBUH) clearly outgrew those very parts of own thought that RF dislikes.

  2. Thanks for the links. It’s been an interesting week.

  3. This is also a good site:

  4. Very glad for a mention in one of my favorite publications, thanks Nick and Social Matter.

  5. Hi Nick, you might want to post this article on next week’s Reaction. The liberals themselves are admitting that liberalism does not work.

  6. Thanks for the link! Much appreciated.

Comments are closed.