— Jonathan Haidt (@JonHaidt) March 9, 2017
Liberalism preserves no good that cannot better conserved by tradition and restoration. Come to the Dark Side, Professor Haidt. We’re actually very friendly.
Let’s see… what else was going on?
William Scott continues his Lenten short fiction based upon The Beatitudes with The Blessed: 2 Lacrimosa. “Blessed are those who mourn.” This one seems quazi-autobiographical, tho’ one may be forgiven for certainly hoping not.
Nick Land highlights Bannon’s insight “I am at war to gain back control of the American narrative”. Back? Also, filed under Don’t Say That Like it’s a Bad Thing: a notable quote on social divergence.
On The Continent, Alfred Woenselaer has a case study in deliberate obtuseness: Turks go onto the streets chanting Allah Akbar, Dutch fail to get the hint. Must be nice… being able to afford to laugh at the Allahu Akbar joke. Also there, reporting a big Nope for Geert Wilders. There’s Post Match Analysis on that “meh” showing.
This too from Alf: he mulls over The cold hard truth. Or at least one of them.
Mark Citadel digs up (with some help from an unnamed twitter colleague) a very potent 1997 article, showing the worm in the act of turning, and cognizant of the very fact: Kriegsministers & Their Information Victims. This is really the dark side of the “End of History” coin: where the desiccated bodies of “noncompetitive cultures” are hidden…
Cultural exchange exists throughout history, but cultural competition is not simply a product of economic factors, but of ideological commitments which see superior cultures and inferior cultures, rather than simply different cultures for different peoples. We’re on familiar ground when we think back on Maistre’s statements concerning constitutions made for none. Competition implies an eventual supremacy, not preference, supremacy. And supremacy has to be acted upon. Don’t like our culture? We will force it upon you! And if we can’t do that where you are, we’ll lure you to wherever we feel that we can force it upon you. It’s a mistake to think Liberals want jihadist Muslims in Western countries. Wrong. What they want is to conquer them with Liberalism. Every ‘moderate Muslim’ is a victory for Liberalism, for they can say pridefully: “You see, we emasculated you and forced you to submit to our gods, just like we did to the Christians. We cut off your balls. You are our information victims.”
Colonel Peters’ quotes are at least as illuminating, but you’ll have to click over to Mark’s article to see his supremely well-curated set of them. This superb archival find, and commentary thereupon, from Mark earned the ☀☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Award☀☀. RTWT!
Alrenous has a very solid Cthulu’s Leftism Summary.
Hence, democracy. Let everyone, responsible or irresponsible alike, have one equal vote. The irresponsible naturally envy the wealth of the responsible, and it’s easy to partition the electorate such that the bottom half siphons off the top half. Progressives simply skim some off the current – it’s not like the irresponsible are going to run the numbers and find the accounts don’t line up. (The responsible have already lost, so if they run the numbers it’s easy to make them look like sore losers.)
Thus, being responsible is selected against.
And Alrenous dust off his machete to take on one of his most famous pet peeves in a Long Yet Still Very Short History of Sophism.
Agriculture [by division of labor and society into castes] thus inherently creates an environmental niche for a guild of liars. Expert craftsmen at exploiting lies for mind control. This guild will have its own subculture, techniques and tricks, and I call it Sophism, of which the earliest clear record is Protagoras. They are a perversion of the shaman caste: they use their grasp of reality, but are treating conspecifics like a natural problem to be manipulated, instead of as peers like the merchant caste do. Instead of shamans of the forest, they are shamans of the human.
He thinks sophists play on natural human feelings of egalitarianism, which is maladaptive to advanced, i.e., civilized societies, for cash and prizes:
Sophists establish democracy, to establish a siphon between rich and poor, and skim some off the top. It’s not like the irresponsible poor are going to notice there’s some missing. Plus hey, free stuff.
Good stuff from Alrenous here and an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀.
Spandrell challenges the reader to Find the Symmetry:
But, the liberal press won’t shut up about the alt-right. Why? Why aren’t they writing about the actual Trump voters? Because this is not about numbers. This is a war of ideas. And even if ideas can adapt to people, more often than not people adapt to ideas. Ideas are the stuff of humanity. The stuff of social coordination. Ideas is what we use to get together and to stuff. Schelling points, remember? Well, for the first time, the left is scared. They’re very scared. And why are they scared?
Vincent Hanna continues his series on sovereignty: Chain Of Command Part 2: The Procedure.
By way of Isegoria… This has been making the rounds: The nine strategic consequences of Chinese racism, the problem with racism is that it’s just so perniciously successful; Pizzas, Loudspeakers and Moms chronicles humorously low-tech psy-ops in Central Africa; and Neoliberal management may reduce productivity, “empowerment” is a code-word for comfy fiefdom.
Malcolm Pollack has been dealing with this question quite a bit, and I think quite effectively, lately: Can Progressivism Really Be A Kind Of Religion? Well… if it acts like a lungfish, and quacks like a lungfish…
Finally, This Week in CWNY: In This Hope We Live.
No people can survive as a people without faith in a sacred myth that encompasses their God (or gods) and defines them as a people. Their God must be a mythic God or else their God is not God, and the people must be a mythic people or else they are not a people. And by the use of the term ‘mythic’ I do not mean to suggest something that is not true; I mean to suggest a faith that encompasses a man’s whole being, his whole heart, mind, and soul.
This Week in Jim Donald
An abbreviated week This Week in Jim, but, my oh my, does he have a deusy for next week…
First, he finds Congressman Steve King’s solution to healthcare (i.e., working in the daylight) to be untenable.
Before Obamacare, American medicine was unreasonably expensive by a factor of about ten or twenty.
After Obamacare, American medicine was unreasonably expensive by a factor of about ten or twenty, but bums, drug addicts, and vagrants were getting a lot more of this very expensive medicine, paid for mostly by white middle class males, and very shortly thereafter, white middle class males were getting a whole lot less of this very expensive medicine.
Yes. White male life expectancies actually decreased. Genocide? Maybe not. Who-Whom? Definitely.
Jim also has some apposite considerations on UN Peacekeeping.
This Week in Social Matter
Ryan Landry kicks off the week at SM with a focus on Japan Becoming Capital. The collectivization of Japan remains a fixture, but the goal-posts have moved…
What is happening is the twist of Japan’s economy away from the super focus on employing all and driving job creation and towards providing returns for all. The Japanese are potentially transitioning to a rentier economy. This is not collecting revenues off of a natural resource but the original meaning of the term. Japan can be more colonial in its orientation. Japan would be deploying its massive capital hoard for returns around the globe to provide an income stream. Creating hundreds of thousands of American jobs also creates hundreds of thousands of Americans who can also pay for Japanese-manufactured goods. Japan has funded American deficits for decades now in a national form of vendor financing, so this is the next step.
On Monday, Arthur Sarsfield is working Towards A Theory Of Tribal Realism. Why do blacks and browns (and women and gays and otherkin) get to be a tribe, but whites do not? Because one of the white tribes gets to say who gets to be a tribe and who’s a filthy “racist”.
Tribal realism is thus Occam’s razor: Germans exist as an identity group with valid interests and, say, Turks in Germany exist as an identity group with valid interests. Now you can have an honest conversation without attempting to plaster over inherent conflicts between the two by arbitrarily declaring one party unfit to negotiate for itself. Now you can have governments and social institutions which don’t tie themselves down with the task of revolutionizing society to make it safe for neoliberal capitalism by turning everyone into interchangeable consumers dependent on the state for protection from the ghost of Hitler. The permanent revolution leads down an increasingly absurdist road, traveled only by the most gaslighted and preyed upon by Bolshevik highwaymen.
Landry is back on Tuesday with the Weimerica Weekly podcast: Episode 62—Weimerican Wives. A rather depressing situation, made hopeful by suggestions of what the reactionary man might do about it.
And Landry joins the Bay Area Guyz for Myth Of The 20th Century podcast: Episode 10: Petrodollar—American Political Economy.
And yet another podcast. Anthony DeMarco takes up another Solo Climb: #4—Are Whites a Nation? No. I have not been kicked off the show. And no. Whites (qua whites) are not a nation.
For Saturday’s Poetry & Prose, E. Anthony Gray picks back up his series on Poets with the very reactionary G. K. Chesterton. Who, like all poets, was mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.
This Week in 28 Sherman
SoBL has much more (i.e., some) patience with the Frogtwitter brand than I do (which is none). He has a report from the front of the Meme War: Frogtwitter Lives.
If you think CRISPR Babies are a harbinger a techno-anihilation (which I kinda do), Landry envisions an even more alarming use for gene editing tech. Remember, this is progs we’re talkin’ about.
This week in WW1 pics, it’s: American Stupidity. Editorial stupidity that is. Pretty disgusting to boot. All in the mad rush to make America friendly with the criminals taking charge in Russia.
Finally, a reminisce on Maddow’s Moment, and what it means, and particularly what it doesn’t mean.
This Week in Kakistocracy
Speaking of Turks in Holland, Porter takes note in: Turkish Delight.
[N]o ally [to doctrinaire border transmutationists] has been more recently reliable than the Turks in Holland. Watching them rally in open solidarity with Turkey, waving Turkish flags, ululating about Turkish elections, and screaming imprecations at Dutch society all as residents of Rotterdam must trigger grand mal cognitive dissonance for those Europeans still prone to embracing princess tales. In one comical scene a group of Turks were so confused about which European country of which they were absolute loyal citizens, that they mistakenly destroyed the French flag rather than that of The Netherlands. I realize the symbols of any whitey will do, but let’s be honest: a true Dutchman would burn his own flag.
Next, President Trump’s interior disposition toward Muslims comes under “constitutional” scrutiny in The Court Finds What It Creates. We are a nation of laws after all. But only laws created from good hearts.
Porter chronicles Turkey’s “mind-blowing” threat of 15,000 refugees per month (RPM). Mind-blowing in a number of ways, not least since 15,000 RPM is a dramatically reduced rate from that which Europe has become acclimated. But, of course, the real fun begins with how the Establishment Media deal with such a “threat”. After all, if their theories about the wonderfulness of refugees are true, then EU leaders will be forever in President Erdoğan’s debt. Rarely are situations quite so win-win.
Finally, he deals with the breathless legalese assertion that courts have No Deference Due to the President Trump, because he’s… an icky person. Of course when experts in law find the actual law too weak to defend their position, the natural follow-up is: What deference does the executive branch owe them? How many divisions does that Ninth Circuit have again? Nevermind, I guess that’s measured in Marshalls.
This Week in Evolutionist X
Evolutionist X tells The Tale of Pablo Escobar, and potential lessons therefrom.
She wonders: Is Racism an Instinct? That’s assuming racism is a thing at all.
The claim that people are “racist” against members of other races implies, in converse, that they exhibit no similar behaviors toward members of their own race. But even the most perfunctory overview of history reveals people acting in extremely “racist” ways toward members of their own race. During the Anglo-Boer wars, the English committed genocide against the Dutch South Africans (Afrikaners.) During WWII, Germans allied with the the Japanese and slaughtered their neighbors, Poles and Jews. (Ashkenazim are genetically Caucasian and half Italian.) If Hitler were really racist, he’d have teamed up with Stalin and Einstein–his fellow whites–and dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima. (And for their part, the Japanese would have allied with the Chinese against the Germans.)
Safe to say that in-group preference is instinctual. As for “racism”, well… Anglophones got along fine without the term until about 1938. This was an interesting insight:
Group identities are fluid. When threatened, groups merged. When resources are abundant and times are good, groups split.
Race qua race is too big of a group to be concerned about. When and where race does matter, it always seems to a proxy for something else. This was an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀.
Wednesday’s Open Thread is on Net Transnational Adoption Flows, Sex Differences in Employment, and Breath of the Wild? Among other things.
Filed under Do Not Try This Experiment at Home: If we don’t have an instinct for “racism”, then do humans have The Language Instinct? The answer would seem to be yes, but probably not a particular language.
Finally, for Anthropology Friday, a finale for Reindeer Economies: Hunters, Pastoralists and Ranchers (pt 4/4).
This Week in Quas Lacrimas
Quincy T. Latham wonders How could anyone possibly dislike jews?!? He proposes 4 popular explanations, the two most popular of which utterly ignore the hook-nosed merchant behind the curtain. The other two are, of course, bilious hatred, and therefore more likely to be correct.
And since we were on the subject, Latham pulls one up from the “archives”: Minorities and toleration. Hey, it was new to me. Religious toleration was not possible, he avers, without a crucial change in the conception of community in this ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀…
[T]o the early moderns, orthodox and heretics alike, the communitas has precisely what was held in common by all alike. The idea of a parish with two rival churches, or a city with two bishops, was absurd. A community has one festival, one coat of arms, one great fortress-artwork which is symbolic of its hopes and aspirations. The banns are read out to the community many times—but in one church. The bell which tolls for thee will be the same bell that eventually tolls for me, and it will lead one to the same consecrated ground, and this fate will be duly noted on baptismal records kept in the same closet. When the festivals, symbols, and practices that circumscribe a community are all tied up in a common religious observance, religious struggle is all or nothing.
Religious toleration in such an environment would be something like, “We won’t kill you as long as you stay out of our community.” But that was kinda mean I guess, so we re-defined community.
The story of Pariahs, begins with case of eunuchs, who by fits and starts, came to dominate the earliest civil services. Having few or any earthly loyalties would prove useful to sovereigns. Often, too useful.
And yet another yanked from the “archives” (which are not apparently anywhere online), Latham considers the evolution of Lay Preaching.
The tension between the Church and the lay preachers was precisely that between modern media and the so-called “comment section”. The lay preachers thought the Church was corrupt and useless, and finally had a platform on which to say it; the Church saw that lay preaching would be the downfall of the Church, and wanted to stamp it out or control it. But the two camps were tied together, because the reformers wanted to critique and supplant the forms and functions acquired by the medieval church whose power they coveted.
This Week at Thermidor Mag
Huge week at Thermidor. P.T. Carlo and Nathan Duffy are on the podcast discussing the magnitude as well as causes of the heroin epidemic: The White Death.
P. T. Carlo writes in defense of Steve King’s Incoherent Blasphemy. There was, of course, nothing incoherent about it. The Liberal Media horrified reaction to “other peoples’ babies” provides an rare opportunity to look into the hive mind that powers it.
Mark Citadel is up with some fresh Dispatches From the Witch Hunt—the Youtube witch hunt to be exact. Citadel chronicles the Not-the-Onion-esque show-trials of Jontron, Pewdiepie, and Colin Moriarty for their recent crimes of hexing oppressed citizens’ crops and deforming their yet-to-be born children. But have the fashionably enraged pitchfork wielding townspeople overplayed their hand here?
An historical and philosophical piece from N. T. Carlsbad: On Legitimacy And Republicanism.
John Elliot looks at the recent outcome of the Dutch parliamentary elections in Wilders Has The Whip Hand. Wilders’ Freedom Party may not have performed as well as some had hoped (and the civilized world feared), but the former left coalition was resoundingly defeated. What sort of coalition will take its place, and how stable it can be remains to be seen.
Finally, newcomer Elena Russo considers Tradition: A Call To Bear The Unspeakable Burden. The burden here is the duty, moral and material, that people traditionally have towards their people… should they be fortunate enough to have one. This was really a superb article. For example:
There is an irreconcilable stand-off between Christianity and Liberal Progressivism concerning the individual soul. The Liberal holds that the individual’s foremost right and only duty is to dictate his own destiny and choose whatever is best for him as an individual; one’s self-interests come first. Christianity’s counter argument refutes bluntly that man’s nature is and should be one defined primarily by selfishness, instead in the Christian anthropological schema, it is considered a great thorn to his growth in virtue…. While modern man seeks happiness through his own achievements, the Christian seeks true joy through living harmoniously with his fellow man.
Which should itself be seen as an achievement. It certainly will be at your funeral. The Committee were pleased to grant this one an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀.
This Week Around The Orthosphere
Matt Briggs links to a survey that suggests a whopping 2% of Unitarian Universalists are against same-sex “marriage”. Against it! Looks like the UU’s still have their work cut out for them: Out damn-ed spot!! He also takes note of The Guardian‘s: “How Statistics Lost Their Power”.
And Briggs dons his other other speciality hat—the cryptography one—with Thoughts On One-Time Pads For Cell Phones.
From Kristor, “If you could heal yourself, you’d already have done it“. Also there: how the Conflation of Ends Ruins Everything; which stands as a pretty compelling argument for natural market solutions whenever possible.
In general, if you have to maintain an artificial stimulus such as a regulation or a subsidy in order to get the effect you want—out of yourself, your property, your enterprise, or your society—it’s a pretty good indication that the artificial stimulus is compensating for an obscure systemic defect of some sort, that remains uncorrected….
In any case, the artificial stimulus is not likely to work for long, because the natural systems it is trying to correct (or, as when we expect from reality what it is not fitted to generate for us, to “correct”) are going to amplify their outputs in response to its presence, thus compensating its effects and frustrating its ends. Such is habituation; such is homeostasis. To get the same artificial effect your policy had at first intended, you’ll have to up the dosage. It’s a vicious cycle, that as it explodes consumes more and more of overall system resources, while performing worse and worse.
Kristor snags and ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀ for his work here. This too was remarkably neoreactionary in orientation: Righteousness is Adaptive Because the Cosmos Is Just.
The fact that evolution has generated codes of righteous conduct—of formalized moral laws—does not then indicate that morality is nothing more than a happenstantial product of iterated memetic variation under selection pressures. On the contrary, it indicates that morality is an aspect of the cosmic landscape that is prior to biological evolution, and pervasively conditions it, *so that* iterated rounds of selection by the morally ordered cosmic landscape on memetic variations can occur in the first place, and proceed to generate in organisms moral sentiments that are more or less well-fitted to their world.
No cosmic order, then no selector, and no selection.
Also at The Orthosphere proper, J. M. Smith has a nice meditation upon Life in a Rat Ball.
Speaking of Professor Haidt, Mark Richardson has been reading The Righteous Mind.
Sydney Trads were up to Meeting Mark Latham—A Curious Identitarianism for Australia. Also another inspiring video: Jordan Peterson Recounts a Story about Egyptian Gods.
In kicking off what promises to be an interesting series, Cato the Younger tackles The Hobbes-Lockean Foundations of Modernity, with a step-up from Ferrara’s Liberty: The God That Failed.
This Week in Arts & Letters
Chris Gale offers a mesmerizing Musical Interlude. Also some outstanding commentary on Romans 1—the “Natural Law Chapter”—Evil makes you stupid. And Gale has a Kipple to honor a maybe sooner than later Brexit: “Brown Bess”.
Finally, the obligatory Sunday Holy Sonnet from John Donne.
Richard Carroll reviews From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought. A tantalizing title that…
…suffers the same weakness as almost all anthologies, and the whole is less than the sum of its parts.
Which doesn’t mean it doesn’t have tons of interesting material.
Dalrymple is over at City Journal, with extensive commentary on the “date rape” (it was neither) trial of two British soccer players: Sordid but Not Guilty. Also there: Asians apparently aren’t “diverse” anymore.
Some speculative short fiction at Albion Awakening: The Old Port—A Fictional Meditation on the Traditional Latin Mass imagines a restored England as a Catholic Monarchy.
This Week… Elsewhere
The Anti-Puritan has a beautiful aphorism regarding Serenity and Outrage. Also a list (not exhaustive I don’t think) of Catastrophes caused by the delusional belief in human equality.
Unorthodoxy has eyes on culture: Degenerate Disney or Degenerate America? Well… Disney certainly isn’t helping anything. And some commentary from the director of The Witch. So progressive he just might a reactionary plant.
Chris Gale discusses the dirty little secret of the medical professions: “horizontal violence”. “Pathologizisng all rudeness and disagreement may be counterproductive,” he suspects. (So, you know that’s exactly what they’re gonna do.)
TUJ is really doing some of the best work in the ‘sphere when it comes to historical analysis of the bureaucracy. This one is no exception: Neutralizing the Social Engineering State—Budget Cuts or Restore the Spoils System?
Butch Leghorn has some video of the Best of Lee Kuan Yew.
Heartiste speculates a litany of potential Consequences Of Multigenerational Low Testosterone. Also there: The Modern Sexual Market And Our Coming Idiocracy. If the devil told you that hell was a lousy place, would you disbelieve him on account of his being the devil?
Harper McAlpine Black takes a measured view of seasteading in Floating Utopias. I couldn’t help but notice the big-bottomedness of the computer animated woman.
Giovanni Dannato tackles The Problem of Rent-Seeking. As in actual rent-seeking, not the political analogical kind.
Hank Delacroix offers a (quazi- ?) autobiographical sketch on Glam Condo Life.
Greg Cochran has a hilarious joke for St. Paddy’s Day.
Thrasymachus distinguishes Anti-Natalism vs. Non-Natalism vs. Incompetent Natalism, each of which are promoted in various ways today. His answer:
This culture wants to kill us so the only hope is counter-culture.
Counter-culture for white people. Who’s gonna do it?
That’s all folks. Be sure to trigger a social sciences academic professional near you. Keep on reactin! Til next week: NBS, over an out!!