Thursday, June 18, 2009 61 Comments

The crimes of James von Brunn and Marcus Epstein

I feel it's really unfortunate that so few anti-government blogs have commented on these cases. While the crimes themselves may be more sordid than historic, the entire incident is a fresh fillet of wild history - to be grilled and served now, while it's still twitching.

But wait. Who are these people? What did they do, and why did they do it?

At present, everyone not in a Faraday cage on the dark side of Mars knows who James von Brunn is. But since here at UR we always write sub specie aeternitas, James von Brunn is an 88-year-old retired Navy officer who attacked the Holocaust Museum in Washington with a .22 rifle, killing a security guard and getting shot in the head in return. And earning the wall-to-wall coverage of which he perhaps dreamed.

Why? Some of his writings are online:
We fought two disastrous wars for the JEWS against Christian Aryan Germany. It is time to pay the piper. IT WILL HURT BADLY as North America and the Caribbean become ONE STATE within a ZIONIST GLOBAL EMPIRE.
Mr. von Brunn has a punchy diction which Judge Sotomayor could learn a lot from, and shares her interest in race, ethnicity, history and public policy. His grammar is better. She prevails on tone, typography and general sanity. As for content, perhaps a debate could be held. If Mr. von Brunn succumbs to his sucking head wound, a stand-in can be found any day at Stormfront.

(UR, of course, is a pro-Jew blog - not popular with this segment, to say the least. Anti-Jew comments are hereby prohibited, as are anything smacking of a personality cult. I'm sure everyone has heard enough from you Nazi swine, and it is simply bad form to praise anyone in his own comments section. Enforcement is on the honor system, as always.)

As for Marcus Epstein, he is a 25-year-old right-wing activist who works for Pat Buchanan's sister. Unlike James von Brunn, Mr. Epstein is a perfectly coherent writer. At least, when he's not drunk.

When he is drunk - at least, according to an Alford plea in court documents stolen by pro-government activists, a crime for which no one will be punished - he does things like this:
On July 7, 2007, at approximately 7:15 p.m. at Jefferson and M Street, Northwest, in Washington, D.C., defendant was walking down the street making offensive remarks when he encountered the complainant, Ms. [REDACTED], who is African-American. The defendant uttered, “Nigger,” as he delivered a karate chop to Ms. [REDACTED]’s head.
Alas, this progressive has it exactly right. Marcus Epstein is a racist. His inner self has impressed itself on the public record. He will always be McGregor the pigfscker. He might as well find a way to relax and enjoy it, preferably one that doesn't involve attacking museums.

(Watch Bay Buchanan, most nobly, defend him. Look at the comments on the article. This is Marcus Epstein's future. A friend of mine told me of a fellow freshman who in orientation at Stanford, in the late '90s, cracked some mildly racist joke. He was socially ostracized for his entire four years. For the rest of his career, Epstein will be employed by racists, or by no one. Very reminiscent of, say, Czechoslovakia in the '70s.)

Now: not every wingnut is a reactionary (I'm sure both von Brunn and Epstein, for very different reasons, would be horrified by UR), but every reactionary is a wingnut. Like it or not. And needless to say, wingnuts should want to talk about James von Brunn and Marcus Epstein, because here is a rare case of wingnuts in the news.

You'll notice that when the Times does a story on hang gliding, or whatever, the hang-gliding community is buzzing about it for weeks. When normal people see people like them described in the news, they find the experience highly informative and worthy of discussion.

Indeed, it often tells them more about the news than about themselves. And this indeed is our case today. It's not quite the same when normal people see abnormal people, who have some things in common with normal people except that they're abnormal, in the news - but it's close. Are there normal wingnuts? Yes, Ms. Beria, there are. They all read UR, or at least Steve.

And as for the abnormal ones, there is certainly no covering them up! This is yet another department in which, yet again, the right fails by adopting the tactics of the left. The left can cover things up by ignoring them. When the left stonewalls, it works. When the right tries to stonewall, it is creepy and pathetic. More on this in a little.

So as students of current history, how shall we evaluate these crimes - obviously, there can be no dispute that they were crimes - and the criminals behind them? What is the story here?

The first question we have to answer is: are these crimes important? If they are important, public attention is appropriately directed at important matters. If they are not important, public attention is inappropriately directed at unimportant matters. Which is important - so the events belong in our history, either way.

(Epstein's case has received little attention from the true press so far - one mention only in this gloriously-Vyshinskyesque Times column. But this may be due only to the delicate matter of the "obtained" documents, or other mysterious media internals. I expect to see more around the sentencing, and obviously the incident will be a permanent millstone for Tom Tancredo.)

When testing the importance of a crime, we have two tests. Is the crime itself, alone, important? Or, if not, does its historical context render it important?

First, let's consider the crimes, alone. Here is what happened. In Washington in 2007, a young drunk man was walking down the street cursing, and hit a random bystander. In Washington in 2009, a deranged old man brought a hunting rifle to a museum and shot a security guard.

We see instantly that when we describe the crimes, alone, they are - while certainly crimes - of little actual importance. Any public shooting is certainly a news event, and von Brunn's age alone perhaps provides a certain human-interest factor. This perhaps could qualify for a clip, segment or bus-plunge clipping.

But while perhaps interesting in this sense, there is certainly no sense in which von Brunn's crime - alone - could be described as important. A crazy, pointless murder in Washington, DC? It may not happen every day. But it happens every other day.

As for Epstein's crime - getting drunk and slapping someone on the street - it does happen every day. (Despite the "karate chop," any actual injury to the victim would surely be reported. My guess is that Epstein is not, in fact, a karate master, and his actual wasted intent was to pretend to karate-chop his unfortunate victim. But it would be nice to hear his side sometime.) Any record that incorporates any such crime - alone - is no history, but a police blotter.

We cannot consider the crime without the criminal. If an important person commits an unimportant crime, the event remains important. If Barack Obama got drunk and slapped someone on the street, it would be important.

James von Brunn was certainly not important. Marcus Epstein is a staffer, possibly the only staffer, at a tiny right-wing PAC on the outer fringes of legitimate politics. Not much importance here. Indeed, is this crime - alone - important enough to change Marcus Epstein's life, as described above?

If a friend of yours (I do not know Marcus Epstein) got wasted, and slapped and cursed at some random woman on the street, what would you say? "I disown you, Marcus, I hope you will fall into ignominy and despair, return to drink and kill yourself. How could you get wasted, and slap and curse at some random woman on the street? What if you were just walking down the street, and a drunk person cursed and slapped you? Please, Marcus, never speak to me again."

So far, this analysis does not tell us that these crimes are unimportant. It tells us that they are not important of themselves. In historical context, however, they may remain quite important.

How can a crime be unimportant in itself, but important in historical context? It must be part of a pattern of crimes. Each crime is unimportant, but the pattern is relevant. The pattern has weight, meaning, power; it moves the course of history. And thus it must be noted; to omit it is a distortion. And thus an unimportant crime may be worthy of notice, because it may be noticed to illustrate the pattern.

Since we're already on the subject of Hitler, there's no better example but the pattern of street crime committed by the Sturmabteilung in the pre-1933 period. (Note the real, ie non-Nazi, meaning of the word - basically, special forces. The hideously-comical nature of the early NSDAP is already visible in this appropriation.)

That some SA-Mann bashed some Communist over the head with a stein, making him see so double he could read Marx and Engels at the same time: not important. That well before 1933, the NSDAP intimidated its opponents by physical force: important.

In short, the crimes of the SA were political crimes. Both today's crimes must be at least candidates for this status. Like the Nazis, both these individuals hold unusual political views which contrast sharply with the views of the majority. It is certainly at least plausible to suspect the possibility of political crime.

Political crime is a serious matter because it reflects directly on the cohesion of the state. In any stable sovereign, cumbersome and byzantine though it may be, the imperium maius in all cases rests perfectly within some internal organ (in our case, the Supreme Court). No power can or does challenge the physical authority of this sovereign organ.

State security in this sense is absolute and boolean, like all security. Any systematic breach in it is a step down the ladder in any classification of government quality - comparable, perhaps, to the corruption of the police or the adoption of paper money. Any pattern of political crime renders the State that much less a state, and no crackdown on it can be too harsh.

Given this truism, the existence of political crime must depend on toleration. Political crime is an effect, not a cause. It exists when, and only when, it is tolerated. For example, the toleration of the SA is widely, and I presume correctly, attributed to the "boys will be boys" attitude of German judges in the Weimar era, whose Wilhelmine training tended to give them some sympathy for the nationalist right (of which the NSDAP was only one member).

Of course, there are important political crimes and unimportant ones. We seek only the former. Therefore, with this piquant and memorable illustration, we can head straight for the goal and attempt to produce a definition of an important political crime.

One simple way to classify political crime is to classify it in terms of the political cause it is associated with. Therefore, we could say that political crime in a bad cause is very, very bad - and thus extremely important. Whereas political crime in a good cause is perhaps excusable - at least, certainly more excusable that the same crime with no political motive at all. Therefore, it is more likely to be unimportant, and therefore lauded.

Have you ever found yourself applying this standard, dear reader? If so, you are not alone. We will call it the antinomian interpretation of political crime. Let us observe a few examples.

Thus we can say that James von Brunn is bad, because he stood for neo-Nazism, and neo-Nazis are bad. And Udham Singh - to pick a random revolutionary murderer - stood for the liberation of India, and is therefore -

Perhaps not good. But understandable. Definitely understandable! And if you go to Italy, you may well find yourself in a Piazza Oberdan. Who was this strange man with the strange name? He, too, is understandable. Unlike James von Brunn, of course. And then, of course - and closer to home - there is one with an oddly similar name...

It is easy to see the pitfalls of this system for analyzing political crimes. Often, our judgment of whether a political movement is good or bad will depend on its political crimes. What we have here, however, is a system for analyzing political crimes which depends on the output of our process, the notoriously difficult problem of determining whether a movement is good or bad. We have just invited some serious circular reasoning into this already-challenging problem.

So if the highly-subjective antinomian approach is discarded, what more objective criterion can we find? One candidate is effectiveness. We can say that a political crime is important if, and only if, it is effective. This is the pronomian approach to political crime.

The pronomian defines a a true political crime as one which is a functioning part of a functioning political mechanism. For example, the crimes of the SA are important, because the SA was a functioning mechanism which achieved the goals of the NSDAP, ie, smashing the heads of its political opponents. It cannot be proven that without the SA, the NSDAP would never have come to power, but it is surely at least plausible.

A true political crime is important because its motivation is rational political calculation. While those who joined the SA had not reckoned with the superior military capacity and indomitable destructive drive of America, they otherwise made an excellent choice both individually and collectively. Collectively they achieved their political goals; individually, they received many considerations in the New Germany.

(Note, while we're on the subject of Hitler, we should take a quick look at the most common fatal error in the historiography of World War II: admitting the Holocaust to any consideration of Allied motives. The Holocaust is excluded in all discussions of Allied war motivations - far from nursing it as propaganda, the Allies bear nontrivial complicity for covering it up. Whatever war FDR was fighting, it was not a war to save the Jews.

Yet this assumption is so easily assumed that it need never be stated, for everyone knows it is false. If you have not already passed through the fires of UR, removing this small counterfeit part from your World War II should have the same effect as removing the international Jewish conspiracy from James von Brunn's - whatever rubble remains, it can no longer be described as a historical narrative.

If America's war wasn't a war to save the Jews, what was it? It wasn't a war against the Axis plan for world domination, for there was no such plan - that was Allied propaganda. In fact, there was barely any such thing as an "Axis." And nor was it a war for the liberty of man - considering the concurrent embrace of Stalin. So what was it? Here is my favorite clue, which I cling to like an anti-Semite. Here at UR, we often mutter darkly about the international Protestant conspiracy. We're not joking, either.)

But in any case, since the crimes of the SA were true political crimes, functional parts of a functioning mechanism, they are important. They exist as the result of a rational motivation, and diagnose a serious ill at the heart of the State (the corruption of its judicial system), and any historian writing in 1932, if he wrote correctly, would judge them thus. Of course, he might also note that it was not the Right which brought political crime into Germany.

For an example closer to home, it is no secret that white supremacy in the South between Reconstruction and the civil-rights movement was maintained by true political crime, unabashed and tolerated. While it must be borne in mind that by no means all lynching victims were innocent, lynching was most definitely a political crime - it was used by one faction to forcibly subordinate another, and it could only exist where it was tolerated by the courts. It is no secret that this was part of a general pattern of lawlessness, which Washington could not permit indefinitely - despite the corrupt bargain that elected Hayes.

A crime which appears related to some political movement, but is not in fact effective, might be defined as a parapolitical crime. That is, it appears to be a political crime; it resembles the crimes of political movements in the past, or has some imaginary connection to some real movement of the present, or some real connection to some imaginary movement - but is not, in fact, a functioning part in a functioning mechanism.

Thus its perpetrators are not rational attackers. And thus their only possible reason for committing their crimes is that they are out of their frickin' gourds.

I feel it is extremely clear that the crimes of both von Brunn and Epstein is parapolitical in nature. It appears to be political crime. But it is actually just the act of a man who is crazy or drunk, respectively. And it cannot be even remotely described as effective - thanks to the brave efforts of the few, but proud, anti-fascist activists, these crimes may even be counterproductive to the general wingnut cause. Ya think?

Note the interesting parapolitical structure of these offences. The suggestive parallel - the crimes of the SA, for von Brunn; the regime of Jim Crow, for Epstein. You will notice that nothing of the kind exists in the present, though it certainly existed in the past.

If the crimes of von Brunn and Epstein are part of a pattern, they are part of a pattern that no longer exists. As Hume noted, the past exists only in our imagination. It could be the case that Epstein's victim is terrified of returning to Georgetown lest she be struck and demeaned once again by some Jewish-Korean drunken master, and it could be the case that Americans are afraid to speak out against the Holocaust lest 88-year-old men drive up in Gran Torinos and perforate them with a hunting rifles. But it is not the case - and if it was, it would be evidence of mental derangement, individual or general. Reality exists. Ernst Röhm doesn't.

Of course, these patterns existed in the past, and could exist in future. But it did not exist when the crimes were committed, and thus the crime cannot be a true political crime. Therefore, we are looking at parapolitical crimes, which are unimportant by definition.

Any attention directed at them is therefore misdirected. Here at UR, we are of course familiar with these Jedi mind tricks. Nonetheless, it is always fun to capture another in the wild.

Why would your attention be misdirected? Well, allow me to redirect your attention. I suspect that what happened in the plea negotiations between Marcus Epstein and the prosecution was that he agreed to a bargain that would be sealed, thus would not destroy his life. This could not possibly happen if the prosecution did not, knowing the actual facts, agree that he was in some sense morally innocent. Epstein signed the paper, trusted the government, and got pwned.

Of course, this is just a guess - we have no way of knowing the actual circumstances under which these documents were released. The pro-government activists who acquired them, obviously individuals with a great personal commitment to law and transparency, used the word "obtained." The presumed process is that someone in the court released them, and this release was certainly not through the court's official channels.

If this is true, "crime" seems like the right word. If the documents were due to be released anyway, the crime was a minor crime, comparable to most Washington leaks. If not, as I surmise, it seems morally more serious. Either way, the act is a technicality; it is not a crime in an important different sense, because it can be and never will be prosecuted. An unenforced law is no law at all. (It might actually be morally wrong to prosecute anyone for such an offence.)

Does this remind you of anything, by any chance?

When, earlier, I summarized this argument with a link, I linked to this law-magazine article. The entire article is worth reading - it is not long. But here is a condensation:
A federal judge Tuesday rebuked an attorney, an expert witness and a reporter for The New York Times for violating a protective order in a mass-tort action concerning the health risks of Zyprexa, an anti-psychotic drug manufactured by Eli Lilly.

Eastern District of New York Judge Jack B. Weinstein, said the men -- Alaska attorney James Gottstein; Dr. David Egilman, an expert hired by plaintiffs; and Alex Berenson, of the Times -- had "conspired to obtain and publish documents in knowing violation of a court order not to do so, and that they executed the conspiracy using other people as their agents in crime."
[...]
The documents were covered by a protective order, and Weinstein said all three men knew about the order.

The judge alleged, based on testimony from Gottstein, that Berenson and Egilman had devised a way to circumvent the order: Have Gottstein subpoena Egilman for a case in Alaska, and then send the documents to Berenson for an exclusive story.
[...]
In a statement, the Times said that because it [ie, the Times - MM] had declined to allow Berenson to testify, the judge came to a conclusion that "vastly overstates Alex's role in the release of the documents."

The statement added: "We continue to believe that the articles we published were newsworthy and accurate and we stand by the reporting."

Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law, said that while lawyers are constrained by ethics rules of their profession, journalists need only obey the law in reporting a story.

"But the bottom line is, there is no First Amendment right to violate a judge's order," he said.

Although Berenson might not face sanctions, Gillers said he might yet be called to testify about the case.

"It could come to pass that his testimony is sought in conjunction with any penalty against the other two," Gillers said. "He may not be a party to anything but he may be a witness."
[...]
"Even if one believes, as apparently did the conspirators, that their ends justified their means, courts may not ignore such illegal conduct without dangerously attenuating their power to conduct necessary litigation effectively on behalf of all the people," the judge wrote. "Such unprincipled revelation of sealed documents seriously compromises the ability of litigants to speak and reveal information candidly to each other; these illegalities impede private and peaceful resolution of disputes."
If this isn't lawlessness, what is? In fact - if it is not true political crime, what is?

The New York Times, via its reporters acting as proxies, steals documents. It violates laws that everyone else must follow. It uses the information in these documents to sell newspapers, and profits by it. And most important, it uses this process to exercise political power, informal but no less real. Therefore, this crime - not necessarily as an individual event, but as a pattern - is a functioning part in a functioning mechanism. It is therefore a true political crime.

The most we can say is that this is a different kind of true political crime. It does not involve bashing Communists over the head with beer steins. It involves stealing documents. This is true, and must be remembered. (But remember also that what makes political crime important is the presence of systematic criminality in one's political structure, rather than details of the crimes themselves - though any widespread pattern of crime must reflect misgovernment.)

The fact that the Times may commit this class of crime with impunity, while I can't and you can't, enables it (with the true press, of course, as a whole) to act as almost a sovereign force. With the power that the true press wields by virtue of this authorized political crime, it acts as an almost irresistible force in the departments of its "coverage." In 1974 it defeated a President, and only one bastion now remains. The Supreme Court, still, is sovereign - but its Justices read the paper like everyone else, and they do not get to assign their own journalists.

Granted, the actual theft of actual documents, through criminal conspiracy as described, is not a common event. However, please feel free to go through today's Times, and look at which articles are the result of public information and which are not. You will certainly find some "stories" which contain only information which any energetic person (with a press pass) could find and reproduce.

But most of your important news stories will be anonymously sourced, meaning they are the result of information disclosures which are not public. Some of these sources are legally authorized to disclose the information they disclose. Some are not. And no one is ever prosecuted for any of this, except by some chance if they happen to be a Republican.

This is considered a normal and ethical practice in early 21st-century journalism. It is actually a criminal practice, which any other century would recognize as such. Proper practice in official information disclosure is actually followed, at present, more or less, by one class of agency: publicly traded corporations, which must follow Regulation Fair Disclosure.

If Reg FD were applied to USG and actually enforced, the true press as we know it would cease to exist. A corporation that follows Reg FD may not leak, voluntarily or not. And, in general, they don't. (The result in my own field is a beautifully adversarial relationship with the world's healthiest duopoly of journalism - El Reg and L'Inq.)

Effectively, the business of the Times as an institution of journalism can be described as the business of stealing secrets from the public trust, and selling them. Note also that this cozy social network of power is what makes the Times irresponsible as an intellectual sovereign - its access to the secrets of power makes it impossible to displace through mere competing honesty. No competitor, however truthful, can offer anything like a matching buffet of material non-public information.

So, setting bait to catch a salmon, we have hooked a killer whale. The logical net we wove to catch von Brunn and Epstein has passed up von Brunn and Epstein, but "Punch" Sulzberger appears to be writhing in it. Oops! What do we do? Sue the Times?

No - cut the line. Obviously, this is an absurd result, and there must be something wrong with it. The New York Times cannot possibly be a criminal organization. There must be something wrong with the logic above. I invite all UR readers - reactionary or progressive - to discover it.

But this is not the only lesson that the cases of von Brunn and Epstein teach us. Hardly! We have only scratched the skin of Lord Foul. Since we are through the armor, let us dig briefly in the black, sulfurous flesh, and see if we can't nibble off a vile meatball or too.

There is a fascinating duality in the relationship between Right and Left, as we see it exposed in the entire incident - the crimes and the strange reaction to them.

In this broad pattern, leftists actually believe that the Right is fundamentally unscrupulous and criminal, in exactly the same way in which the Left is fundamentally unscrupulous and criminal.

Meanwhile, many, if not most, if not (in some ways) almost all, rightists are corrupted by the pervasive temptations of the Left - plus a few unique temptations of their own, like knee-high leather boots. They allow their compass to drift from true Right; they adopt not only the ideas and buzzwords of the Left, but also its antinomian mindset, and its tactics. And they thus descend to political crime - thus confirming the suspicions of said leftists.

This pattern, once noticed, is easily seen across the 20th century. Unlike most mental parasites, it has a morph for both right and left. It is therefore stable. And it is a difficult feat of Jedi mind-trick resistance for either a rightist or a leftist to escape from it.

For the first half of the pattern, I have personally observed that most progressives, even well-informed progressives, have no idea whatsoever what right-wingers think and why. They can barely tell a neocon from a paleocon. The difference (not a terribly subtle one) between the ideology of James von Brunn, and that of Marcus Epstein, might as well be 13th-century French poetry as far as they're concerned. Indeed, they may know more about 13th-century French poetry.

Therefore, it is quite plausible for them to think that the right side of their political dial works in exactly the same way as the left side, only reversed. And they know the left side that well. Thus, if on the social graph of revolutionary politics, Barack Obama and Louis Farrakhan are linked by one degree of separation, the same is probably true for Dick Cheney and James von Brunn.

As Voltaire said, those who can believe absurdities will commit atrocities. And they most certainly do. You'll note that once we get to Louis Farrakhan and friends, we are not just talking about stealing documents.

Suffice it to say that the general flow of the progressive social graph is "no enemies to the left, no friends to the right," and the general flow of the conservative social graph is - exactly the same. Who operates under the rule "no enemies to the right, no friends to the left?" Answer: basically, no one. If you doubt me on this, this one is worth investigating.

Here again we see our old friend, tu quoque. Because progressives adopt the antinomian definition, which allows them to minimize all kinds of crimes committed by their political allies, a mountain of revolutionary or democratic lawlessness is a molehill in their eyes. A molehill of conservative or reactionary lawlessness becomes a mountain. Thus, in classic Don Quixote fashion, they crusade against right-wing thuggery, ie fascism, which is nothing but a fading, distorted and now largely-imaginary reflection of their own revolutionary violence.

You might have noticed that James von Brunn didn't commit his crime at the Commucaust Museum. This is not next door to the Holocaust Museum. Nor is it ten times the size. It does not even exist, and nor is there even any such catchy term. And what if it did? Would Kendall Myers show up at its door, and shoot some poor redneck guard?

Without the Bolsheviki, it is hard to imagine the Nazis. Without the French Revolution, it is almost impossible to imagine either. Without the American Revolution, it is impossible to imagine the French Revolution. Without the English Civil War and "Glorious Revolution," it is impossible to imagine the American Revolution. Thus the Jacobite or Legitimist alone may regard the last four centuries with simple, unmitigated regret and revulsion. And yet, I regularly see young people strolling around with hammer-and-sickle T-shirts.

In fact, it is really quite ballsy for a society which has adopted the principle of disparate impact as a fundamental axiom of its jurisprudence to even mention the Holocaust, much less make it the central idol of its civilization. What do you think the chief "Aryan" complaint about Jews was? The shape of their noses? No - that all the high-status professions were full of Jews. In wild disproportion to the numbers in the population.

This was a perfectly true statement. Unfortunately, its simplest explanation was not an international Jewish conspiracy, but mere Ashkenazi intelligence. Similarly, if you understand the crimes of Epstein and von Brunn as further diabolical acts in the service of the international white conspiracy, you may well be a progressive. Forty years after the death of Jim Crow, the concept of "racism" is rapidly becoming a classic conspiracy theory. It even has a name.

Rassenkunde
redux! Hitler returns to haunt us, with a vengeance. Meanwhile, in the now-familiar ironic structure, we see that the Holocaust itself is a true conspiracy theory - that is, a gigantic crime carried out as a secret government program, which actually occurred.

And once again, we converge on this strange Dog Star of our society: Hitler. Even the common name of our era is a Hitler name. It is called the postwar era. It could just as easily be the post-Hitler era, for this is exactly what it is.

And Hitler is clearly relevant to this post. So let us gaze into his terrible, mesmerizing eyes (by all reports he had the same gift as Rasputin) once again. We have explained, as unpejoratively as possible, how to escape from the deadly left-right pattern on the left. Let's see it on the right.

The difference between Right and Left is that, since Left is antinomian and Right pronomian, political crime generally works for the Left. This is why the Left finds it so easy to believe that crimes like that of Epstein and von Brunn are truly political, not merely parapolitical.

For exactly this reason, political crime only rarely works for the Right. Therefore, as a practical and objective matter, leftists are advised to be as devious and ruthless as they can get away with. Whereas rightists should make a habit of rigorous obedience to the law - not only because it is more righteous, but also because it is more effective.

Political murder, creepy stonewalling, mass demonstrations, personality cults, popular elections, crusading journalism, mob intimidation, mendacious pseudohistory, revolutionary cells, direct mail and academic mafiosi: for left against right, all are threads in the great pageant of revolution. For right against left, all but the last are sewage in the great cabernet of reaction.

(And even the last has a bit of that funky barnyard flavor. If you are a young man of reactionary spirit and great intelligence, and you must harness your chaotic, Nietzchean instincts, consider becoming a tenured professor of anything. First step: read Milosz on ketman. But few indeed are called to this termite's career.)

Leftist ideas can be right, and leftist tactics can be effective. But these cases are the exceptions. Conservatives adopt these ideas and tactics, and lose, because they are conservatives and not reactionaries. If they were reactionaries, they would seek to abolish leftism. Since they are conservatives, they seek to reform it. Thus they are easily drawn to the shibboleths and methods of yesterday's progressives - for example, protesting Barack Obama's political crimes in the name and style of the Boston Tea Party, another classic outbreak of political violence.

The arms and garments of the left will always tempt the right. They tempt the left, too. They work. However, it is easy to see why they are fundamentally leftist. They are fundamentally works of the Devil. The Devil, as Dr. Johnson put it, was the first Whig. There are those who think they can beat the Devil by joining him, but alas - they are mistaken.

It was Carlyle who realized that left and right are not parallel but opposite. The struggle of right against left is the struggle of order against disorder, cosmos against chaos, God against the Devil. You may not believe in God and the Devil as physical entities, and neither do I. An inability to understand them as metaphors is not evidence of a free mind, but a captive one.

Order need not stand defenseless before disorder. Fire can be fought with fire. But when the angels fight, they fight because one must fight to win. When the demons fight, they fight because they are demons from hell, who were born in fire and will love it forever.

Angels who fall prey to this spirit become demons. Not only are the worst fights those of demon and demon - but when the game is a game of fire, the lightly-corrupted angel has no chance at all against Beelzebub and his old prison crew.

This applies not just to James von Brunn and his .22 rifle, or even to Marcus Epstein and his drunken "karate chop." It applies to Marcus Epstein and his political activism, all of which is democratic and conservative in spirit, and none of which strikes me as any more productive - even assuming the exact goals of Marcus Epstein - than hitting random people in the street.

The wounds of USG are great and awful, and if they could be fixed with a drunken karate chop or two, we would have to seriously consider the possibility. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is not the case.

But just as they will not be fixed with a drunken karate chop, they will not be fixed by Pat Buchanan's "peasants with pitchforks" or Sam Francis's middle-American radicals. And this is precisely the audience to which Mr. Epstein has spent his short career peddling ideas. Supposing Marcus Epstein had all these people, what exactly would he do with them?

There are no longer enough to win a universal-suffrage election. And this "Vaisya" population - the same that backed Hitler - is the exact converse of a Pareto elite. Every bone in USG's body is designed to exclude them, whether they win the election or lose it, from power. So I see only one realistic answer: the Devil's work. Mr. Epstein, the Devil will always out-devil you.

61 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Effectively, the business of the Times as an institution of journalism can be described as the business of stealing secrets from the public trust, and selling them.

"Stealing" is not really the proper word, since no secret appears in the NYT unless a member of the Cathedral wants it there. The real business of the NYT is to act as the deniable transmission belt for government policy (i.e. to transmit information that the USG wants known but does not wish government officials to "officially" announce) and also to act as an arena for the resolution of factional disputes (if official A does not like what official B is doing, official A leaks the content of official B's policy to the NYT).

The real political criminal is not the NYT but the people who are leaking information to it. The NYT is merely a willing tool.

June 18, 2009 at 6:59 AM  
Blogger Daniel A. Nagy said...

Feel like nitpicking? You can annotate this article at Thiblo.com.

June 18, 2009 at 7:22 AM  
Anonymous Randy said...

Angels and Demons. What can I say but, well said.

June 18, 2009 at 7:53 AM  
Anonymous Lugo said...

If America's war wasn't a war to save the Jews, what was it? It wasn't a war against the Axis plan for world domination, for there was no such plan - that was Allied propaganda. In fact, there was barely any such thing as an "Axis." And nor was it a war for the liberty of man - considering the concurrent embrace of Stalin. So what was it? Here is my favorite clue, which I cling to like an anti-Semite. Here at UR, we often mutter darkly about the international Protestant conspiracy. We're not joking, either.

The purpose of WW2 was to prevent Germany and Japan from dominating Eurasia. There wasn't an Axis "plan" for global domination, but the practical effect of Axis victory would have been domination of Eurasia - i.e. the Germans wanted to dominate Europe and destroy the USSR, while the Japanese wanted to dominate Asia and destroy the USSR. From the US perspective, this was something that was worth fighting to stop, even if the Germans and Japanese publicly renounced for all eternity any intention of projecting power and influence into the western hemisphere (of course, such a promise could never be relied on in practice).

It is beside the point that the "Axis" powers cooperated very poorly. US policy from 1933 to 1941 strove to prevent the Germans and Japanese from cooperating with one another, and it would have been completely irresponsible for the US to assume that the Germans and Japanese would not eventually do so. The US would have been even more irresponsible to assume that Germany and Japan would not coordinate against the United States in the event that they defeated the USSR and China. Since Germany and Japan both hated the United States, a German victory in Europe and a Japanese victory in Asia would be extremely bad news for the US even if both Germany and Japan were acting entirely independently of one another.

If you look at WW2 from the standpoint of geopolitics, you don't have to get wrapped around the axle trying to figure out who the "good guys" were. Any American president from 1933 to 1945 would have - quite correctly - sought to support Russia against German and Japanese aggression, regardless of any ideological differences between the USA and the USSR or whether or not Stalin was actually worse than Hitler. Of course, one can argue that the US botched the endgame, and the effort to stop the Axis from dominating Eurasia raised the possibility that the Soviets would dominate Eurasia. Correcting that error, and preventing the Soviets from dominating Eurasia, was what the Cold War was all about - but this later history does not mean that WW2 was "not worth doing" from a geopolitical standpoint.

June 18, 2009 at 8:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, I don't understand the last two sentences. I hope some kindly reactionary will happen along and explain them.

June 18, 2009 at 9:24 AM  
Blogger Thrasymachus said...

The idea that the rule "no enemies to the left, no friends to the right" is followed also on the right doesn't quite hunt, because while everyone on the left believes the same thing, the "right" coalition is composed of a variety of ideologies which are largely incompatible, and work together only at election time with noses held.

As a practical matter, many on the "right" want socialism, but only for white people, or at least as much for white people as minorities.

I read VDare even though I often swear I will stop, as I get tired of being constantly reminded I'm not a *real* American because my ancestors were not Protestant from the British Isles. A vanishly small number of people to build white socialism from, but they seem determined to do it.

Marcus Epstein is, I'm sure, an Asian supremacist and not a white supremacist because one, he's half Asian, and two, while the writers at VDare are generally white socialists they are also generally Asian supremacists.

June 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM  
Anonymous Soutte said...

"My guess is that Epstein is not, in fact, a karate master, and his actual wasted intent was to pretend to karate-chop his unfortunate victim."

I agree. I'm pretty sure that it was either a Krav Maga chop, or a Tae Kwon Do chop.

June 18, 2009 at 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I read VDare even though I often swear I will stop, as I get tired of being constantly reminded I'm not a *real* American because my ancestors were not Protestant from the British Isles."

No offense, but speaking of things that won't hunt....

My ancestors were not Protestant and were not from the British Isles, and I never get the sense that anyone at VDare wouldn't consider me a real American. VDare types tend to like the 1920s immigration law ... which gave Germany the single biggest immigration quota. They also tend to greatly respect Tom Tancredo. And they used to respect a certain half-Jew half-Korean.

June 18, 2009 at 9:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I read VDare even though I often swear I will stop, as I get tired of being constantly reminded I'm not a *real* American because my ancestors were not Protestant from the British Isles. A vanishly small number of people to build white socialism from, but they seem determined to do it."

Well, it is named after "Virginia Dare" for a reason.

And in VDare's defense, you're just not going to maintain a genuine "America" without a dominant British or NW European derived population. You're not going to have a genuine "America" with a bunch of Southern and Eastern European descendants, no matter how assimilated. If the latter is much smaller population wise and gradually melds into the former, it would seem workable. But if the opposite is the case, forget about any real "America" remaining.

June 18, 2009 at 9:47 AM  
Anonymous satme said...

"It could be the case that Epstein's victim is terrified of returning to Georgetown lest she be struck and demeaned once again by some Jewish-Korean drunken master"

That has to be like the least physically intimidating combination in the history of the universe. Think Woody Allen and his young Korean wife. Put together.

June 18, 2009 at 10:15 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

For the rest of his career, Epstein will be employed by racists, or by no one. Very reminiscent of, say, Czechoslovakia in the '70s.

I assume this provision applies to his legal or political career (or some other career concerned with the administration of the Official Public Morality), but not to a career in an actual productive field. You know as well as anyone that, very unlike in Czechoslovakia in the 70s, there are still sectors of our economy that are primarily concerned with producing results, and not just with being sinecures for those who support the Official Public Morality.

June 18, 2009 at 10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I assume this provision applies to his legal or political career (or some other career concerned with the administration of the Official Public Morality), but not to a career in an actual productive field.

His education and past experience disqualify him for a career in an actual productive field.

Plus, guess who the people in the HR departments are in corporations that do productive things? That's right, they are exactly the type of person he slapped and insulted. If his resume gets past them, the hiring manager will then have to ask himself if he wants the company to hire a racist psycho when they could undoubtedly hire someone who is not a racist psycho. In short, this guy will have to get pretty damn lucky to have a career in a productive field - unless he can find some racists to hire him.

June 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM  
Blogger Blode0322 said...

Wait a minute, Chris ... you think Marcus Epstein could get a job at washing machine factory? At this point? Or work as a sys admin? Or drive a moving van? I'm guessing he couldn't, but I could be wrong.

June 18, 2009 at 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Randy said...

Lugo,

You say that as if "dominating Eurasia" is some kind of simple task that once done would simply stay done. I think that the axis powers would have found themselves very, very busy suppressing nationalist uprisings, and ultimately failing. That's the history of Eurasia. Bottom line, it was none of our business... and still isn't.

June 18, 2009 at 10:52 AM  
Anonymous Lugo said...

I think that the axis powers would have found themselves very, very busy suppressing nationalist uprisings, and ultimately failing. That's the history of Eurasia.

There is no reason to think that they would fail, since they had the will and capability to kill those who opposed them (and in the Nazi case, physical elimination of a large proportion of the population in the occupied lands of the East was part of the program whether they were rising up or not).

Uprisings of any sort can only succeed when (a) an external power supports them, and (b) a faction in the power trying to suppress the uprising wants the suppression to fail. Neither would apply in Nazi-governed Europe or Japanese-governed Asia.

Lastly, "let's do nothing, let the Axis win, and hope that they'll be too busy to bother us" would be a stupid, short-sighted, and irresponsible policy for the United States.

Bottom line, it was none of our business... and still isn't.

It was most definitely our business to ensure that a hostile power or coalition did not dominate Eurasia... and it still is.

June 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM  
Blogger Jewish Atheist said...

If the crimes of von Brunn and Epstein are part of a pattern, they are part of a pattern that no longer exists. As Hume noted, the past exists only in our imagination.

But the pattern exists on this very blog -- in the comments section if not in your writing.! Yes, it's true that there isn't much in the way of lynching anymore, but you want me to believe that's because the will to lynch no longer exists? Nay, I think the will is there. The hatred is still there. It's only because of that thing that you so despise -- the way America turned racism into something completely unacceptable socially -- that such desires are confined to private rooms and pseudononymous corners of the internet.

It's funny, for years now Republicans have sworn up and down that they're not racist. They opposed illegal immigration not because they didn't want Latinos but because they just wanted to uphold the law! (Why not change the law then? Ah, that they couldn't answer. Hence they've been on the losing side of that argument for decades.)

And then comes the internet and pseudononymity and lookee here, it seems like half the Republicans on these wires are in fact closet racists. How many would actually shoot a Jew or a black or a Latino if they thought they could get away with it? How many more are secretly cheering for James von Brunn and others?

How many would shoot me? I've certainly been baffled by the sheer RAGE of some of the comments directed towards me in these comment threads.

Watch video of the crowds attending the Palin rallies back before the election. Tell me there wasn't any racism there. Tell me none of them would have lynched Obama if they thought the state would protect them.

Tell me why the Republican base is so galvanized by immigration and "anti-terrorism" (i.e. anti-Islam offensives) and affirmative action.

Don't tell me it's a thing of the past, when it's clearly right here beneath the surface, kept in check perhaps by the very things you abhor -- the zero (social) tolerance for racist speech, the way mainstream Republicans pretend to not be racist in public.

(Of course there are many non-racist Republicans, too, who are, I suspect, in denial about the company they keep.)

One final point is that von Brunn's actions were not paramilitary but rather a form of assymetric warfare or terrorism. He only shot one man, but he clearly wanted to terrorize Jews (and probably blacks.) When the state backs you, you have mob-violence, like lynchings, and police-violence, like the Sturmabteilung. When the state opposes you, you have lone gunmen and small, disconnected terrorist cells as well as quasi-legitimate organizations like the minutemen and Project Rescue (to bring up another recent case of right-wing terrorism) and those run by Buchannan and Tancredo and their ilk.

So, yes, von Brunn's crime was important, and it does fit a pattern, along with Dr. Tiller's assassination and the beatings and worse of Latino immigrants. That pattern may have lain dormant for a while, but the nuts are coming out of the woodwork now that we have a black president and a wave of Hispanic immigration, aren't they?

June 18, 2009 at 11:54 AM  
Anonymous Daryle Lamont Jenkins said...

Point of order:

The documents were not illegaly obtained. They were not protected by a court order as was the case in your link's article. The documents are public information to anyone willing to go to Washington, DC Superior Court and ask the clerk for copies of them. You would definitely have to chalk it up to those "mysterious media internals" as the reason why the story had not been heard about in the first place, however.

June 18, 2009 at 11:58 AM  
Blogger david egilman said...

I am David Egilman MD the person who released the Lilly documents which were not stolen. They were produced by Lilly and given to me to review.

I never signed any confidentiality order before receiving the documents. Months after I got them after I had released them to the NYTimes I signed a modified agreement & told the lawyer who received the agreement that my amendments meant I would release them if I thought they contained information that would advance public health and I did. I took an oath when I became a physician that compelled me to do so. More importantly my father served time at Buchenwald so I am well aware of the cost of silence.

In addition they constituted evidence that Lilly had committed a Federal crime. As a result of my release Lilly was investigated and pled guilty to committing a crime and paid a 1.4 billion dollar fine. I think I had a citizen responsibility to release the documents because they were evidence of a crime.

You may now return to your intellectual discourse on irrelevancies.

David Egilman MD, MPH

June 18, 2009 at 12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JA,

Let's review some of the things contained in your last comment. I think this will give you a clue why you engender such rage:

- You attacked the motives of people who oppose illegal immigration
- You casually asserted that half of Republicans are closeted racists
- You implied that they would be murdering minorities if they were allowed to
- You implied that they would lynch Barack Obama if they were allowed to
- Implied that the spirit of racism and murder, which secretly pervades the conservative movement, is being held at bay, barely, by social disapproval of racism
- Etc.

I mean what the fuck? You seriously are surprised by the rage you encounter? I mean, c'mon man, your comments literally look as if they were designed to provoke it.

June 18, 2009 at 2:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How beautifully Dr. Egilman crystallizes the antinomian perspective.

June 18, 2009 at 2:28 PM  
Anonymous Evan said...

Mr. Egilman,

I did not realize that a judge's orders were only binding if the involved parties sign off on it. Thanks for clearing that up.

Also, my grandfather served time in the 83rd Infantry Division of the United States Army during World War 2, so I am well aware of the cost of following orders.

June 18, 2009 at 2:29 PM  
Blogger Malchus X said...

The pattern holds right across the board. When the closest thing to a "right-wing" act of terror took place in Oklahoma City, President Clinton showed up in town and said (I'm quoting precisely):

"To all my fellow Americans beyond this hall, I say, one thing we owe those who have sacrificed is the duty to purge ourselves of the dark forces which gave rise to this evil. They are forces that threaten our common peace, our freedom, our way of life. Let us teach our children that the God of comfort is also the God of righteousness: Those who trouble their own house will inherit the wind"

Purge. Threaten. Inherit the wind. The kind of Old Testament stuff that simply brooks no compromise from the evildoers.

Had Tim McVeigh been the vanguard of an irregular Army of Tim McVeigh's from the mythical country of Rightwingastan, Uncle Sammy would have had twenty million people drafted, under arms, and on their way there quicker than you could say "Fleetwood Mac." And the late Mr. McVeigh has, indeed, been an agitprop boon to the Left: cite the laundry list of terrorist attacks carried out by Islam's jihadists againt the West since, oh, about forever, and what, pray tell, is the first three syllables that come tripping from every progressive's tongue? I'll give you a hint: It's a proper name and it sounds Irish.

By contrast, after 9/11 Bush went to a Mosque. It would be like Clinton, after the OKC bombing, showing up at an Alex Jones convention pleading for all Americans to exhibit tolerance and respectful understanding of the paranoid world.

There was also a lot of chatter, post 9/11, about "understanding why they hate us," a sentiment notably lacking in the national conversation after Oklahoma City. But, of course, McVeigh was a member of the "Radical Right": Mohammed Atta & Co. were just bringing it on home to Uncle Sammy and his little Eichmanns.

As deplorable an act as what McVeigh did? The progressive will tell you: Why, yes - all violence is deplorable. But....

June 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM  
Blogger Jewish Atheist said...

Anon:

I didn't attack all Republicans as racists. I said there are many. As far as those who would engage in actual violence, obviously that's a much smaller subset.

Perhaps I went too far with my comment. My basic point is that "the pattern" is hardly as dead as MM claims it to be, based on the comments I see here and at Sailer's, Half Sigma's, Palin rallies, etc.

June 18, 2009 at 3:00 PM  
Blogger Jewish Atheist said...

Oh, and I didn't see you complaining when MM basically called everybody on the left "demons."

June 18, 2009 at 3:01 PM  
Blogger Malchus X said...

"I've certainly been baffled by the sheer RAGE of some of the comments directed towards me in these comment threads."

Oh JA, I feel so sorry for yah I could just cry.

June 18, 2009 at 3:03 PM  
Anonymous Blaznik said...

JA,

You should change your name to "Jewish Gaytheist." Cuz that's what you are, a faggot with gay arguments.

You don't understand Mencist thought or Formalism. Stop making stupid critiques of Mencius Moldbug. None of your stupid critiques are going to stop the Mencian Movement, so you should shut up.

June 18, 2009 at 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why no mention of Epstein's ethnicity here?

He isn't even White...he's half Jewish and half Korean.

June 18, 2009 at 3:36 PM  
Anonymous Jewish Atheist's Gigantic Ego said...

This thread is all about ME, you racist pigs!

June 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and I didn't see you complaining when MM basically called everybody on the left "demons."

No, but I will now. It's dumb and pointlessly inflammatory.

Also, making generalizations about conservatives based on internet blog comments is a terrible idea.

June 18, 2009 at 3:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

*gently sweeps Blaznik under the rug*

JA: what we're looking for here is commenters who can actually advance useful arguments against Mencius, in the pursuit of greater clarity. You don't do that. You're incoherent, you misrepresent others' arguments habitually, you spell poorly, and you probably smell bad.

I think the sentiments of most commenters here (as opposed to the imaginary racist-flamist-ragist-whateverist commenters in your fevered imagination) could be summed up, thusly: go away and let the adults talk.

June 18, 2009 at 3:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

McVeigh was not part of any "right-wing" movement-or any movement for that matter.

As the book "American Terrorist" reveals he was also not a racist. Since he did not fight his death sentence he had no reason to lie to the journalists who interviewed him. He also seems to have had an affair with the Philipina wife of his co-conspirator, Terry Nichols. Less of a "white nationalist" than
Marcus Epstein in a state of inebriation.

He seems to have distributed "The Turner Diaries" at gun shows because he liked the gun rights message and was naively indifferent to its racism and ant-Semitism.

Being pro-gun rights does not automatically make you "right wing"; I've known plenty of liberal
D's and leftist blacks who are pro-gun rights.

You can even find them on the internet:
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/

June 18, 2009 at 4:18 PM  
Anonymous Silver said...

Moldbug, I think this is as good a place to ask you this as anywhere: have you read Wilmot Robertson's "The Ethnostate"? If so, what are your thoughts on it?

Personally, I think devolution along racial lines is the way to go. Not because I'm a "racist" -- genocidal hate-filled hater. Just that I think that's the best way to go given the ridiculous "anti-life" (in terms of the anomie it generates) demographic hodge-podge we've now got. (Okay, I'm not American (though I have lots of family there), but it's the same thing down here in Oz.)

Oh, that James Brunn guy, what a nutter. So typical of the 100 Year Whine that makes up 90% of WN. I'd have more respect for him if he wrote "Tom Shebbe Sayanim Harog" -- not because I support that, but it least it gives people something to be for rather than merely against (ie "whine, whine, whine").

June 18, 2009 at 4:30 PM  
Blogger Malchus X said...

"McVeigh was not part of any "right-wing" movement-or any movement for that matter"

Uhhhh....there is a reason I put quotation marks around "right-wing" in my original sentence. And there is also common sense: stop 1,000 people on the streets who know anything about the matter, ask them to align Timothy McVeigh politically, and I guarantee you that 999 out of a 1,000 will classify him as a "right-winger." The one that doesn't will be the one that nit-picks at gnats behind anonymous monikers on the internets.

The whole point of my post was that, in the influential venues that matter, i.e., the media, academia, Hollywood, Tim McVeigh is the "right-wing" (there I go again with the quotation marks, which indicates I think he was something rather different) answer to every Billy Ayers or Mohammed Atta who ever detonated a car bomb: indeed, Tim McVeigh is their agitprop manna from heaven in the Goldstein Department. Except Goldstein was supposedly alive somewhere.

Trust me: I'm probably on your side. Please go find some other open doors to push at, thanks.

June 18, 2009 at 4:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Malchus,

Sorry, I should have made clear I wasn't attacking you (I understood your post), I was just providing a point of clarification for the "record".

Like it will make any difference. Heh.

June 18, 2009 at 5:25 PM  
Blogger Malchus X said...

"Malchus,

Sorry, I should have made clear I wasn't attacking you (I understood your post), I was just providing a point of clarification for the "record".

Like it will make any difference. Heh."


My bad then. Thanks for letting me know.

June 18, 2009 at 7:09 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

The real political criminal is not the NYT but the people who are leaking information to it. The NYT is merely a willing tool.

Huh. A fence is still a criminal.

As for the last two sentences -- well, MM seemed to suggest that there could be some infiltration of tenured faculty -- I'm sure several of us like-minded folks could pretend to be liberal enough to get tenure somewhere (though posting as my own name probably makes that -- less than possible within an English department) and build things up.

But honestly I doubt it. I think that's what we've been waiting for for about a year or so now -- for MM to let us know what he thinks about the solution to such problems as we now face.

It seems that he's not found any decent ones (or ones that don't depend upon science-fiction or fantasy-governance).

June 18, 2009 at 7:36 PM  
Anonymous PEN15 said...

half-Jew half-Korean?

so he's a dog eating hook nose Jew? Is that kosher?

June 18, 2009 at 8:27 PM  
Anonymous ablescla said...

considering that he's half Jewish and half Korean......he must have the smallest penis and the worst sexual prowess in the world.

June 18, 2009 at 8:29 PM  
Anonymous Leonard said...

anonymous, the last two sentences refer back to this para:

Order need not stand defenseless before disorder. Fire can be fought with fire. But when the angels fight, they fight because one must fight to win. When the demons fight, they fight because they are demons from hell, who were born in fire and will love it forever.

Basically, MM is endorsing a coup, or some other extreme method by which the right will take power and use any level of violence necessary to stop all those who oppose them. This is the "Devil's work" for fairly obvious reasons: it destroys order, namely the current order. Of course, as "angels" the winning team will hopefully not emplace an equally broken order. But that is up to them, innit? If there is a huge moldbuggery movement at that time, though, then it might be neocameralism. Without such a movement, probably bog-standard military dictatorship.

The second sentence is yet another reiteration of MM's strongest theme: that the right cannot win by reform, or any other strategy that works within the rules of the existing system. The system is exquisitely evolved to prevent this from happened. It must destroyed to achieve lasting positive change.

June 18, 2009 at 8:59 PM  
Blogger Leonard said...

JA: a perfect example of tu quoque in action. Republicans, as you see them, are barely better than beasts. Hateful, sneaky, vicious, violent, murderous. Only virtuous progressive social engineering stands between the lynch mobs and you. Horror!

Let me suggest that you try to understand your enemies, rather than demonize them. Perhaps they have legitimate grievances that motivate them?

June 18, 2009 at 9:15 PM  
Blogger Mitchell said...

Regarding the three paragraphs which begin "For exactly this reason..." and end "this termite's career":

I have diverse reactions to Mencius's literary output. But for whatever reason, those three paragraphs do a really good job in making a life of law-abiding reactionary crypto-activism seem exciting, brave, purposeful, and even "subversive". (Subversive of subversion as such.)

Occasionally the idea is mooted here, of making the reactionary cause fashionable - eXile and VICE magazines having been mentioned as proof that one can be cool without being progressive. Two questions suggest themselves: can it be done, and should it be done?

Can it be done: I'm old enough to have already lived an antinomian life; to contemplate subsequently adopting the pronomian cause has an aspect of rebellion against oneself, and so can appeal to motives like vanity, boredom with one's existing self, and so forth (i.e. here I am asking what psychological allies the pronomian cause has, apart from the ethical impulse); but a younger person would surely find those motives easier to satisfy by direct adoption of antinomian values.

Should it be done: Could it be that even seeking to engage these raw drives in the service of reaction is just another form of the same old mistake - using the Devil's tools against him, only to end up doing his work? A psychological counterpart to Mencius's political advice might be: only seek to do virtue because it is virtue; do not even try to harness other motivations to its service, because this will inevitably end in the victory of some new vice.

June 19, 2009 at 12:02 AM  
Anonymous J said...

Related to this post, and something Mencius didn't bring up, is the Ohnesorg affair. It is a very recent revelation that people should be aware of. During the 60s a west-German left-wing activist was shot by a 'police officer'. This started a number of events, including student radicalism and the notorious left terror cells.

Anyway, come May 2009, guess which organisation that the 'police officer' surreptitiously worked for?

The STASI.

Couldn't get a better example of left wing political crimes and agitation of the mob.

June 19, 2009 at 1:16 AM  
Anonymous Ian said...

What do you think the chief "Aryan" complaint about Jews was? The shape of their noses? No - that all the high-status professions were full of Jews. In wild disproportion to the numbers in the population.

To my reading, Hitler and the Nazis were steamed more than anything else about the ethic composition of the leadership of the Spartacist/Bolshevik uprisings in Germany during 1918-19.

For exactly this reason, political crime only rarely works for the Right.

I dunno, seems to have worked out pretty OK for a while for these sorts of folks.

June 19, 2009 at 3:47 AM  
Blogger Jason said...

JA, the reason some whites refrain from lynching blacks has nothing to do with "the way American turned racism into something completely unacceptable socially". If this was the case you would also no longer be able to find whites in the South wearing mullets or flannel.

The reason the lynchings stopped was Southern judges stopped tolerating it under pressure from Washington

June 19, 2009 at 8:10 AM  
Blogger Blode0322 said...

It's a waste of time for Moldbug to endorse a coup. He should know it's not colonels, judges, police chiefs and National Guard armorers reading his blog. The odds of a reactionary "Gramscian march on Rome" - a slightly serious historical portmanteau I just made up - are still quite remote, but much greater than a fscking coup.

Seriously.

Moldbug has made a case for why democracy can't and doesn't work as advertised, and produces a combination of mob-rule and rule by status-seeking academic oligarchs. It's pretty good, but it seems to apply mainly to countries and large states. He doesn't make the case - because he's an essentially urban thinker - that Wyoming or Colorado are nests of hyper-urbane Peace Corps veterans, Black Panthers, and various hoodlums with masters' degrees.

The problem in the American west is just overreaching Federal power, spearheaded by the overreaching Supreme Court. Why this is more likely checked by a bunch of military people taking a sudden and unprecedented interest in political theory, than by other methods, is unclear.

The extant federal and constitutional structure of the United States is pretty much ideal for independent city-states. Surely breaking states into little city-state thingamajigs is easier than making reactionary anti-teleological history buffs out of one in three Defense Department personnel.

June 19, 2009 at 9:38 AM  
Anonymous zanon said...

We also (kind of) now have a successful right to the US left. China? Dubai/UAE?

If you're a third world nation, you don't look to emulate the US anymore. Pakistan would rather be a Singapore than a New York.

June 19, 2009 at 4:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He doesn't make the case - because he's an essentially urban thinker - that Wyoming or Colorado are nests of hyper-urbane Peace Corps veterans, Black Panthers, and various hoodlums with masters' degrees.

There are large numbers of Vaisyas out west - especially if you exclude the large cities on the coast - but it really doesn't matter because like everywhere else, the people who actually run (govern) the states are mostly Brahmins. The governors of WY and CO are not reactionaries, they are liberals in good standing with the Cathedral.

June 19, 2009 at 4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's only because of that thing that you so despise -- the way America turned racism into something completely unacceptable socially -- that such desires are confined to private rooms



JA, racism such as yours as not confined to private rooms, alas.

June 19, 2009 at 8:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a practical matter, many on the "right" want socialism, but only for white people, or at least as much for white people as minorities.




That's an interesting theory. Is it based on anything?

And it seems to me that there are worlds between "only for white people" and "as much for white people as minorities".

June 19, 2009 at 8:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They opposed illegal immigration not because they didn't want Latinos but because they just wanted to uphold the law! (Why not change the law then?



Illegal immigration is already against the law. That is why it is called "illegal" immigration.

Please don't hesitate to ask for help if there are any other aspects of the English language you find confusing.

June 19, 2009 at 8:21 PM  
Anonymous nick said...

Still under the spell of the Roman imperial law beloved by followers of the traditional university ideology, like Carlyle and Hobbes -- the real "Cathedral" -- MM fruitlessly tries to find the "locus of sovereignty" or "imperium maius" in the American system of separation of powers. The Supreme Court is a quite unconvincing answer, especially given MM's claim that the U.S. is a "democracy", but then any answer to this silly cliche of a question would be unconvincing. We don't live in the Roman empire or any other absolutist state, so there is no master of masters, no commander-in-chief of the civilians, no imperium maius. Your enemy, if you choose to make it your enemy, is a many-headed hydra.

Let me also suggest to MM that if he gets his military coup and suppression of free speech, among the first speech to go will be MM's kind: 99% griping plus 1% quarter-baked solutions. Jarheads despise whiners, and none more than whining urban civilians pretending to understand the plight of the "common man" (excuse me, "Vaisya").

June 20, 2009 at 12:54 AM  
Anonymous nick said...

[The Code Napoleon] really is the choice of a new generation.

MM now presents as our role model the will of Napoleon to impose by conquest the law of his role models the emperors of Rome. His Code is part of the tradition of absolutist law from Augustus to the Tsars to Hitler and Stalin. Now MM would have us take this seriously as a substitute for the highly evolved English legal system with its formalism, separation of powers, and (in former times) political property rights.

In his quest to defame the traditions of our culture, MM's memory of history seems have become bizarrely selective. Surely he has not forgotten what the Caesars and the Tsars and Hitler and the communist dictators did to whom?

MM seems to be coming out of the closet not only as a rabid anti-Protestant, but as a fanatic opponent the entire Anglo-Saxon legal and political tradition. The only Englishmen favored by Moldbug are those without a shred of appreciation for the English legal tradition, university-trained thugs like Hobbes and Carlyle who mindlessly promoted the universities' totalitarian ideology, in their time implemented in the absolute monarchies of France and Russia.

It's important to observe that English lawyers were traditionally trained at the Inns of Court, not at Oxford or Cambridge universities. Universities had been founded in order to spread Roman legal fundamentalism and impose the law of emperors in usurpation of the highly evolved European medieval law. This catastrophe, the Reception, successfully destroyed the evolution of liberty in almost all of Western Europe except in England -- because in England the lawyers were trained at the Inns of Court and not at the universities. University-trained scholars from their founding to today have smeared English law countless times in countless ways. The absolutist ideology of imperium maius and its corollary, legal "realism", has done much damage, but common law despite it all persists. As long as Commonwealth and U.S. lawyers keep caring about their profession more than about ideology, the common law will thrive in the face of these countless nattering amateurs.

The world beyond English law has been far less fortunate. Roman imperial idea of absolute master-servant hierarchy, and the resulting "realist" idea that law must be the product of the will of the master of masters, promoted by university-trained thugs like Carlyle and Hobbes, has caused more misery than any other idea in human history.

By the imperial dogma we have a single master over us all, an oriental despot as Westerners used to disparagingly call it, or else be in anarchy. Some unfortunates like MM seem to be incapable of envisioning civilization as anything but a master-servant hierarchy. MM would have us destroy the last vestiges we have of institutions that check and balance both lust for power and naive whim. The same tribal urge of master-worship that gave us oriental despotism, the Roman Empire, the post-Reception absolute monarchs, the Tsars, Napoleon, the Kaisers, and most recently Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, and many such others -- all but the original oriental despots presiding over legal systems derived from the law of imperial Rome.

If "reactionary" meant this barbaric chief-worship, Moldbug would by now have converted me to "progressivism" with all its problems. Fortunately, we have much better choices when it comes to restoration. There is a vast and rich tradition, very different from the tradition of imperial Rome, a tradition much of which is becoming lost and some of which has been almost completely forgotten, the revival of memory and restoration of which would reverse many of the evils MM portrays. You can read about many of these highly evolved institutions at my blog.

June 20, 2009 at 3:45 AM  
Blogger Blode0322 said...

Whoa, I've read a lot of critiques of Moldbug and that is by far the most effective. I had previously thought Moldbug had a high respect for English common law, because jurisdiction-as-property mirrors his concept of profit-making private-sector city states. (Also his wanting to restore the Stuarts is pro-British on the face of it, though of course he's shown that you can be pro-Brit and an absolutist....)

Anyway, now Inns of Court are on my research list.

I've never figured out judges were selected in Medieval Britain (or how they are in the UK, for that matter). I've been blogging about judge selection so I was curious what the modern equivalent to good old English common-law judge selection would be.

June 20, 2009 at 9:20 PM  
Anonymous David said...

Aren't you just defining the right as the group which supports order? Has there ever been a true functioning right? Is there something inherent ina functioning political organization is that people are trying to tear down things and seek personal power?

June 22, 2009 at 11:57 AM  
Blogger march said...

柴犬
瑪爾濟斯
白蟻
除白蟻
白蟻防治
保健食品
樟芝
納豆
瑜珈
瑜珈教室
瑜珈補習班
高雄瑜珈
法拍
法拍屋
MOTEL
汽車旅館
高雄MOTEL
高雄汽車旅館
3M隔熱紙
大樓隔熱紙
汽車隔熱紙
隔熱紙
瑜珈教學
瑜珈教室
高雄瑜珈
法拍屋
地板拋光
居家清潔
清潔公司
旅行社
機票
會計事務所
法拍
法拍屋
墾丁一日遊
墾丁旅遊
租車旅遊
高雄一日遊
高雄旅遊
高雄縣旅遊
阿里山旅遊
服飾批發
流行服飾
韓國服飾
日系服飾
看護
居家看護
看護中心
台中motel
台中住宿
台中汽車旅館
蛋糕
彌月蛋糕
乳酪蛋糕
巧克力
chocolate
塑膠棧板
棧板
白蟻
除蟲
跳蚤
除白蟻
白蟻防治
大陸新娘
外籍新娘
扭力板手
防爆工具
扭力校正器

June 22, 2009 at 8:53 PM  
Blogger march said...

整形 整形 整形 整形 新彩 整形 整形 整形 整形 整形 整形 整形 整形 整形 整形 整形 整形 整形 整形 整形外 整形外 整形外 整形外 新彩外 整形外 整形外 整形外 整形外 整形外 整形外 整形外 整形外 整形外 整形外 整形外 整形外 整形外 整形外科

June 22, 2009 at 8:53 PM  
Blogger Blode0322 said...

Aren't you just defining the right as the group which supports order? Has there ever been a true functioning right? - David

Not a bad way to define the right. I've also defined the right as anti-socialists, or as anti-egalitarians, or as defenders of property rights.

Moldbug probably wold like the last definition okay, it's just that he goes back to an older right. Legitimists believed that the monarchic state was royal family property, and in the Glorious Revolution Parliament essentially voted one what to do with someone else's property. Thus it was the beginning mob rule, and whiggery, and socialism.

The democratic rightists since then are not legitimists or legitimate, since they are okay with the original violation of property rights. When a state was royal property it had the same incentives to be small and cut costs that a business does. When it lost those incentives the state made property rights violation into a regular business.

I don't agree too much with Moldbug in the above analysis, but I think I understand him well enough to summarize him reasonably well. Also, I can't really refute his point that democratic conservatives is losing game ... it's just that for me it's about the only game in town.

June 22, 2009 at 11:02 PM  
Blogger Aaron Davies said...

for an interesting look at how the times reacts when even a non-political entity has the audacity to keep secrets, read this whine-fest about steve job's health. actually keeping a confidence is apparently an unforgivable sin in times doctrine.

June 23, 2009 at 5:44 PM  
Blogger Aaron Davies said...

@blode: interesting to note that the original "it's the only game in town" comment was about a rigged game, not just a losing some. seems apropos....

June 23, 2009 at 5:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm curious about Moldbug's take on the "petite révolution" in Iran. One would think, given his pronomian views, that he would support the side of Ahmadinejad. If the green protesters are successful, then would Iran become part of the Cathedral?

-Victor

June 23, 2009 at 9:27 PM  
Anonymous Gold IRA said...

I really appreciate to you because this blog is really amazing and interesting. Thanks for all it.Watch a free video on Gold IRA.

July 14, 2009 at 4:01 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home