Saturday, January 22, 2011 142 Comments

Your goverment in pictures, 1954

An authentic historical document:


Doesn't look much like what you learned in 9th-grade civics class? There's a reason for that. As you know, of course, dear UR reader, you've been rather pwned.

In terms of actual control over government decisions, the present state of representative democracy in USG and its satellites reminds the historical observer of nothing so much as monarchy in middle-to-late decline, nowhere near absolute but still not quite ceremonial. The British monarchs of the 18th and 19th centuries might be a fair comparison.

These so-called kings and queens, from Anne through Edward VII, retained prerogative authorities in theory and were in fact quite jealous of their theoretical powers, but had become convinced that they would lose both contest and authority in any serious conflict with ascendant Whiggery. (Edward VII, to be fair, was a real figure in foreign policy - or at least so Whitehall let it be known.) When they did impact the course of government, the royal interventions tended to be symbolic, informal, and above all negative - as all weak authority is. But in reality, power depends on both habit and confidence, and somewhere around 1936 it disappeared entirely. The celebrity monarch remains, chiefly to ensure the position is not actually filled.

But since the Great Wheel has no beginning or end, democracy too must go under the bus. Indeed in Europe it is already a speck in the rear-view mirror. The idea that spontaneous popular sentiment should influence public policy is, on the Continent and increasingly in England, a fringe belief. On its face it seems absurd, as of course it is - just as if Prince Charles were to demand his titular authority. As with anything, the capacity for government is the combination of aptitude and experience. Quite plainly, Prince Charles has neither the aptitude to rule, or the experience. His coup would therefore be a joke.

Just the same can be said of the modern democratic electorate. Across centuries of throne and altar, the People grew strong; their princes, sapped by luxury, flattery and philosophy, weak; the strong seized their chance; the People pulled their princes down. And grew weak in their turn. Now the course of empire proceeds without them - to an extent they can barely imagine. By far, the American voter is the strongest left. But this isn't saying a lot.

For a weak prince, too, may feel himself a King. His ministers butter him assiduously. "Yes, your Majesty." "Quite right, your Majesty." "Of course, your Majesty." "It will be done, your Majesty." Indeed, when I look at the Tea Party Republican of 2010, I think of the late Merovingians - like Clovis IV, 13-year-old "king of the Franks."

Take America back! Restore the Constitution! Dear Lord. The Constitution was dead before his parents were born, and the average tea partier, even the superlative tea partier, immersed to the gills in his reality show, knows the real Washington about as well as he knows the Tang Dynasty. In fact, he probably knows the Tang Dynasty better - he knows there's such a thing as the Tang Dynasty, and nor does he confuse it with the Wu-Tang Clan.

I once had a conversation with Larry Auster, perhaps America's most perspicacious nationalist today, in which Auster inadvertently revealed the fact that he believed the President could have a Foreign Service officer fired. Take over Washington! 13-year-old Clovis IV had a better chance of unseating the Mayors of the Palace. At least he knew who they were. Heck, if he'd called an emergency court meeting and just walked up to his Uncle Pepin and sliced him in the neck, the Merovingians might well be kings of the Franks to this day. Audacity conquers all.

Of course, Washington has no neck. It has a thousand necks, or maybe a hundred thousand. The picture above makes it look like there's a neck to slice. Perhaps in 1954 there almost was. It is no longer 1954. No state is incurable - but ours needs a trained surgeon and a full operating room, or perhaps an army with naval artillery support. Not an adolescent with a gilded dagger.

Why would they give Clovis IV an actual weapon? His voice cracking and his young balls swelled, he draws his royal sword for the first time, swears a terrible oath, and leaps at his obnoxious, conniving uncle - who simply smiles and presents his throat. The blade is made of gold foil. It folds up like a newspaper. Everyone laughs. The king of the Franks, scarlet-cheeked, rushes off to his chambers, cranks up a Def Leppard album and resumes his neurotic pimple excavation. History is not on his side.

But once, things were different. Once, men resisted. Once they had real swords.

There is a word in the American political vocabulary for the last struggles of meaningful representative democracy. The word is "McCarthyism." McCarthyism, in neutral language, is the irrational belief that unelected and/or extra-governmental officials should be responsible to elected officials. The question of McCarthyism was whether the American people, by electing a Congress, could hold such august, bipartisan, professional and apolitical agencies as the State Department responsible to their fickle, uninformed wills. The answer, as it turned out, was no. Clovis IV turned bright red, sulked and went to his room.

Of course, the actual actors in "McCarthyism" were not the politicians. No one could possibly confuse a McCarthy, a McCarran, a Mundt, for Pitts and Gladstones and Disraelis. Rather, the few, bold, doomed crusaders were the staffers of the "McCarthyist" investigating committees - the notorious HUAC, the little-known and far more effective McCarran Committee, and today's source (and my personal favorite) - the Reece Committee. These men were real warriors. You may know the name of the most notorious - Roy Cohn. Most are quite anonymous - like Rene Wormser, chief counsel of the Reece Committee, author of Foundations: Their Power and Influence.

Not that our warriors won, or had any chance of winning. They had subpoena power, however, not to mention genuine prewar educations. One of Wormser's assistants, Kathryn Casey, actually got to read the original minutes of the Carnegie Endowment from 1909, though she didn't get to copy them or take them home. Apparently the experience permanently affected her sanity - which should come as no surprise to the UR reader. The first half of the 20th century was, like the Elizabethan era, something of a golden age for conspiracy.

Needless to say, in 2010 the thought of Congress seriously investigating the State Department, let alone the Carnegie, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, brings us straight back to Clovis IV. Repeating the work of the Reece Committee is not just inconceivable, but also useless. The fire has been burning quite nicely for well over 50 years; to drench the gasoline-soaked rags is not to extinguish the conflagration, let alone to rebuild the building. The tea partiers could abolish all these institutions tomorrow, not that they will, and not get the America of 1923 back.

But as students of history, we want to know how the flames started and spread. How fortunate for us that, 50 years ago, America elected a batch of know-nothing Republicans, who hired bitter, unhinged right-wing lawyers, who knew whose closet to subpoena for a skeleton or two. They knew they were walking through fire for nothing; they did; they got nothing for it. But we got their work.

The especially dedicated UR reader may enjoy the 4-volume Reece Committee transcripts - vol. 1, vol. 2, vol. 3, vol. 4. Many parts of these read like a movie script, chiefly due to the ridiculous and disruptive antics of Wayne Hays. I have been exceptionally busy and have not had time to read the whole thing, but you can. For a study of how the American postwar university, then the entire society, got gleichgeschaltet on the ideology of the great foundations - Foundationism, we might even call it - I recommend the testimony of Professors Rowe and Colegrove in volume 1. There is also Mr. Wormser's book linked above, a lucid and straightforward summary.

142 Comments:

Anonymous Genius said...

It's so nice when you write something real instead of some lame poem.

January 22, 2011 at 4:24 AM  
Anonymous PA said...

Your basic premise is that Brahmins usurped Optimates as the defacto ruling class, giving us the BDH-OV conflict. However, I'm increasinlgly more persuaded that what actually happened is a new post-WW2 Optimate generation took power, enlisting the Brahmin class as its propagandists. It's OBDH-V.

You may say it's a distinction without a difference, but that's not the case. Your model proposes thatwe are ruled by intellectuals. My suggestion is that we are still ruled by oligarchs, as has always been the case.

In other words, the current situation woudl have happened with or without cranks like the Frankfurt School. The Cathedral ain't shit; they're the oligarchs' bitch.

January 22, 2011 at 6:45 AM  
Anonymous Ron Potato said...

@PA

Your plain assertion lacking even an explanation let alone evidence, is truly convincing.

If this is the standard by which you yourself become convinced of truth, we may gain an accurate assessment of your repetition of the trope, that oligarchs rule as always.

January 22, 2011 at 7:45 AM  
Anonymous PA said...

LOL at angry internet nerd. I bet he reworked his zinger a couple of times until it was just right.

January 22, 2011 at 8:07 AM  
Blogger Thrasymachus said...

There are exceptions to all this that yet trouble me. Proposition 13, for example. It's the curse from hell for the California poltical establishment; and yet they have never gotten rid of it.

January 22, 2011 at 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Genius said...

@PA, who are the new Optimates?

January 22, 2011 at 8:53 AM  
Anonymous Ron Potato said...

We keep the funk alive by talking with idiots, though I know this is the latest waste to void from your genius, but so much verbiage, sludge, to say merely "oligoi archei".

The few are not the Optimates.

Rather the reigning policy favors the meek; from the lessons of history taught to the children, to the vast state charities, and the relentless corruption of authority by dilution of the suffrage and the bureaucracy.

These are Populares policies, or Cultural Marxist policies, or even Christian policies.

January 22, 2011 at 9:02 AM  
Anonymous Ron Potato said...

Not to gainsay the other guy, who may be a Genius.

January 22, 2011 at 9:07 AM  
Anonymous PA said...

@PA, who are the new Optimates?

Inernational banking, quasi-royal families, etc.

Moldbug's whole thing about Brahmins and the Cathedral is brilliand and one of the most valuable intellectual contributions in the internet age... but the idea of intellectuals and crank professors and Unitarains and Harvard taking over the world seems inadequate at times.

The old Optimates were money and connected families. The new optimates are thier heirs.

January 22, 2011 at 9:29 AM  
Anonymous PA said...

but so much verbiage, sludge, to say merely "oligoi archei".

Yeah, because 250-comment "Joo-bad / Joo-good" tard 'n forths are so much more interesting.

Rather the reigning policy favors the meek;

The meek are simply DHs, as clients of B's, per Moldbug's classic model. Top and bottom agains the middle, as Derbyshire put it.

One of this blog's earliest talking points is the idea that we are ruled by intellectuals who overthrew ancien regine types. My suggestion is that intellectuals may not in fact principal actors; hey are bought and paid bitches of the same old ancien regime, but they don't realize this.

Seriously though, Ron Potato, are you new to blogging or something? you sound way too serious and stiff. Chill out a little.

January 22, 2011 at 10:07 AM  
Anonymous Devin Finbarr said...

PA-

Can give examples of specific people who are really pulling the strings?

Would you consider people like Larry Summers, Martin Feldstein, Robert Rubin, or Jonathan Gruber to be optimates or brahmins? What about the typical ivy league grad who works in teach for america for two years, goes to law school, and then works for a corporate law firm?

Would you consider the executives at Goldman Sachs to be Optimates or Brahmins?

January 22, 2011 at 10:33 AM  
Anonymous PA said...

Can give examples of specific people who are really pulling the strings?

No, sorry. Vague collectives like "international finance" will have to do. Which is why I'm offering the whole idea of Brahmins being propaganda bitches of the Optimates as a mere suggestion, not as a coherently argued and researched thesis.

Would you consider the executives at Goldman Sachs to be Optimates or Brahmins?

Goldman Sachs is Optimates, if we go wiht Moldbug's characterization of Brahmins as intellectuals. In contrast, the editorial board of NYT is brahmins.

January 22, 2011 at 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Ron Potato said...

So the Optimates created a government intermediately run by freedom/charity/subversive/populist ideas?

Bankers and politicians secretly rule under public anti-banker and anti-politician ridicule, yet it's still not a democracy?

These are not Optimates in an Optimate class ruling an Optimate State.

The Populares were wealthy senators too; and the Priests, now Philosophers, teach them all, and hold high offices.

Now there is only one School which dominates in the sovereign realm of religion, politics, education, and public morality.

Why would the Optimates rule secretly and intermediately through Brahmins and a labyrinthine democracy of anti-Optimate ideas?

That's a confusion beloved by the sophist and theologian; that's a subversion preferred by the revolutionary left.

Perhaps people are just smarter in our new future, with better technology, so the wealthy connected rulers had to hold power by more bizarre contortions.

But that just means they lost, and rule as luxuriously as Queen Elizabeth II, while continuing to give their enemies the populist education and technical wealth to destroy them.

January 22, 2011 at 11:08 AM  
Blogger Hieronymus Goat said...

In the domestic United States, the mechanics of government, the criminal and civil law, and the judiciary and military, still majorly operate according to the original forms of Anglo-Saxon and Founding law.

The Professors and their Ideas get around this material fact by holding sway over the minds of voters and office-holders, directly participating in the civil service, and being the supreme authority on the state religion: Reason and Science.

January 22, 2011 at 11:50 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Roy Cohn was not really all that right-wing. Robert Kennedy was a supporter of his back in the day.

A legal analysis of who the President can fire and why. Brings to mind Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre". Incidentally, Nixon also sought to remove Jews from the Bureau of Labor Statistics which he believed were conspiring against him to make the economy look bad. Heavens forbid the idea that the economy actually was bad.

The notion that oligarchs rather than "Brahmins" really control America is the thesis of "Dark Suits and Red Guards". I've been dissuaded from typing it up, so I'll try to see if I can have it scanned.

January 22, 2011 at 12:26 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

This reveals that the Cathedral intended to merge the US and the Soviet Union in a socialist superstate, as in the back story of "Startreck the Next Generation" in the episodes issued before the fall of the Soviet Union, the back story being that the US had been semi peacefully defeated by the Soviet union.

This was always a crazy idea, since the Soviet Union was visibly doomed from day one, surviving by terror, conquest, and capital consumption, and because had the Cathedral succeeded in losing to the Soviet Union, they would have been swiftly shipped to the gulag, every single Harvard professor, every single bureaucrat in the department of education

(After the Soviet Union fell, the show retconned the origins of the Federation, so that in subsequent episodes capitalism was legal and always had been, just not much practiced, and the roots of the federation were more western)

The program revealed in these papers, and envisaged in the backstory of "Startreck the Next Generation", by its utter insanity, reveals the hand of the Brahmins - the religious belief in "applied christianity" overriding the mere testimony of their lying eyes. Optimates are more reality oriented.

January 22, 2011 at 1:43 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Optimates do not conspire together, because each is out for his own particular good, they do not trust each other enough to conspire well - observe the dismal failure of various price fixing conspiracies.

Brahmins, being a priestly caste, selected for faith in things unseen, and loyalty to that faith, do conspire successfully. For their loyalty to the faith they will be rewarded in heaven^H^H^H^H^H^H^H after the socialist revolution. Those disloyal to the faith will suffer excruciating torments. They will be burnt by demons^H^H^H^H^H^H camp guards applying red hot pitchforks

January 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Thomas said...

@PA

Back in 2007 when MM presented his caste system for the first or second time, there was a commenter "SMB" who tweaked the system a bit and it was certainly more in line with my own experience.
His basic point was, that O and B are pretty much the same caste by now, which makes sense if you believe that they all go through the same Universalist educational system.

January 22, 2011 at 2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Thrasymuchus

California may be the democratic perversion of the same government by public opinion.

The federal government remains an insulated instrument, whose laws go through the full sausage factory.

In government by referendum, the base instincts and traditional ideas rise to power: The voters still want their money.

California also used to be much more conservative.

January 22, 2011 at 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous Angle said...

@Hieronymus Goat: Yes and no. The forms may appear traditional, but that's mostly an illusion—they, and the decision process behind them, are suspendible at will by Authority. (Consider the contradiction in a video shown to jury duty draftees lauding Bushel's Case and the actual oath jurors are required to swear.)

This is the problem with so many law-oriented conspiracy theorists (tax protestors, "sovereign citizens", "fringed flag" guys, etc.)—they devoutly believe we are under the ancient letter-of-the-law system, and that therefore the same semantic tricks that Authority uses to justify itself to its subjects can be deployed against it. What good does it do to prove to a judge that he has no legal power over you when he judges in causa sua?

January 22, 2011 at 3:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous Angle said...

@Anonymous January 22, 2011 3:09 PM: Or more precisely, the voters want each other's money.

January 22, 2011 at 3:16 PM  
Anonymous Anon and On said...

"Kathryn Casey, actually got to read the original minutes of the Carnegie Endowment from 1909, though she didn't get to copy them or take them home."

MM's other source says Casey brought them back on "dictaphone belts," which may or may not still be in the Congressional archives.

More WikiLeaks, please!

January 22, 2011 at 3:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your model proposes thatwe are ruled by intellectuals. My suggestion is that we are still ruled by oligarchs, as has always been the case.

The oligrachy can't consist of intellectuals?

There is an inner party and an outer party - each consisting of several layers. There are certainly intellectuals who are not in the oligarchy, though many unwittingly serve its purposes. But the oligarchy certainly has intellectuals in it, not least because the oligarchs are all products of the same HYP madrassas.

Yeah, because 250-comment "Joo-bad / Joo-good" tard 'n forths are so much more interesting.

Hell, I'm surprised we've gotten 22 comments without the Joo-haters crawling out of the sewer.

January 22, 2011 at 3:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

California also used to be much more conservative.

That was before the government decided to dissolve the people and appoint another.

January 22, 2011 at 3:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait, wait, wait, we've missed the obvious.

What group of people is as rich as the Optimates and clever as the Brahmins, which keeps a separate religion as the freed, chosen people, that maintains its independence and attacks its enemies ferociously?

The Scientologists.

January 22, 2011 at 4:02 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

PA, you are confused about the nature of the Optimate caste in MM's system.

The original optimates were an aristocratic party, made up in the main by those of ancient patrician origin, in the Roman Republic. Cicero, though himself a 'novus homo' (i.e., the first in his family to hold consular rank), represented the optimate faction in his prosecution of Catiline. Catiline's conspiracy was identified with the populares. He was a demagogue, who appealed to "disappointed politicians, debtors, criminals, and many discontented young men of good breeding" - his supporters resembled, in other words, the McGovern coalition of lumpenproles and university-educated New Leftists, avant la lettre.

Though Catiline was defeated in battle and killed, one of those who pleaded for leniency towards him was Julius Caesar - and we know what he did later. The proper way to regard the Principate is as a successor to the designs of Catiline. One of the effects of the principate was the gradual extinction of the old Roman aristocracy who made up the optimate party. By the end of the first century A.D., there were very few of them left.

To point to today's oligarchs and identify them as Optimates is to miss MM's point in assigning this name to the group he has designated. One can no more compare (say) Lloyd Blankfein or Jamie Dimon to (say) a Livingston or a de Peyster than one should compare Trimalchio to Cato the Elder.

If you want to see what has happened to America's Optimates, you merely have to ask how many of the names of today's rich and prominent may be found in the rosters of the Mayflower Descendants or the Society of Colonial Wars. The general nature of oligarchy is constant, but the background of the oligarchs and the character of their rule has changed as markedly in the last 100 years in he United States as these things changed between the beginning and end of the first century A.D.

January 22, 2011 at 4:11 PM  
Blogger Hieronymus Goat said...

Is the major weakness of the Priestly class, that their followers are true believers and other humans?

The people's ideas can only change so fast. They're always hoping and desiring random anti-utopian things, and must be blinkered and double thought. The rulers must follow the religion, the codicils of their own law?

We may hope we have not all been carried away by the ramifications of the Foundation education, for we can see the better and worse, and the past and future.

At least, the Idea Machine Meme Gene can only change and hope so fast, to reach that utopia at the end of time.

January 22, 2011 at 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"... his supporters resembled, in other words, the McGovern coalition of lumpenproles and university-educated New Leftists, avant la lettre."

Do you really want to say that the 60s were that important? -Michael

January 22, 2011 at 6:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course the first quote is from Michael.

January 22, 2011 at 6:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PA, did you read the Dodd transcript moldbug linked to? The last four lines appear to support your reformulation:

Griffin: Why do the foundations generously support communist causes in the United States?

Dodd: Well, because, to them, communism represents a means of developing what we call a monopoly -- as the organization, we'll say, of large-scale industry into an administrable unit.

Griffin: Do they think that they will?

Dodd: They will be the beneficiary of it, yes.

January 22, 2011 at 7:36 PM  
Blogger B Lode said...

So, the Tea Party has no chance of succeeding against the Cathedral. Gotcha.

And the only way civilization can be saved from the Cathedral and the hordes of lowlife thugs if a thousand colonels read this blog, giving each other knowing glances in the same Pentagon parking one day, and do what needs doing. Check.

Most of the people who comment here aren't colonels. I hope they are reading, but I wouldn't know. So...?

What exactly are the rest of us supposed to do?

January 22, 2011 at 8:27 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Anon. - I think the 'sixties were approximately as significant to the decline of the old Optimate position in American society as the last days of the Roman republic were to its optimate class. Of course, there is not an exact parallel. Our principate probably could be said to have begun with FDR. He is the first of our "Twelve Seizers" (with apologies to Suetonius). But the old WASP ascendancy still had a few decades left in it; it didn't really begin to fall apart until the generation that had survived the New Deal began to die off.

To understand the way the enemy perceives matters, all that is necessary is to look at its analyses. Up through the 'seventies, the left routinely portrayed itself as being made up of outsiders and rebels. Today it is clear from the expressions of horror at the 'Tea Party' seen in the New York Times's and Washington Post's op-ed pages that the left regards itself as the establishment. The reality is that they were long before the 'seventies, but they wrung every bit of potential out of class envy against the old Optimate order they could long after it had become an exercise in beating a dead horse.

It is helpful in understanding what has happened to compare the first edition of G. William Domhoff's "Who Rules America" (published in 1967) with the current one. when describing the ruling class in the former, Domhoff places much emphasis on such identifiers of Optimate status as listings in the Social Register, attendance at certain preparatory schools, and membership in city and country clubs. This is assigned considerably less importance in the current edition (2009). Of course a character like Domhoff could be expected to assert the common identity of the ruling class over the decades, so by this change in emphasis, he tacitly admits what he might not acknowledge openly; namely, that it has in fact changed, in just the way I have described, both in its ancestry and in its attitudes.

January 22, 2011 at 11:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We've got two different definitions of optimates here and under neither do they rule. If the optimates are old-line moneyed families, then they're dying out in America, mostly playboys like Taki, and mostly not distinguishable in outlook and behavior from the category of celebrities. If the optimates are bankers and businessmen, then they are too interested in making money to be overly bothered with governance. However, today's bankers are culled from the same group as the brahmins. They go to the same schools, have the same assumptions, and intermarry. They are networked. No propaganda is necessary. The brahmins today aren't CP members, just skanks that scored well on the LSAT.

January 23, 2011 at 3:27 AM  
Anonymous mlr said...

@B Lode:

We aren't supposed to DO anything. Get-involved-ism is at the heart of the problem MM's been describing. Getting involved and fired-up in a populist way with reactionary ideas gets you Hitler. And who wants to clean up that mess?

The best the right can do is disengage. What was it someone said around here a year or more back? That the old Soviet Union during the Brezhnev years would have paid money for the kind of opposition the "Tea Party" constitutes. All the TP does is engage the ruling class' immune system (i.e. all "right thinking" people are given an object lesson in how NOT to think).

January 23, 2011 at 4:06 AM  
Anonymous Martyn said...

B Lode, in answer to your question:

passivism

January 23, 2011 at 5:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Getting involved and fired-up in a populist way with reactionary ideas gets you Hitler.

Hitler wasn't a reactionary. He was a revolutionary. There was not a single German institution he did not wish to change utterly.

January 23, 2011 at 6:50 AM  
Anonymous Lawrence Auster said...

Mencius,

You wrote:

"I once had a conversation with Larry Auster, perhaps America's most perspicacious nationalist today, in which Auster inadvertently revealed the fact that he believed the President could have a Foreign Service officer fired."

Thank you for the compliment, but I tend to doubt that I said such a thing to you. Notwithstanding my lamentable ignorance of the ins and outs of government, I have had, at least as far back as the Nixon administration, an awareness that the State Department is a highly entrenched bureaucracy which the president cannot directly control. That's why President Nixon ignored the State Department and controlled foreign policy by using his national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, to go around the State Department.

And since, as I've heard, you are in your early 30s, I knew this before you were born.

So, again, though I may be wrong, I tend to doubt that I would have said to you that the president on his own motion can fire a foreign service officer. If I did say it, it did not represent my understanding of the way the government works.

January 23, 2011 at 7:32 AM  
Blogger Ivan Jankovic said...

Mencius,

I went through these transcripts of the Reece Committee hearings, and at least at first reading I could not locate any mentioning of Cathryn Casey's dictaphone belts recordings.

If those recordings still exist somewhere in the congressional archives, we could maybe do something to obtain them. First, we would need a piece of advice from a legal expert as to whether, as a matter of law, these recording are now available to the public? I suppose this should not be a big problem to find out.

January 23, 2011 at 7:55 AM  
Anonymous totalesturns said...

Hitler wasn't a reactionary. He was a revolutionary. There was not a single German institution he did not wish to change utterly.

That's precisely Moldbug's point. If you try to advance reactionary policies through demagogic mass mobilization, you don't get sober, aristocratic-reactionary good government, you get... a governemnt based on demagogic mass mobilization. The conservative industrialists and Prussian aristos who supported Hitler as a bulwark against socialism learned this the hard way.

January 23, 2011 at 8:23 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Anon., there are certainly old-money families - the Social Register is full of them - and the remaining Optimates are neither all like Taki, nor are they all indistinguishable from the Brahmins. There are considerable numbers of conservatives among them, I should guess a substantial majority.

What has happened, though, is that their wealth has been outstripped, and their social institutions have been displaced from the primacy they once enjoyed, by the advent of billionaires of the hedge-fund or Silicon Valley variety, and by the celebrity culture of Hollywood. These people often sympathize with the Brahmin view, because they learnt it at university and have not had a new idea since leaving it. They neither want nor need the imprimatur of the old Optimate social and economic leadership. Robert Frank's book "Richistan" and his columns on the lives of the wealthy in the Wall Street Journal contain much that is of interest in making these distinctions clear.

The Optimate/Brahmin divide MM describes exemplifies Pareto's description of the conflicts that arise between competing elites - an old, declining one, and a new, rising one - and illustrates Pareto's point that all politics of any importance takes place between elite factions.

January 23, 2011 at 9:26 AM  
Anonymous Anon And On said...

Ivan Jankovic,

What would you and other commenters make of an effort to take a look at the original minutes themselves?

The endowment hasn't been investigated for decades, and it might not have the institutional memory of what lurks in its archives. Dodd himself took full advantage of the leadership's self-ignorance.

As long as someone who doesn't look like a Glenn Beck-inspired sleuth goes for the info, it could be doable. Let's hope the endowment staff is not advanced enough to be googling themselves for PR purposes.

I'm intrigued by Dodd's comment "I had a pretty good idea of what those minutes would contain." Where did he get that idea?

Of course, if the American establishment has changed so much since the HUAC investigation, will researching these decades-old activities even be relevant?

January 23, 2011 at 9:28 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

"Get-involved-ism is at the heart of the problem MM's been describing"
Diana Mutz (who I assume is some variety of liberal/lefty) has the social science here, which Mark Pennington spins in a Hayek's "Worst Get On Top" way.

Yglesias actually acknowledged that liberals are fans of pushy-activist types rather than salt-of-the-earth pillars of community or entrepreneurs.

January 23, 2011 at 9:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, that is the problem with fighting the state.

You take down one of the original non-profits, but every other institution is already pervaded.

Even the evidence is old and confined to a few philanthropic organizations, which will be treated as Kathryn Casey did, "What could possibly be wrong with foundations? They do so much good."

And every one of her reliable sources and authorities and friends, is both a) on the other team, and b) well-habituated against cranks and crazy theories.

In this case they have so effectively eliminated, neutered, or marginalized any opposing religion, and merged their faith with the credibility of hard science, to capture both the good and the wise.

January 23, 2011 at 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"On the other team": Hooked into the religion from birth and/or on the mainline friendly society pleasure path.

January 23, 2011 at 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Plus, they have the jackboot activists.

So, they've combined:

- the fasces fighting sisterhood people (fighting the good fight)

- the science people (knowing truth)

- the religion, (universalism/humanism/scientism with a strong dose of anti-Nazi anti-racism) and the religious (even half the evangelicals just don't like hippies and hipsters)

- the hedonists, feel-gooder do-gooders, celebrities, nihilists, and lazy Joe (easy living, no blame, no shame, free love, society fun, it's not your fault, we're here to help and we're taking care of it)

- medicine, psychology, and anyone left over you can drug with amphetamines or SSRIs from a young age

That is a Big Tent, and fundamentally includes the Outer Party, except for the constitutionalists, who are still liberal, and nativists.

This would be a powerful politics even if it did not control the state, the schools, and the press.

January 23, 2011 at 10:12 AM  
Anonymous Victory is Life said...

But, we made it this far.

January 23, 2011 at 10:28 AM  
Anonymous A Material Explanation said...

As Technology empowers, the World will be overtaken by a single sovereign Authority, or decay into a thousand sovereigns; the former ensured by a Monopoly on archdominant Technology, the latter by Mutually Assured Destruction; ever stronger offense against ever stronger defense at ever lesser cost, but ever greater control.

We see this in history from the enlargement of States and the reduction of Great Powers, to the nuclear defense and the terrorist attack.

Perhaps Ideas, enabled by Communication and Revolution, work the same.

January 23, 2011 at 10:52 AM  
Blogger Ivan Jankovic said...

Anon and ON.

I did not mean necessarily that someone has to look directly at those minutes again. I was referring to Cathryn Casey's audio recordings that may be still in the congressional archives. We could pull them off and publish what's in there. If Dodd is at least 70% right about what those recordings contain, that would be a really big deal.

January 23, 2011 at 12:41 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Anonymous Michael said...
Up through the 'seventies, the left routinely portrayed itself as being made up of outsiders and rebels.


Still do. The hate America first version of history is justified as being a corrective and balance to the "heroic anglo tale", even though few living people were ever taught a "heroic anglo tale"

The last time kids in government schools learned about Daniel Boone, the shores of Tripoli, and "not one cent for tribute" was before World War II.

And, to get back to optimates versus Brahmins, that was the last time optimates had any influence over the schools. If the optimates had any influence, their kids would learn Daniel Boone in school, here about him fighting Indians who. analogously to the Palestinians, declined to accept the fact that other Indians had sold Boone land, and to remedy this sale tortured his son to death and kidnapped his daughters. So FDR ascendant was the end of the optimates, and the beginning of the rule of the Brahmins. From FDR on, it is the hate America first school syllabus, the only changes being ever intensifying extremes of hatred and venom.

January 23, 2011 at 2:06 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Anon And On said...
Of course, if the American establishment has changed so much since the HUAC investigation, will researching these decades-old activities even be relevant?

Reading old books, I see extraordinary continuity. The Brahmins have been cohesive, rising, conspiring, and advocating much the same ideology for about two hundred and fifty years. They have had significant and rising ability to legislate their ideology, today's PC ideology, for one hundred and seventy years, and significant and rising ability to punish and deter doubters and dissidents for one hundred and twenty years.

January 23, 2011 at 2:32 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Nick Rowe is good at explaining economics in an intuitive way (though he admits to being bad at math). Here he steps outside his usual forte to argue for that Old Time Religion/culture. He'd better not push it too far or he'll be accused of Donner Party conservatism.

January 23, 2011 at 3:44 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

@James A. Donald, I agree with you that the Brahmin caste has been ascendant since FDR (himself a renegade member of the Optimate caste, who surrounded himself with a "brains trust" of Brahmins). He was, as I observed, the first of our Twelve Seizers.

I do not, however, agree that the 'hate America first' line was immediately adopted in education. Remember that until the 'sixties, control of public education was still local. Many kids in public schools still were taught the 'land of the Pilgrims' pride, land where our fathers died' presentation of American history well into the 'fifties and even the 'sixties. Moreover, such views were reflected in the popular culture: this was a golden age for the movie western. John Wayne was never politically correct.

Ther changes in the educational system and the popular culture that consolidated the hold of the Brahmins took place after this period. If we must identify a date I would say it was 1972, when McGovern and his crew took over the Democratic party. Before then what you heard from the political and cultural left was about "offing the pigs", or this little gem from Leroi Jones (remember him?):

"A cult of death need of the simple striking arm under the street lamp. The cutters from under the rented earth. Come up black dada nihilismus. Rape the white girls. Rape their fathers. Cut their mothers' throats."

Now it is Paul Krugman harrumphing on the editorial pages of the New York Times about the "eliminationist" rhetoric of the Tea Party, which is scarcely as violent or extreme. Nothing could more clearly illustrate how in less than fifty years, the advocates of Kulturbolschewismus have not only occupied the seats of power in this country, but have come to feel positively entitled to them. This explains their outrage - how dare anyone pose even so milk-water a challenge to them as Sarah Palin or the Tea Party!

January 23, 2011 at 4:15 PM  
Anonymous Ron Potato said...

The wheel keeps on turning:

http://books.google.com/books?id=L-cDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PT2&pg=PT11

Notice the description of the culture and institutions that erupted in the 60s, and persisted.

The Mother Jones Orwellian praxis, where the virtuous left is always winning enough to feel triumph, but losing enough to feel fear and vigilance.

January 23, 2011 at 4:57 PM  
Anonymous Ron Potato said...

Old enough to see them reliving the same wars, and recent enough to know we are still in the rabbit hole.

January 23, 2011 at 5:03 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Michael said...
I do not, however, agree that the 'hate America first' line was immediately adopted in education. Remember that until the 'sixties, control of public education was still local. Many kids in public schools still were taught the 'land of the Pilgrims' pride, land where our fathers died' presentation of American history

That version of history did not cover Daniel Boone and Lieutenant Stephen Decatur, therefore did not tell the kids why and how their fathers died - therefore it was hate America first.

It covered thanksgiving as the pilgrims thanking the Indians for saving them, rather than thanking God for the prosperity that ensued when they returned to the capitalism commanded by God - therefore it was hate America first.

When you see leftist propaganda less extreme than today's, you mistake it for right wing propaganda.

Moreover, such views were reflected in the popular culture: this was a golden age for the movie western. John Wayne was never politically correct.

Schools were directly controlled by the state, so succumbed first. Television and radio indirectly controlled by the state, being broadcast over government owned frequencies, so succumbed second. Hollywood, being controlled by Jews, was not controlled by Brahmins, so succumbed last, directly contradicting the theories of the Joo spotters.

January 23, 2011 at 5:12 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Are you guys familiar with Bob Murphy's challenge to debate Krugman, shaming him with conditional donations via ThePoint.com? Anyway, this is Bob's reaction to Mencius Moldbug.

Movies the last to fall to liberalism? Am I in crazyland? Have you never heard of the "Hollywood Ten", and the pre-"blacklist" blacklist they enforced against "politically incorrect" writers? For a different perspective, Scott Sumner argues that the narrative arts are inherently liberal.

January 23, 2011 at 5:30 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Mr. Donald, I beg to disagree. I was a kid in the 'fifties, and I recall learning about Daniel Boone in school. There was a popular TV show about him starring Fess Parker, too, and a fad for coonskin hats that took off from his having portrayed another frontiersman, Davy Crockett. We were taught about the Sioux uprising of 1862, and the Indian Wars of the 1870s, without all the white guilt for the fate of the poor red man. We were also taught about the Barbary pirates and Stephen Decatur. The War Between the States was not described as a contest between the shining virtue of the Union and the base villainy of the Confederacy; we were still permitted to admire Robert E. Lee. Reconstruction was still accurately described as a period in which carpetbaggers plundered the South.

How old are you? It seems to me that you are talking about a period of history you didn't experience at first hand.

January 23, 2011 at 6:50 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Maybe diplomats aren't all bad.

January 23, 2011 at 7:57 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

bob murphy is not a very good economist, and he is not a good spokesman for any school of thought. the guy still talks about the money multiplier and excess reserves being inflationary. he's one of the more simple austrians. def not ready for prime time. why anyone would want to debate paul krugman is anyone's guess. krugman is too political to deal honestly in an economic debate, even if he was a good economist. just a bit of crass self-promotion by murphy. none of these fellers are ready for prime time.

btw, good to see someone else pwning james donald.

January 23, 2011 at 8:02 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> Reading old books, I see extraordinary continuity.

On the other hand, a lot of your pre-WWII Brahmins were nativist eugenickers with a soft spot for 'fascist' sculpture and architecture. KMac has emphasized as much.

Click the sidebar here to see all the images, perhaps especially the last one:

http://kbccartsmart.tripod.com/panamapacific/

Those are exhibition buildings, built solely of papier mache or plaster or whatever.

You can also see this, which I have posted before:

http://kbccartsmart.tripod.com/panamapacific/id3.html

The limits on their Brahmanism were quite significant. Most of their attempts to help the poor were harmless enough. Not everything they did was necessarily harmless but I would basically call them centrists, speaking in a world-historical sense.

January 23, 2011 at 8:05 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Michael said...
Movies the last to fall to liberalism? Am I in crazyland? Have you never heard of the "Hollywood Ten", and the pre-"blacklist" blacklist they enforced against "politically incorrect" writers?

To this day there is still some dissent in the movies, for example "300", which induced in the politically correct much the same hysterics as Sarah Palin does.

Movie Batman, unlike television Batman, is still a vigilante that the police are trying to bust, whereas television batman is a police deputy.

January 23, 2011 at 10:06 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Anonymous RS said...
On the other hand, a lot of your pre-WWII Brahmins were nativist eugenickers with a soft spot for 'fascist' sculpture and architecture.

You see nativism where I see people unwilling to speak plainly.

I don't recall any of them openly worrying about the threat of black and Mexican blood contaminating the white race - because, since all races are the same in mean and distribution, race mixing cannot be a problem for eugenicists, or if it is, Brahmin eugenicists cannot mention the problem.

The great Zimbabwe was built by black people who look noticeably less black than their neighbors, and who claim to be the descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. The older parts of the great Zimbabwe have markedly better workmanship, while the newer parts resemble the recent workmanship of those that claim to be the builders - whose stone and metal workmanship was still far superior to their more black looking neighbors, though far inferior to that of the original builders of the great Zimbabwe.

This looks like a classic lesson in the evil of race mixing - and academics have been walking on eggshells about the great Zimbabwe all the way back since the place was discovered. Even in the oldest books, no one wants to speak plainly.

Eventually gene testing showed that the blacks claiming to be Hebrews were in fact substantially Hebrew - whereupon the great Zimbabwe was immediately re-dated to make it all the same date and all quite recently built, no longer with older and newer parts, so that even if built by Hebrews, not a lesson in the evils of race mixing.

January 23, 2011 at 10:29 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Michael said...
Mr. Donald, I beg to disagree. I was a kid in the 'fifties, and I recall learning about Daniel Boone in school.

Do you now.

Would you be so kind as to dig up a schoolbook from Google books featuring him.

I googled up a schoolbook from the period, and not only could I find no sign of Daniel Boone but I got the general impression that any teacher who went into the things that made him famous would have been burnt at the stake. Perhaps the book was atypical.

The reason Daniel Boone was famous was he had a spot of bother with the native Americans, which troubles show the natives as ... savages.

Googling schoolbooks of the time for "american indian" brings up for me the sort of insipid drek that googling schoolbooks of today for "native American" would - perhaps my google fu is weak.

January 24, 2011 at 2:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you guys familiar with Bob Murphy's challenge to debate Krugman, shaming him with conditional donations via ThePoint.com? Anyway, this is Bob's reaction to Mencius Moldbug.

What an impressive "reaction"... He openly admits he is too stupid and lazy to read UR!

January 24, 2011 at 4:50 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

TGGP,

That's pretty disappointing. Mencius may be a lot of things, but opaque he is not.

On a related note, did anybody happen to see Dennis Dale's blogging in some Seattle progressive magazine (a week of blogging was auctioned off for charity and Dale's daughter bought it for him). After a reasonably lengthy first post of what I thought to be delightfully provocative prose, the comments essentially came down to saying "reading is hard" while trying to sound erudite by quoting some dead asshole like Oscar Wilde or someone.

January 24, 2011 at 4:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In murphy's defense, tggp linked him to the middle of a conversation. Why should he know what the Pupulupi, loyalism, antihistory or "processing the red pill" is? Really it is just nonsense without any context.

January 24, 2011 at 8:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To be fair, Bob Murphy said he stops reading if he doesn't know what the author is even talking about after the third paragraph, and TGGP linked him to part Three of the Gentle Introduction, the first three paragraphs go something like this:

Okay, so you're a Loyalist now. So what?

The American Rebellion, as told by Hutchinson, Oliver, and Stedman...bogus, self-serving, fraudulent antihistory...in the tender forebrains of America's youth. An outrage!

Pupulupi, Zargon Four, Good morning

January 24, 2011 at 8:24 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

A note about disengagement and passivism.

We will see in the next few decades a rise of people taking "the Amish option"--that is, recusing themselves as much as possible from society, making money, and living their quiet lives.

We see this to some extent now with homeschooling, home-birthing, etc.

Unfortunately (or not, depending on what you'd like time to do) there can't be a full "Amish option" because these folks tend to live in the middle of cities, subject to codes and homeowners associations (that dislike, say, "urban farms").

It will be interesting to see how this is handled. Currently the government seems to favor SWAT teams, spin, and hefty fines to get folks "in line."

As always, passivity and disengagement remain the best forms of protest.

ninja edit--> the captcha is "nomor"--no more. Ha.

January 24, 2011 at 8:38 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

I redact my disappointment. I din't follow the link. Still, shouldn't everyone at least have a six paragraph rule?

January 24, 2011 at 8:49 AM  
Blogger Ivan Jankovic said...

When you look closer at the Tea Party, it seems that we have at least three or four "real warriors" these days:

One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q

Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahh3VCwv9yk&feature=related

Three
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_bue9GmtG8&playnext=1&list=PL9DE3388ED7F39C85&index=46

We can count even on this lady to be on the right side, although she is maybe not so well versed in all the theoretical intricacies of the constitutional arguments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYaTpZ0dJHs&feature=related

January 24, 2011 at 8:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was a kid in the 'fifties, and I recall learning about Daniel Boone in school. There was a popular TV show about him starring Fess Parker, too, and a fad for coonskin hats that took off from his having portrayed another frontiersman, Davy Crockett.

There was the "Rural Purge" from 1969 to 1972.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_purge

"The "rural purge" of American television networks (in particular CBS) was a series of cancellations between 1969 and 1972, the majority of which occurred at the end of the 1970-71 television season, of still popular rural-themed shows and shows with demographically-skewed audiences. It is commonly referred to as "the year CBS killed everything with a tree in it," a phrase coined by Pat Buttram, who played Mr. Haney on CBS's Green Acres."

"The purge was instigated by CBS executive Fred Silverman in the late 1960s, following research highlighting the greater attraction to advertisers of the younger urban viewer demographic and the institution of the FCC's Prime Time Access Rule, which led to the loss of a half-hour of network programming each night. While it is most commonly associated with CBS, ABC and NBC also followed a similar pattern. The numerous cancellations prompted Pat Buttram ("Mr. Haney" on one of the canceled shows, Green Acres) to make the oft-quoted observation: "It was the year CBS canceled everything with a tree—including Lassie.""

"The validity of canceling so many shows sparked controversy as many of the programs were still highly rated at the time."

January 24, 2011 at 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately (or not, depending on what you'd like time to do) there can't be a full "Amish option" because these folks tend to live in the middle of cities, subject to codes and homeowners associations (that dislike, say, "urban farms").

They're "civilized" - they live in cities ("civilization" meaning population structure of cities). They're completely dependent on Empire despite whatever frivolous posturing they engage in.

It will be interesting to see how this is handled. Currently the government seems to favor SWAT teams, spin, and hefty fines to get folks "in line."

As always, passivity and disengagement remain the best forms of protest.


The USG will not be sending in SWAT teams against urban homosexuals, metrosexuals, hipsters, etc.

And it's laughable to believe that being the gelded component parts of "civilization" constitutes protest. When that's what they'd like everyone to be - urban "parts" of "civilization" wholly dependent on Empire.

January 24, 2011 at 11:17 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Anon,

I think you're wholly misunderstanding (or miscategorizing?) what I am saying. I am sure the fault is mine, so let me be more clear:

Unfortunately (or not, depending on what you'd like time to do) there can't be a full "Amish option" because these folks tend to live in the middle of cities, subject to codes and homeowners associations (that dislike, say, "urban farms").

They're "civilized" - they live in cities ("civilization" meaning population structure of cities). They're completely dependent on Empire despite whatever frivolous posturing they engage in.


Unless you feel that the Amish are engaging in "frivolous posturing" (and you might), I think perhaps you are confusing metro-gentrification with disengagement as I understand it.

As is frequently the case, I'm sure that my usage of "urban farms" is likely different in my mind from your interpretation.

What I mean by "urban farms" are not dirt barrels that grow arooogala but sustainable yard-farms that directly replace at least one (often more than one) family's yearly produce consumption. These can be supplemented with backyard chickens (and if you want to go full on WWII-style--a pig in the pantry), etc. In my experience these are not manned by folks who are "completely dependent upon Empire" but folks who are most willing to detach themselves from said Empire (without say, moving to Somalia).

These are also the folks that are trading public and private schools for homeschooling (and, one would assume, who would be prime targets of the multiversity).

I hope (if one can use such a dirty term) that as the visibility, effectiveness, and value of such disengagement becomes obvious that more folks (who would otherwise agitate pointlessly) may simply reject the Cathedral society for one based on manure, not bullshit.

It will be interesting to see how this is handled. Currently the government seems to favor SWAT teams, spin, and hefty fines to get folks "in line."

As always, passivity and disengagement remain the best forms of protest.

The USG will not be sending in SWAT teams against urban homosexuals, metrosexuals, hipsters, etc.


Considering that a dairy was raided for not paying licensing fees and a Georgia man was fined thousands of dollars for farming in his own backyard, what I mentioned has already happened.

Perhaps "urban homosexuals, metrosexuals, hipsters, etc" are the only folks in your area who pretend to garden. In my experience they are the very ones without the gumption and willingness to work with the soil who would much rather plant an titular herb garden (like an experience child) and go drop a paycheck or two at Whole Foods.

And it's laughable to believe that being the gelded component parts of "civilization" constitutes protest. When that's what they'd like everyone to be - urban "parts" of "civilization" wholly dependent on Empire.

Again, I'm not talking about the "gelded" (though that is an exceedingly comical term for homosexuals and other non-breeders). I'm talking about folks (again, who share a similar experience to mine--confirmation bias and all--who have large families and are disengaging those families as much as possible from "Empire" as you say. That is, protesting by their passivity and disengagement the very fact of Empire.

"Let them eat grapeshot" doesn't work very well if no one shows up to protest.

January 24, 2011 at 11:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well then we're talking about different things. You're talking about suburban/rural farms. I don't think dairies, large families, yards large enough to yield a decent amount of food, etc. would generally be considered "urban farms."

January 24, 2011 at 12:21 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

My 1/8 acre yard provides more produce than my family of 5 can eat. You've just got to do it the right way.

January 24, 2011 at 2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We're definitely talking about different things. Most urban residents don't have 1/8 acre and a family of 5. They usually have to leave the city to have that.

January 24, 2011 at 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You just think "urban" means something different, and it seems irrelevant to the point.

January 24, 2011 at 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To be fair, Bob Murphy said he stops reading if he doesn't know what the author is even talking about after the third paragraph,

If you can read ANY three paragraphs of MM without (a) getting it, and (b) wanting to know more, then you are stupid and lazy, period.

January 24, 2011 at 5:46 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Urban imo means within city limits with paved roads, buildings, etc. Urban to you appears to mean in NYC.

January 24, 2011 at 5:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obviously paving a road and erecting a building in the middle of an Iowa cornfield and getting it legally designated to be within city limits doesn't turn it into an urban area.

"Urban," "cities," etc. have a pretty specific meaning. They're settlements with high densities that require the routine importation of food. "Urban farm" is a contradiction in terms. Once you localize your own food production and consumption along with other necessities you're not really a city.

January 24, 2011 at 6:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous is just fucking with you.

Unless the illogic of the current religion is so contradictory, the truly conquered minds become walking fallacies.

January 24, 2011 at 6:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous is just fucking with you.

No, I'm not.

Unless the illogic of the current religion is so contradictory, the truly conquered minds become walking fallacies.

How does anything I've said suggest that I've been "truly conquered" by "the current religion"?

January 24, 2011 at 6:40 PM  
Blogger B Lode said...

G.M., I'm terribly interested in doing it the right way. Only partly to avoid G.M. foods.

Punning aside, one eighth of an acre produces more than your family can eat ... wait a sec. More greens than they can eat, because y'all eat other things too, or you don't need to buy food at all? Anyway, if you want to serve up a big load of detail I am all about that, and if you want to do so elsewhere that is fine too.

This is very impressive. You probably don't live in my part of the country (New England) but I'm sure I could make things work up here too.

Thanks to others who answered my questions. I dimly remember the "passivism" essay and I'll re-read that. As of yet I still have a soft spot for the Tea Party and I recognize that my be naïve. I consider mental disengagement to be a good thing, in general, but I also consider the Amish to be total sitting ducks for organized violence. I.e., the Caliph will leave them alone, except for the ones he wants to "marry".

January 24, 2011 at 6:51 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

I've read all UR posts, and I don't know what Pupulupi is/are.

"The USG will not be sending in SWAT teams against urban homosexuals, metrosexuals, hipsters, etc."
They weren't called "hipsters" back then, but rave parties used to be raided pretty regularly in the 90s (or at least I would always hear about it on the news). The Stonewall riot was prompted by the raid of a gay bar (mob connected, according to Thaddeus Stevens). Radley Balko and Andrew Sullivan were giving a lot of attention to a raid on a gay bar a year or so back. The recent crackdown on alcohol+caffeine drinks like Four Loko also fits in The Man (with his respectable Irish Coffee) vs hip vibrant youth narrative.

January 24, 2011 at 6:52 PM  
Anonymous Ron Potato said...

The Pupulupi from Zargon 4 are an ancient and mysterious race, who exhibit their nobility chiefly by literal adherence to the truth, and by not existing.

January 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They weren't called "hipsters" back then, but rave parties used to be raided pretty regularly in the 90s (or at least I would always hear about it on the news). The Stonewall riot was prompted by the raid of a gay bar (mob connected, according to Thaddeus Stevens). Radley Balko and Andrew Sullivan were giving a lot of attention to a raid on a gay bar a year or so back. The recent crackdown on alcohol+caffeine drinks like Four Loko also fits in The Man (with his respectable Irish Coffee) vs hip vibrant youth narrative.

Contemporary urban homosexuals, metrosexuals, hipsters, etc. aren't rebels against the regime.

Just look at what they read: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7VgNQbZdaw

January 24, 2011 at 8:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Potato,

Moldbug was just parodying the Jupulupi.

The Jupulupi from Zion 4 are an ancient and mysterious race, who exhibit their ignobility chiefly by adherence to nothing but lies, and by existing.

He just inversed the def.

January 24, 2011 at 8:40 PM  
Anonymous marlow said...

History critiques theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_ban

What the anarcho-libertarians profess to want, just a few short centuries ago was considered the most dire punishment.

The imperial ban (German: Reichsacht) was a form of outlawry in the Holy Roman Empire. At different times, it could be declared by the Holy Roman Emperor, by courts like the Vehmgericht or the Reichskammergericht, or by the Reichstag.

People under imperial ban, known as Geächtete (from about the 17th century, colloquially also as Vogelfreie, lit. "free as a bird"), lost all their rights and possessions. They were legally considered dead and anyone was allowed to rob, injure or kill them without legal consequences. The imperial ban automatically followed the excommunication of a person, as well as extending to anyone offering help to a person under the imperial ban.

January 24, 2011 at 9:12 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

B Lode,

I live in Florida, so we have reverse growing seasons from you (no veggies really grow in the summer except peppers).

The "secret" is instead of tilling the soil, you add more (constantly adding nutrients) and you grow things together (like lettuce under corn) and in stacks.

We do import some veggies (mostly fruits, because those take up a lot of space and because we haven't converted the front lawn yet [that's March's job]) but those we source from a local organic distributor anyway via a food co-op. When the garden is going (it has been fallow since the summer--we got too busy) it produces more veggies than we can eat. When our chickens are laying (they are now molting simultaneously--eesh), they produce more eggs than we generally eat in a day.

Anon--the idea of an "urban farm" is that you have one in an otherwise surprising place. I suppose in a place where no one has a yard you could do them on the rooftops.

But in most of America, folks with houses have yards. Instead of growing grass you grow greens. Not a terribly arcane concept. They were called "victory gardens" back in WWII before folks in charge realized that people being self-sustaining was a bad idea.

January 25, 2011 at 4:42 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

> I don't recall any of them openly worrying about the threat of black and Mexican blood contaminating the white race - because, since all races are the same in mean and distribution, race mixing cannot be a problem for eugenicists, or if it is, Brahmin eugenicists cannot mention the problem.

I don't think many people saw that as a threat - or, as a threat likely to ever go un-countered.

Cruising wik, 2/3 of US states did have anti-miscegenation laws. Most certainly, there were counter-currents going back even to the 19th century, when these laws were removed in Yankee land, but one gets the impression that anti-misc feeling was dominant in the nation. There were at least two major attempts to enact it at the federal level, with a big push against it coming only with the Nazi war. Which is the same moment when interwar racialists like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard went out of style, having been quite prominent before.

I don't think very many Whites (even elites) espoused IQ or moral equalitarianism between races before WWII. There weren't many anti-segregationists back then, were there? I haven't heard of any.

The 1924 immigration restriction was pretty unabashedly racialist.

January 25, 2011 at 4:58 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

Palmer, yah but you do buy starches and lipids no? Or are potatoes your only starch?

Anyway... I think the homeschooling is the more important matter.

January 25, 2011 at 5:03 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Hey folks,

Apparently the Carnegie-Rockefeller-Ford-Guggenheim restructuring of the nation is an open secret.

Wikipedia presents it as verifiable, supported and corroborated.

Damn. Well, thanks MM for finding "the smoking gun." It's about 80 years too late, but it's nice to know about anyway.

January 25, 2011 at 5:08 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

RS:

Mostly potatoes (we grow those in tire stacks).

We buy grass-fed meat from a Tennessee farm.

But yeah, homeschooling is the key. But how to find texts that deal honestly with history who knows? (NB: if someone does know or happens to be a publisher, I have a handy Revolutionary War text I'd like to talk with you about. . .).

January 25, 2011 at 5:10 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

My two favorite Wikileaks so far:
On the Honduran "coup":

http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/07/09TEGUCIGALPA645.html

Imagine the nerve of those thugs "dragging him out of his
bed in the night and flying him to Costa Rica." The horror.

And this one from Venezuela is just a hoot:

http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2010/01/10CARACAS43.html


"Money is Secondary in Socialist Restaurants"....

"Besides the price, Saman highlighted another key difference
between socialist and capitalist "arepera": customers pay only
after eating, while "in fast food chains . . . they only think
about money." In the "Arepera Socialista," the cash register is in
a corner of the room and customers pay only after eating,
self-reporting how many of the "arepas" they ate.

Comment: Let Them Eat Arepas"

January 25, 2011 at 6:15 AM  
Blogger Hieronymus Goat said...

The missionary education in earlier times:

"Letter to Sabbath School Children", http://books.google.com/books?id=IqEVAAAAYAAJ&dq=heathens of hope&pg=RA1-PA11

January 25, 2011 at 9:07 AM  
Blogger Hieronymus Goat said...

An 1827 description of 1643 loyalists:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bKhIAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA3

"Take good heed that the boy be taught unquestioning and unqualified loyalty to his sovereign - the Alpha and Omega of political duty. Divers of the leaders of the Commons are secret friends of the seditious, mischief-brewing Puritans...

"Caution him against all vain speculation and idle inquiries: there are those that are forever inquiring and inquiring, and never coming to the truth. One inquiry should suffice for a loyal subject: 'What is established?' and that being well ascertained, the line of duty is so plain, that he who runs may read.

"I would that all our youths had inscribed on their hearts that golden rule of political religion, framed and well maintained by our good Queen Elizabeth, 'No man should be suffered to decline, either on the left or on the right hand, from the drawn line limited by authority, and by the sovereign's laws and injunctions.'

"Instead of such healthy maxims, our lads' heads are crammed with the philosophy, and rhetoric, and history of those liberty-loving Greeks and Romans. This is the pernicious lore that has poisoned our academical fountains. Liberty! what is it? Daughter of Disloyalty, and mother of all misrule, who, from the hour that she tempted our first parents to forfeit Paradise, hath ever worked mischief to our race.

January 25, 2011 at 9:25 AM  
Anonymous Rollory said...

"Michael said...
Mr. Donald, I beg to disagree. I was a kid in the 'fifties, and I recall learning about Daniel Boone in school.

Do you now.

Would you be so kind as to dig up a schoolbook from Google books featuring him."

There is nothing more incredibly fucking stupid than to inform a primary source that their direct personal experience never happened.

For my part, I was in elementary school in the early/mid 1980s, and we definitely learned about Daniel Boone then. Davy Crockett I discovered on my own.

Not everything is in Google.

January 25, 2011 at 11:39 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

"There is nothing more incredibly fucking stupid than to inform a primary source that their direct personal experience never happened."

And in a very rude manner

For my part, I was in elementary school in the early/mid 1980s, and we definitely learned about Daniel Boone then."

5th grade history. Some time around 1990. I remember it clearly. I will vouch that I teach high school US history today and neither Boone nor Crocket are on the standards.

January 25, 2011 at 1:48 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Anonymous josh said...
For my part, I was in elementary school in the early/mid 1980s, and we definitely learned about Daniel Boone then.

Really?

Without looking it up, tell us what happened to Daniel Boone's son and daughters.

January 25, 2011 at 2:52 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

B Lode,
Cruising wik, 2/3 of US states did have anti-miscegenation laws. Most certainly, there were counter-currents going back even to the 19th century, when these laws were removed in Yankee land, but one gets the impression that anti-misc feeling was dominant in the nation.

The Brahmin position was, however, perfectly clear, (that these laws were based on the supposedly ridiculous and ignorant superstition that there were significant genetic differences between the races in ability and moral character) as was the fact that the Brahmins were rising, and optimates retreating.

The Brahmins have had the same ideology and program for over two centuries. What has changed is their steadily increasing ability to implement that program and to silence dissent. What has changed is that the balance of power between Brahmins and optimates has steadily changed in favor of Brahmins and to the disfavor of optimates.

The requirements for ideological purity among Brahmins have also become tighter and tighter, but the ideology that they are required to conform to has not changed significantly, it is merely that conformity is tighter than it used to be.

January 25, 2011 at 3:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Without looking it up, tell us what happened to Daniel Boone's son and daughters."

They kicked your ass.

January 25, 2011 at 3:38 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

I remember Boone settled Kentucky, saved his daughter from Indians. I think he may have discovered the Cumberland gap (if true, I'm pretty proud of myself for that one; this was 5th grade).

Also, he was a man, a big man, but the bear was bigger so he scattered like a chigger up a tree.

Why am I anonymous josh?

January 25, 2011 at 3:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Without looking it up, tell us what happened to Daniel Boone's son and daughters."

They moved to Portland and started a chain of organic vegan coops.

January 25, 2011 at 6:08 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

James Donald has become just unreadable.

Palmer, that was an interesting wiki. But I didn't notice anything about multiculturalism, large scale third world immigration, curtailments on free speech, or any of the ideas of cultural marxism that became ubiquitous on the New Left and onwards from the 1970s.

Just seems like a lot of boilerplate progressivism. Of course, if we fail to define "leftism" and simply conflate the old progressives, many of whom were out and out racialists, with the cultural marxists from Europe, who were the harbingers of the New Left, everything remains confused.

RS has argued this pretty clearly. There was nothing about the old progressivism that was incompatible with an ethnically homogeneous USA, even if said progressivism was against the "traditional American way of life." The modern Left is obviously hostile first and foremost to expressions of ethnic identity on the part of white Americans. To the point of wanting to criminalize this, rather than any other kind of speech.

But let's all just keep talking about "PC" and the "Left" as though this actually identifies or defines anything.

I don't understand why I have to keep arguing this point which should be obvious to anyone.

January 25, 2011 at 6:09 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Palmer,

For some reason your wiki made me think of Zygmund Dobbs, author of The Great Deceit and Keynes at Harvard.

http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/index.html

http://www.keynesatharvard.org/author.html

Archibald Roosevelt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Roosevelt#Conservative_activism_and_controversies

The Great Deceit

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Deceit-Social-Pseudo-Sciences/dp/B000RB45QM

Some free books...

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=7121

Interesting about George Schuyler...

http://schuyleriana.blogspot.com/2009/01/story-of-george-s-schuyler.html

January 25, 2011 at 6:25 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

While I've backed up TGGP on this forum (and argued against Moldbug) about how the WASPs were conservative/bourgeois pre-FDR, the elite WASPs did become corrupted by the New Deal system and turned to either progressivene/liberal or liberal Rockeffeller RINO Republicans.

I'm also not convinced WASP institutions have been hijacked considering elite American institutions are not too different from elite institutions in 1970 when the modern left assumed its current form.

The WASPs also are not out of power, all of the presidents between JFK (who was basically a WASPified Irish Catholic) and Obama have been white Anglo-Protestants and there are many other prominent WASP Americans aside from recent presidents.

Re: Eugenics, eugenics doesn't indicate political ideology since Eugenics crossed partisan boundaries before Hitler.

Both Woodrow Wilson and Vladimir Lenin had nothing but praise for D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation.

Sir Julian Huxley and population genetics founding father JBS Haldhane both served as Chairman of the (in its prime) highly influential British Eugenics Society and both were men of the Left.

In Huxley's case, he was an avowed Fabian socialist (though he quickly began renouncing any hereditarian positions after WWII and the excesses of the Hitler regime) and JBS Haldhane was an avowed Marxist for much of his adult life.

The American and European left (and Western elites in general) only became multicultural because of Hitler because it was Hitler above all others who bears the blame for the elite's in heredity thanks to his wars and crackpot ideology which nearly destroyed Europe and would have led to the mass extermination/enslavement of over 100 million Eastern Slavs had he not been defeated.

January 25, 2011 at 6:32 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

I haven't been paying much attention, but was James Donald ever readable? In the spirit of saying something nice, I propose that those who have been paying attention submit their favorite James Donald comments.

I don't know if tracking Presidents is that important. Looking at that wouldn't tell you anything about changes regarding women or gays. As Razib points out, we continue to apply religious tests to Presidents even as unbelief has grown rapidly. Among elites I'd say serious religion is pretty much dead.

OrgTheory/Monkey Cage/Crooked Timber were all doing "Better Book Titles" jokey threads and one of the commenters referenced his own book "More work! Less pay!", about radical left-wing troublemakers in 1970s Italy. Something from the QA caught my eye:
"What I describe in the book is a "cycle of contention" (Sidney Tarrow's term) - a series of social movements taking cues from one another, spreading and branching out into different areas. Tarrow's original model of the cycle suggested that a cycle declines when its contributions are absorbed into mainstream politics, leaving the activists satisifed and the diehard leaders washed up. My reading of the 1973-79 cycle is that it went into decline when it was comprehensively suppressed, both forcibly and ideologically - leaving the entire movement washed up, or in many cases behind bars. The 'movement of 1977' - the last and biggest of a series of waves of activism which had begun around 1973 - was repressed and criminalised, not necessarily in that order. And as a result it's now largely forgotten - or else remembered as a curiously widespread outbreak of nihilist hooliganism."

Just a reminder, the left/antinomianism doesn't always win.

January 25, 2011 at 6:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just a reminder, the left/antinomianism doesn't always win.

It wins when winning means the entrenchment or expansion of state power over private society.

January 25, 2011 at 7:12 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> Re: Eugenics, eugenics doesn't indicate political ideology since Eugenics crossed partisan boundaries before Hitler.

It does indicate that your ideology isn't PC - that you aren't totally in continuity with Hillary Ramrod, the Obamabots, and slave morality, but are instead viciously 'anti-human'.

I agree that it does not make you a rightist, even though I would say that it leans right.

If you watch 'Architecture of Doom' (excellent docu-flick), there's the story of a eugenecist who favored the USSR over fascism and liberalism, and traveled there to try to convince the Bolshies to go eu. But the Sovs stuck to their dys.

Some of the original Proggles also had a problem - vis-a-vis corruption - with Blacks voting. It's in the wik article. It doesn't sound like equalitarianism - though, as with eugenics, I'm not sure just *how* widespread and important this was to the Progs.

> it was Hitler above all others who bears the blame for the elite's in heredity thanks to his wars and crackpot ideology which nearly destroyed Europe

Well... That wasn't the *first* crackpot ideology that threatened to destroy Europe - and particularly Germany. Not to say that the response was sane. You know my views, namely that you are seeing only one side of an ethnic conflict. But yes, of course, that man carries a very large fraction of the albatross of hurting all that is good and sweet and true in civilization - in addition to his reprobate status for direct harm to a sea of individuals.

But again - and you won't agree - I consider Nietzsche to be probably more responsible than he was (being an equally necessary component of the brew, but a rarer one). I think Hitler would be the type to recognize his superiors in culture and thought, without envy - and that superior was Nietzsche, who repeatedly fantasized about colossal wars of extermination against 'decadents'.

January 25, 2011 at 9:28 PM  
Anonymous merv said...

The American and European left (and Western elites in general) only became multicultural because of Hitler because it was Hitler above all others who bears the blame for the elite's in heredity thanks to his wars and crackpot ideology which nearly destroyed Europe and would have led to the mass extermination/enslavement of over 100 million Eastern Slavs had he not been defeated.

So if Hitler won, then the American/Euro left wouldn't have become multicultural? That would've been good, right?

The "100 million Eastern Slavs" would have been made up for with hundreds of millions of Germans, right?

January 25, 2011 at 9:51 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

You can guess at most of what I know about Nietzsche. He was horribly sick, he was hysterical - or daemonic as Kierkegaard would say almost synonymously. He stated that he was constantly anxious; this in addition to depression and multi-day migraines about once a week.

Furthermore, he was capable of touching off manias by exciting himself with some new, even more unbalanced vista. He could elate himself at the expense of a balanced future for the rest of mankind.

This is a big part of how the world got so messed up. Of course, he was right about everything at a basic level - that's the whole problem. But then there's the practical level...

If his obsession for dealing amorally with 'slanderers of life' (you know, 'the majority of mankind') was not enough... there was also his secondary theme, the value of conflict and war. He pondered mountain climbing and other dangerous businesses as substitute stimuli, but he ultimately doubted whether these things could bring men toward greatness in remotely the degree that 'massive' wars could do.

Again, you see this second theme too in Hitler - the Suicide Notes guy quoted him as saying that if the Jew did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him (because of the inherent value of conflict and war, separate from the value of achieving war aims). These two themes reinforce each other in a bad way... til there is no hope of balance.

Part of our task is to produce a ('far') right that doesn't contain these postulates in their wildly de-repressed forms, and which deeply comprehends their disasterousness when taken alone.

The great herald of an anti-Nietzschean right, that sees value outside extreme conflict, is Tarkovskij - his Zerkalo (Mirror) which you can watch on google video with English subs (but you have to watch it several times to really get it). It's the greatest movie ever made; I don't know what to compare it to other than Tallis or the Song of Solomon.

James Kalb gets too abstract for me sometimes, but I think he's exactly right about, among many other things, just how far these basic precepts and postulates will go. Especially in a new, non-traditional form of mass society like fascism or liberalism. We go from one fever to another.

January 25, 2011 at 9:57 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

Walter Kaufmann has been a big influence on Nietzsche-reading in English, through his translations and monograph (both fantastic).

(He also bore arms against the Nazis.)

But some of his rehabilitative efforts have been way, way off... see here for an example:

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/04/nietzsche-and-national-socialism.html

January 25, 2011 at 10:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jkr says,

James Donald has become just unreadable.

ROFLMAO at this complaint from the guy who spams the forum with painfully unreadable Joo-hating diatribes.

January 25, 2011 at 10:37 PM  
Anonymous PA said...

Can someone get in contact with Moldbug and tell him trolls are mimicking the names of regulars? Or at least start policing his comment section?

They did it with G.M. Palmer's name recently, and now they have done the same with my handle above.

January 26, 2011 at 5:01 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

@PA:

Email him. His emails are not hard to find.

@RS:

It's called Pauline+Jamesian Christianity. All of the personal responsibility and none of the despair.

January 26, 2011 at 5:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Man, that Dennis Dale series mentioned above is a sight to behold (a reactionary blogger doing a week long blogging series in a progressive online 'zine).

The comments in response are incredible. Going from snide remarks, to outright calls for violence.

Should have got Moldbug to do it.

links:

http://dennisdale.blogspot.com/

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Author.html?oid=6351928

January 26, 2011 at 5:49 AM  
Anonymous Ron Potato said...

The Undiscovered Jew: You seem to disagree with the basic Moldbug premise. You need to argue from that position, or the rest is just nonsense.

"The WASPs also are not out of power, all of the presidents between..."

Moldbug argues, and we agree, that the President has little power in most areas. The one official branch of government that retains true power, is the judicial branch, and the Supreme Court now has, zero Protestants, and zero Anglo-Saxons (though Roberts is 1/2 English).

And this aside from the long-term professorial rulers, who are all races of cosmopolitan intellectual.

Of course the figurehead of government, elected by the people, should reflect their prejudices.

So, without counter acting the basic premise of government, your argument is irrelevant and contradicted.

January 26, 2011 at 6:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Zero Protestants and Zero Anglo-Saxons on the Supreme Court is even unlikely by deviant chance, let alone Zero proof, or Negative proof, of WASP control.

January 26, 2011 at 7:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hell, the Supreme Court, the imperium maius, (besides the jury, the town hall meeting, and the violent revolution, the American hopes),

In this supreme instrument of government, the gentile white males don't even constitute a majority.

This is your ethnic argument?

January 26, 2011 at 7:26 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Nietzsche, who repeatedly fantasized about colossal wars of extermination against 'decadents'.

I wonder what you're referring to here?

January 26, 2011 at 1:43 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

RS said...
The 1924 immigration restriction was pretty unabashedly racialist.

If it was unabashedly racialist, would have applied a race test, which it did not. So the most you can say is that it was abashedly racist.

Being abashed, is evidence that Brahmins held the upper hand in 1924, and had the same ideology then as now. The difference between an abashed race test, and open floodgates, being merely a matter of degree, and not very large degree.

January 26, 2011 at 4:17 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Anonymous josh said...
I remember Boone settled Kentucky, saved his daughter from Indians. I think he may have discovered the Cumberland gap (if true, I'm pretty proud of myself for that one; this was 5th grade).

Then your school somehow neglected to mention that the Indians tortured one of Daniel Boone's sons, James Boone, to death, not to mention a great many of his associates and partners

So when you were in fifth grade, schools were already under the thumb of the Brahmins, giving the Brahmin version of history, where we stole the land from gentle peaceloving natives, rather than from vicious savages who torture children.

So what year were you in fifth grade?

January 26, 2011 at 4:35 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Anonymous jkr said...
There was nothing about the old progressivism that was incompatible with an ethnically homogeneous USA

The old progressivism declined to confront the natives with their plans to create a majority non white USA, but the old progressivism held that blacks and white were the same in mean and distribution, as were men and women, which proposition prefigured the program.

Turning the US majority nonwhite is not a Jooish plot, but a natural consequence of an ideology well over two hundred years old, an ideology that only recently started to convert large numbers of Jews away from Judaism to progressivism.

To the extent that Jews have converted to this ideology, the converts have become as hostile to Judaism as the rest of the adherents are hostile to older forms Christianity, as illustrated, for example, by the progressive hostility to Jews building houses in Jerusalem.

January 26, 2011 at 4:52 PM  
Blogger B Lode said...

The problem with passivism seems to be the same as the problem with every political reform I've proposed: it only works if you get pretty much every reactionary/ formalist/ minarchist on board.

Nothing against passivism, per se, since it saves energy that the alt-rightist would better spend on installing a wood stove, reading Jouvenel, learning Bartitsu, etc., but I don't really think it's going to sap the Cathedral of its strength. I guess in 50 years it may destroy itself anyway.

January 26, 2011 at 8:10 PM  
Blogger Mitchell said...

RS said

"[Nietzsche] was capable of touching off manias by exciting himself with some new, even more unbalanced vista. He could elate himself at the expense of a balanced future for the rest of mankind.

"This is a big part of how the world got so messed up."

Are you saying 20th-century history was significantly affected by Nietzsche failing to control his mood swings?

Or are you saying that this susceptibility to unbalanced elation has had political and historical consequences because it's a widespread phenomenon, and Nietzsche just illustrates it?

January 26, 2011 at 9:16 PM  
Anonymous mlr said...

@BLode

I think I heard it best said by a commenter on IOZ, years back. Darned if I can find it now, but to paraphrase, his gist was that no one can expect of us that we save the world (Mencius would add, no doubt, that saving the world is exactly what pwoggles are all about), but rather it's enough to ask of us, right thinking people, that we live, and live well (and which I know MM would agree with, because he's said, in so many words, that it's enough for him to simply be correct).

For me, living well as a reactionary means not taking the politicking that saps the life from Tea Partiers and pwoggles seriously, at all, and devoting enormous energy to appreciating the really good things in life.

Chief amongst which would be, as the IOZ commentariat would put it... blaaaahg!

January 27, 2011 at 3:16 AM  
Anonymous Ron Potato said...

"The old hypocrite, Tartuffe or Pecksniff, was a man whose aims were really worldly and practical, while he pretended that they were religious. The new hypocrite is one whose aims are really religious, while he pretends that they are worldly and practical."

Chesterton, What's Wrong With the World, 1912.

January 27, 2011 at 5:06 AM  
Anonymous Ron Potato said...

"In short, the rational human faith must armor itself with prejudice in an age of prejudices, just as it armored itself with logic in an age of logic..

The essential of the difference is this: that prejudices are divergent, whereas creeds are always in collision. Believers bump into each other; whereas bigots keep out of each other's way. A creed is a collective thing, and even its sins are sociable. A prejudice is a private thing, and even its tolerance is misanthropic...

For the sincere controversialist is above all things a good listener. The really burning enthusiast never interrupts; he listens to the enemy's arguments as eagerly as a spy would listen to the enemy's arrangements.

But if you attempt an actual argument with a modern paper of opposite politics, you will find that no medium is admitted between violence and evasion. You will have no answer except slanging or silence. A modern editor must not have that eager ear that goes with the honest tongue. He may be deaf and silent; and that is called dignity. Or he may be deaf and noisy; and that is called slashing journalism. In neither case is there any controversy; for the whole object of modern party combatants is to charge out of earshot.

The only logical cure for all this is the assertion of a human ideal.

Chesterton, What's Wrong With the World, 1912.

January 27, 2011 at 5:20 AM  
Anonymous Ron Potato said...

"It is enough to say that unless we have some doctrine of a divine man, all abuses may be excused, since evolution may turn them into uses.

It will be easy for the scientific plutocrat to maintain that humanity will adapt itself to any conditions which we now consider evil. The old tyrants invoked the past; the new tyrants will invoke the future.

Evolution has produced the snail and the owl; evolution can produce a workman who wants no more space than a snail, and no more light than an owl. The employer need not mind sending a Kaffir to work underground; he will soon become an underground animal, like a mole. He need not mind sending a diver to hold his breath in the deep seas; he will soon be a deep-sea animal.

Men need not trouble to alter conditions; conditions will so soon alter men. The head can be beaten small enough to fit the hat. Do not knock the fetters off the slave; knock the slave until he forgets the fetters.

To all this plausible modern argument for oppression, the only adequate answer is, that there is a permanent human ideal that must not be either confused or destroyed.

The most important man on earth is the perfect man who is not there.

Chesterton, What's Wrong With the World, 1912.

January 27, 2011 at 5:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The old progressivism declined to confront the natives with their plans to create a majority non white USA,

I don't know how you define "old," but in the 1920s they had no such plans.

but the old progressivism held that blacks and white were the same in mean and distribution, as were men and women, which proposition prefigured the program.

What evidence do you have that prominent progressives in the 1920s believed negros as a group were cognitively equal to whites?

Turning the US majority nonwhite is not a Jooish plot, but a natural consequence of an ideology well over two hundred years old

It is neither of those things. In post WWII America, the state paid cultural-marxist Jewish thinkers to invent equalist propaganda. This propaganda was widely adopted and promulgated by the gentile cultural-marxist "intellectual" left (i.e. the "educational" establishment) in order to destroy private, white "bourgeois" society, which they hated because it didn't like or need them, and because they were little schemers who looooooved power.

Whites don't need the state, therefore it becomes necessary for the state to crush and disrupt private white society in order to expand. There's no 200 year old grand scheme! Forcing whites to live with negros is just a great way to fuck with them, make life expensive, and create a dependent class to farm for votes and support.

January 27, 2011 at 1:07 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Anonymous said...
What evidence do you have that prominent progressives in the 1920s believed negros as a group were cognitively equal to whites?

In the 1890s Froude was scolded for supposing inherent inequality, in the confident and condescending tone that power uses to address truth.

The proposition that Jamaican creole was language as orderly, well structured, and as capable of expressing complex thoughts as English (what we would now call "ebonics") was accepted in the 1890s without argument or plausible evidence, global warming style. Regardless of whether the proposition is true or not, the uncritical way it was accepted shows a powerful group pushing the line of inherent equality.

The troubling evidence of the Great Zimbabwe, that race mixing leads to degeneration towards the inferior race, was treated delicately from the beginning: all the way back in 1900 any academic who wrote about the great Zimbabwe was walking on eggshells, as if fearing reprisal and punishment should he make the disturbing implications excessively plain. Unlike today, a journalist or politician could say that sort of thing plainly enough, but in 1900 just like today, academics mumbled evasively with their mouths full of cotton wool

January 27, 2011 at 2:31 PM  
Anonymous marlow said...

James I admire your faith. Because what you believe is definitely not based on reason.

January 27, 2011 at 4:37 PM  
Blogger John Dougan said...

I wonder if Walter Russel Mead hangs out here sometime, this has a somewhat familiar sound:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/01/24/the-birth-of-the-blues/

January 27, 2011 at 5:46 PM  
Blogger B Lode said...

Okay, so let me resolve two articles of UR-style reaction:

Anti-Cathedral / anti-PC activism only strengthens the wrong side, and is forbidden by the Steel Rule.

Any organization not explicitly right-wing becomes left-wing over time.

Can you form an explicitly reactionary (or, more precisely formalist, skeptical, anti-teleological, perhaps HBD-friendly), non-activist groups and still comply with the Steel Rule, or does that activate the old Anti-Cracker Immune Defense? It seems a narrow path but a navigable one, to have a club of spooky right-wingers talking about growing edibles in tires, reading Evola & Mencken, reviewing armored biker jackets, etc.

In a way, it would be a face-to-face version of UR, though less specific and probably with a lower average IQ.

January 27, 2011 at 6:31 PM  
Blogger Mitchell said...

Fun with Google Ngrams

January 27, 2011 at 8:35 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

B Lode:

I think self-imposed, quiet exile is the only way to go.

If such a group were to, as quietly as possible, move into a quiet neighborhood, buy up all the available houses and fill them with like-minded people, you could have islands of such groups living untroubled lives within 5 years.

If this group cleaved to the most important reactionary idea--that of children NOT needing to move far away from home (e.g.--the Amish build on to their houses for their kids), then within a generation or at most two, the neighborhoods would become nigh-on impenetrable.

NB/FYI: there are three turn-key houses in my isolated by three big roads and a river neighborhood available right now for about $50,000. There are two or three houses that need work starting at $25,000. If you'd rather have a large house in the neighborhood, on the river, you can have one for $150,000.

January 28, 2011 at 4:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come live in a shack down by the river with G, M. Palmer and the rest of the "self-imposed exile community". Hooray for like-minded people doing their own thing!

January 28, 2011 at 6:54 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Actually, if you want shacks, you'll have to move away from the river.

And live in a far more violent 'hood.

And I've got more body hair than the two of those cultural retards put together.

But it's nice that you obsess about me.

January 28, 2011 at 1:18 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

John Dougan, Walter Russell Mead has been writing about that sort of thing long before Mencius started blogging. You're better off reading David Hackett Fischer though. Razib at GNXP original has a post on Mead's piece, but the site is down right now and I can't provide the permalink.

January 28, 2011 at 10:21 PM  
Blogger B Lode said...

So, why isn't there a G.M. Palmer in my state? $#%$!!

But of course there probably are, they're just not at UR. In any case "quiet, self-imposed exile" is a subject I need to think and read about quite a lot. One nice thing about it is it overlaps a lot with TEOTWAWKI planning. It overlaps with everything else that's been on my mind recently, such as physical culture, Art of Manliness, paleolithic diet, monetizing the debt, and forecasts of rising prices.

January 29, 2011 at 2:45 PM  
Blogger B Lode said...

Err, I meant rising food prices, especially, although rising energy prices won't be pretty. Incidentally, I read recently that consumer prices are generally reported with energy costs included, rather than excluded.

January 29, 2011 at 2:47 PM  
Blogger Sean O'Brian said...

Quaker Oats Advert

February 3, 2011 at 5:59 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home