Thursday, April 23, 2009 33 Comments


No parent can be a philanthropist.
He has seen the monkey in the girl -
The Moro, stiff-armed for a branch.
His wife, rudely, explained Sibyl's

First two noises: "Whea mah foo?"
And "I got rights!" Real royalty,
As kindly hand to the incompetent,
Is kind of god indeed; suum cuique

Is its brand; every other passion
Is foreign to the crown. And none
Past love of man, "a clever servant,"
Untended trap that traps on still.

Whereas the parent, as first governor,
Does his graduate work in ontology.
Cladistics is fate. Infertility, fortune.
All the quadrumana deserve a firm hand.


Anonymous josh said...

That's nice and all, but you should read this beauty that I heard on NPR yesterday. Talk about "Ah"!

See how the author just comes right out and says it? Isn't that delightful?

April 23, 2009 at 5:51 AM  
Anonymous blue anonymous said...

What, comes right out and says he is a big ol' unreconstructed commie? Then finishes paralogically

"And if anyone mentions
this is a nice idea but isn't possible,
consider what we have now:
everybody dissatisfied, continually grumbling and disputing."

Ie, "if X seems impossible [or unintentionally destructive], just fix your attention on [anything but X]."

April 23, 2009 at 6:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Surely whatever we do at the job
for our eight hours—as long as it contributes—
has to be worth the same."

What a MORON. It is only unfortunate that there is no comments section associated with this dreck.

April 23, 2009 at 6:31 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

I'm hoping that was Josh's point, y'all.

I.e. that the 'stablishment has gotten so arrogant that they no longer care 'bout hiding the fact that they're crazy commies.

April 23, 2009 at 7:06 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

What Palmer said. I wish you could have heard the hushed solemn NPR tone in which they read it. I nearly drove my car into a tree (on purpose) about halfway through that one.

April 23, 2009 at 7:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More poetry? So, are we down to one substantive post a month now? That's kind of a let-down.

April 23, 2009 at 9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, sadly it is clear that MM has lost momentum.

April 23, 2009 at 9:58 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Lost momentum?

He's writing poetry, political commentary, and raising a baby.

Hardly a loss of momentum.

Though I was expecting more text to read. . .

April 23, 2009 at 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, lost momentum. The poetry is a clear sign of lost momentum. It sorta keeps people convinced that the blog is still active, but I'd rather see 1/4 of a normal-length MM post than a poem.

Raising a baby is not evidence that he has not lost momentum; it is, perhaps, the reason he has lost momentum.

April 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

I reread the poems from time to time. They are a valuable contribution, but I am always disappointed to see one posted. Oh, well, this is a gift horse.

April 23, 2009 at 12:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe he has said what he has to say. If you have said what you have to say, it is best to stop, and it distinguishes you from those who never had anything to say in the first place but won't shut up (John McCain comes to mind.) I would like comment but maybe the time has past.

April 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM  
Anonymous blue anonymous said...

Can you possibly be serious? MM has to dance on your schedule? I guess you must have reduced him by chivalric arms, created him ex nihilo in a clandestine lab, saved him from a charging centaur, bought him a Tuscan villa, or in some other way got a serious claim on him.

April 23, 2009 at 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Lawful Neutral said...

blue anon:

I have two things to say to you:

"'Whea mah foo?'
And 'I got rights!'"

April 23, 2009 at 4:18 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

This is the problem with giving something away on a regular basis.

People come to expect it.

April 23, 2009 at 5:45 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

You should also read this beauty that I read yesterday. Talk about "Ah"!

See how the author just comes right out and says it? Isn't that delightful?

April 23, 2009 at 6:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can you possibly be serious? MM has to dance on your schedule?

This is the problem with giving something away on a regular basis. People come to expect it.
I'm not ordering him to do anything, you dumbasses, because I can't, and I expect nothing from him, because he has no obligation to me. I am simply observing that he has lost momentum. Why is this observation your sloping foreheads to wrinkle in consternation?

April 23, 2009 at 7:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can you possibly be serious? MM has to dance on your schedule?

This is the problem with giving something away on a regular basis. People come to expect it.

I'm not ordering him to do anything, you dumbasses, because I can't, and I expect nothing from him, because he has no obligation to me. I am simply observing that he has lost momentum. Why is this observation causing your sloping foreheads to wrinkle in consternation?

[Oh boo, formatting got all effed up last time.]

April 23, 2009 at 7:17 PM  
Anonymous blue anonymous said...

anon, I have a totally huge frontal lobe, and anyway with my screwball tone I was trying to be half playful with you.

April 23, 2009 at 7:44 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Oh yeah, Josh. Brix were shat on that one.

I liked that folks played it off as "Lieberman is just telling the Russians what they want to hear" as if there were some blackout of communications or something.


April 23, 2009 at 7:45 PM  
Anonymous infobeast said...

The soul of Albert Jay Nock, channeled through the voice of Ezra Pound. At least that seems to be what he's aiming toward.

I concur with the comments on NPR. Listening to Hannity or Savage often makes me want to punch the speaker. But listening to NPR's precious sentiments makes me want to drink myself into oblivion. Perhaps that's part of their strategy.

April 23, 2009 at 11:44 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...


With Usura
hath no man a house of good stone
each block cut smooth and well fitting
that design might cover their face,
with usura
hath no man a painted paradise on his church wall
harpes et luz
or where virgin receiveth message
and halo projects from incision,
with usura
seeth no man Gonzaga his heirs and his concubines
no picture is made to endure nor to live with
but it is made to sell and to sell quickly
with usura, sin against nature,
is thy bread ever more of stale rags
is thy bread dry as paper,
with no mountain wheat, no strong flour
with usura the line grows thick
with usura is no clear demarcation
and no man can find site for his dwelling.

Stonecutter is kept from his stone
weaver is kept from his loom
wool comes not to market
sheep bringeth no gain with usura
Usura is a murrain, usura
blunteth the needle in the maid’s hand
and stoppeth the spinner’s cunning. Pietro Lombardo
came not by usura
Duccio came not by usura
nor Pier della Francesca; Zuan Bellin’ not by usura
nor was ‘La Calunnia’ painted.
Came not by usura Angelico; came not Ambrogio Praedis,
Came no church of cut stone signed: Adamo me fecit.
Not by usura St Trophime
Not by usura Saint Hilaire,
Usura rusteth the chisel
It rusteth the craft and the craftsman
It gnaweth the thread in the loom
None learneth to weave gold in her pattern;
Azure hath a canker by usura; cramoisi is unbroidered
Emerald findeth no Memling
Usura slayeth the child in the womb
It stayeth the young man’s courting
It hath brought palsey to bed, lyeth
between the young bride and her bridegroom
They have brought whores for Eleusis
Corpses are set to banquet
at behest of usura.
I don't think he's aiming for Pound's voice. . .

April 24, 2009 at 4:06 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

At least for now I think MM has run out of things to say about the Cathedral.

But his essays on American and European history, such as the World Wars and the US Civil War, are excellent intellectual LSD.

Maybe MM should focus on history until he gets new ideas about modern politics?

April 24, 2009 at 12:58 PM  
Anonymous jono said...

Palmer, I had read Pound's poem years ago and hadn't thought about it since your comment.

After reading MM's recent post about American finance and it's relationship with housing, architecture, suburbia, Pound's poem seems rather prescient.

When I first read Pound's poem, my reaction was basically that he was an idiot/crazy loon who didn't know anything about finance and economics. Of course, finance would improve everything, and there would be economic/social progress, and so on and so forth.

Now of course, in light of reading MM and others, I am much more doubtful. Pound's poem seems much more valid than when I had read it the first time.

April 24, 2009 at 1:23 PM  
Anonymous Jono said...

Without becoming a complete economic determinist a la Marx, I think MM and Pound are really onto something when they argue that finance, or at least the type and nature of a financial system, has much to bear on many aspects of social and political phenomena.

I suppose this is a trivial point, but it seems to go unnoticed by many who believe that we have bland, hideous, and homogenous suburban tract housing and strip malls because of economic "progress" and "efficiency".

The point, I think could go further, as it seems to apply to pop culture as well. Anything familiar with the business of pop music and movies should recognize this. I suppose it ties to the democratizing tendency of all aspects of society that has been unfolding since the Reformation or so.

April 24, 2009 at 2:19 PM  
Anonymous Musgrove said...

(Sorry for the esp. long post that follows; it ended up being longer than I originally intended)

There's an interesting review of John Rawls' recently discovered work of theology in The American Conservative.

I haven't read Rawls theological writing, but according to the review and the quotes it provides, there seems to be no real difference in the substance of Rawls theological writing and "A Theory of Justice" and as Mencius has suggested before, "A Theory of Justice" is basically a work of 20th century liberal Protestant Christianity, minus the actual "God" stuff.

The review mentions that Rawls scholars and political thinkers are of course, "shocked" about this revelation because he was an avowed agnostic and never really mentioned God, or Christianity, or religion in his political writing. It was all, you know, based on "reason" of course.

Another interesting aspect of Rawls' religious writing is his critique of Catholicism, as a Protestant. He critiques Catholicism for its "heretical" fusion of Greek philosophy and Christianity. This of course is an age old Protestant critique going back hundreds of years, and anyone familiar with Catholicism knows that it is infused with Plato, Aristotle, and the other Greek masters. But what is really interesting and novel about Rawls' critique is that he argues this synthesis results in a "naturalism", that is a conception of a cosmic order which includes the divine, God, nature, Man. This "naturalism" and its conception of the cosmos, according to Rawls, leads to "individualism" as individual men are objects in a divinely ordered cosmos, and this "individualism" for Rawls is heretical as it detracts from his conception of true Christianity as involving a "community" and the proper relations among members of the "community." This contrasts with Catholicism's conception of Christianity (adopted from Aristotle's teleology) as being fundamentally about individuals and their relationship with and orientation towards God (the highest good, or ultimate end).

Rawls' critique of Catholicism is particularly interesting because, as we at UR are so fond of seeing, it flips the conventional view of Catholicism as being fundamentally anti-individualist and collectivist (or at least communitarian) when compared and contrasted with the supposedly individualistic Protestantism. Rawls' argument is that Catholicism is heretical because of its individualism, and true Christianity (liberal Protestantism) is all about the community and the hyper moralism of members of the community in relation to each other.

It's hard to see though, how political thinkers, writers, and liberals could fail to see all this Christianity and religion which they supposedly detest in A Theory of Justice. I mean, the "veil of ignorance" and individual merit not justifying any private gain,....this just smacks of Calvinism. Predestination, absolute depravity of man, salvation by grace alone, anyone? Of course, all these people had good reason to pretend it had nothing at all to do with theology, as Mencius has argued.

April 24, 2009 at 10:21 PM  
Anonymous delta said...

" First two noises: "Whea mah foo?"
And "I got rights!" "

Sounds pushy. Must be the Jew blood coarsing through her veins.

April 25, 2009 at 6:01 PM  
Anonymous dewey said...

Hey Mencius, did you hear?

They named the latest flu epidemic after your people.

April 26, 2009 at 1:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

good article at the "occidental observer" not completely unrelated to mencius.

April 26, 2009 at 6:06 PM  
Anonymous Alle Juden Raus! said...

good article at the "occidental observer" not completely unrelated to mencius..

Ahhh, our beloved KMac, the Supreme Cockroach of evolutionary psychology.

He's such an intellectual stud, what with him bravely committing academic fraud left and right in CofC, and all.

Hopefully, his University won't give him the boot if/when they get around to investigating his, shall we say, "unorthodox" research practices (if the University isn't already...)

Otherwise, his worshippers may have to go back to merely quoting Protocols, the poor deranged fellows:

Kevin MacDonald's Hungary1. Apart from Irving's reference to "prominent funkies" (by which he means
Jews, "funkies" being his term of abuse for communist party functionaries)
keeping mistresses, there are no references to the ethnic identity of those
who exploited the availability of woman factory-workers or who visited
prostitutes (or, for that matter, to the ethnic identity of the woman
factory workers or the prostititues themselves). Indeed, if Irving can be
taken at his word about the "staggering proportion of Hungarian males" who
"lost their virginity to prostitutes," the reference is almost certainly
*not* to Hungarian Jewish males who, in the years after the Second World
War, hardly amounted to a "staggering proportion" of the Hungarian or any
other European population. Nor is there any reason to conclude that the
availability of the woman factory workers described by the car worker was
"disproportionately" restricted to any particular group.

2. Even had he not bothered to check Irving's primary sources for himself,
it ought to have been clear to MacDonald from the context that the sources,
a collection of individual interviews with refugees from the October
Revolution, can hardly be taken as reliable documentation for Irving's own
sweeping cultural generalizations, much less for the even more tenuous
generalizations MacDonald himself extracts from Irving. For instance,
Irving documents the assertion that "most of the prominent funkies kept
mistresses" with the interview with the unnamed "car worker." Even if the
worker made such an assertion himself (and there is no evidence in Irving's
text that he did), a responsible social scientist would have to ask, how
could the worker have known this? He could have had direct knowledge only
of what was going on in his immediate environment; information about what
was going on in the rest of Hungary would have come to him, if at all, as

A serious historian does not build his own assertions about widespread
social phenomena upon such information, and neither, I imagine, would a
responsible social scientist. It would, of course, have been perfectly
legitimate to report the car worker's comments as evidence of contemporary
*perceptions* of the cultural environment, but neither Irving nor MacDonald
seems inclined to make the crucial distinction between *documented*
behavior and *perceived* behavior -- particularly not when an opportunity
to attribute unappetizing perceived behavior to Jews is in the offing.

In fact, all of Irving's assertions about social phenomena in this passage
operate on this model: Irving himself posits the phenomenon, then quotes an
interview that is at best tangential to the point, giving no real data
(apart from the unnamed car worker's off-hand remark about the availability
of "eighty or ninety per cent" of the women in his own factory), but
instead relaying a refugee's personal anecdote. In some cases, such as the
assertion that unmarried mothers were "rewarded for each bastard child
born," the documentation supporting the point is entirely unclear. (And yet
this last is a key selling point for MacDonald, who construes it to mean
that gentile women were paid to allow themselves to become impregnated by
Jewish men.)

3. In sum, the passage offers not a shred of evidence that, as MacDonald
would have it, "Jewish males enjoyed disproportionate sexual access to
gentile females." It offers evidence only that not even David Irving is
exempted from Kevin MacDonald's capricious misuse of his sources, and, in
conjunction with that, that whatever the aspirations that motivate
MacDonald's writings about Jews, the production of sound research that
deserves to win acceptance within the scholarly community is not among

April 26, 2009 at 7:53 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

jooooo joooooo!

I think these folks are all MM's sock-puppets as he attempts a Zooropa-fication of the blog. . .

April 27, 2009 at 4:39 AM  
Anonymous Geordan said...

I was reading my Columbia College alumni magazine and saw a piece by Barry Obama's former roommate at Columbia describing his college years with Obama.

I, of course, was immediately reminded of MM's posts about Obama's years at Columbia and whether he actually did attend.

Read it and judge for yourself.

If, as MM suggested, Obama is trying to hide something from this part of his life, it seems much more likely that it's a gay relationship he had with the author and old roommate (judging from the article and pics from the article):

"I remember often eating breakfast with Barack at Tom’s Restaurant on Broadway. Occasionally we went to The West End for beers. We enjoyed exploring museums such as the Guggenheim, the Met and the American Museum of Natural History, and browsing in bookstores such as the Strand and the Barnes & Noble opposite Columbia. We both liked taking long walks down Broadway on a Sunday afternoon, and listening to the silence of Central Park after a big snow. I also remember jogging the loop around Central Park with Barack."

FYI, the address mentioned in the article (West 109th Street, between Amsterdam and Columbus) where Obama roomed with the author, is only 5 blocks from campus. It's right next to the massive Cathedral of St. John the Divine. Even though it's technically "off-campus", it basically is a part of campus as the immediate environs contains bars, restaurants, coffee shops, filled with Columbia students.

April 27, 2009 at 8:25 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

Something a bit odd about that story. Seems like its an intentional rebuttal in parts, and it doesn't ever explain why both students transfer to Columbia. Any the loving grandparents who live out on "the farm" appear to be liberal political activists.

April 28, 2009 at 5:37 AM  
Anonymous beanbag chair said...

@ josh

Yeah, you're right.

The Columbia University Alumni Association and Columbia alumni all over the world must have read Mencius Moldbug's piece on whether Obama actually attended Columbia.

Their suspicions sufficiently aroused, they probably demanded the university provide some evidence.

The university, after seriously reviewing the alumni request and painstakingly reading and studying Mencius Moldbug's piece, probably decided that some kind of rebuttal was necessary.

April 29, 2009 at 10:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home