Sunday, May 2, 2010 65 Comments

Solzhenitsyn, "As Breathing and Consciousness Return," 1973

In honor of this incident, I thought I'd post an excerpt from Alexander Solzhenitsyn's As Breathing And Consciousness Return, the first essay in his samizdat anthology From Under The Rubble.

It's a pity I don't have time to type more of this piece, but From Under The Rubble can be bought for a penny at many fine online bookstores. Inside the ellipses is Solzhenitsyn's great attack on Andrei Sakharov, for his "socialism with a human face" moderate dissidence.

Solzhenitsyn says: reject all the lies, not just those that contradict "world progressive opinion." The "world progressive opinion" of 1973 being not at all different from the mind of Harvard, 2010. Indeed for the reader of 2010, Solzhenitsyn does not attack Sakharov so much as pass through him - like a bullet through a stick of butter. Remaining lethally relevant, as Sakharov's Brezhnev-lite bromides grow comically dated:
The transition from free speech to enforced silence is no doubt painful. What torment for a living society, used to thinking for itself, to lose from some decreed date the right to express itself in print and in public, to bite back its words year in and year out, in friendly conversation and even under the family roof.

But the way back, which our country will soon face - the return of breathing and consciousness, the transition from silence to free speech - will also prove difficult and slow, and just as painful, because of the gulf of utter incomprehension which will suddenly yawn between fellow-countrymen, even those of the same generation and place of origin, even members of the same close circle.

For decades, while we were silent, our thoughts straggled in all possible and impossible directions, lost touch with another, never learnt to know each other, ceased to check and correct each other. The stereotypes of required thought, or rather of dictated opinion, dinned into us daily from the electrified gullets of radio, endlessly reproduced in thousands of newspapers identical as peas, condensed into weekly surveys for political study groups, have made mental cripples of us and left very few minds undamaged.

Powerful and daring minds are now beginning to struggle upright, to fight their way out from under heaps of antiquated rubbish. But even they still bear all the cruel marks of the branding iron, they are still cramped by the shackles into which they were forced half-grown. And because we are intellectually isolated from each other, they have no one to measure themselves against.

As for the rest of us, we have so shriveled in the decades of falsehood, thirsted so long in vain for the refreshing drops of truth, that as soon as they fall on our faces we tremble with joy. "At last!" we cry, and we forgive the dust-laden whirlwind which has blown up with them, and the radioactive fallout which they conceal. We so rejoice in every little word of truth, so utterly suppressed until recent years, that we forgive those who first voice it for us all their near misses, all their inexactitudes, even a portion of error greater than the portion of truth, simply because "something at least, something at last has been said!"
The state system which exists in our country is terrible not because it is undemocratic, authoritarian, based on physical constraint - a man can live in such conditions without harm to his spiritual essence.

Our present system is unique in world history, because over and above its physical and economic constraints, it demands of us total surrender of our souls, continuous and active participation in the general, conscious lie. To this putrefaction of the soul, this spiritual enslavement, human beings who wish to be human cannot consent. When Caesar, having exacted what is Caesar's, demands still more insistently that we render him what is God's - that is a sacrifice we dare not make!

The most important part of our freedom, inner freedom, is always subject to our will. If we surrender it to corruption, we do not deserve to be called human.

But let us note that if the absolutely essential task is not political liberation, but the liberation of our souls from participation in the lie forced on us, then it requires no physical, revolutionary, social, organizational measures, no meetings, strikes, trade unions -- things fearful for us even to contemplate and from which we quite naturally allow circumstances to dissuade us.

No! It requires from each individual a moral step within his power - no more than that. And no one who voluntarily runs with the hounds of falsehood, or props it up, will ever be able to justify himself to the living, or to posterity, or to his friends, or to his children.
In this case, the lie is the proposition of human neurological uniformity (HNU). It's not just that HNU is rebutted by a considerable weight of evidence - that's relatively unimportant. It's that it is supported by no evidence at all. Yet your government requires you to believe it. Quite effectively, as we see. 150 years ago, Froude had much the same problem with the Thirty-Nine Articles. Transsubstantiation redivivus.

But as an act of mandatory faith, HNU is no less subject to Chesterton's observation: when people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing. They believe in anything. The task of understanding the world we live in, without the assumption of HNU, is gargantuan. It is not just a matter of putting a Confederate flag on your pickup truck. It requires both tremendous mental energy, and tremendous analytic judgment. It is too vast for any individual; too dangerous for any organization.

So? What is the first step? Simply to discard the lie, and to realize that you have proceeded from a state of false knowledge, to one of true ignorance. The frame of your television is broken; you have no television; the illusion of omniscience vanishes. Eyes you have, and a brain. They are small. The world is large. History is even bigger. So what? You are not first, and not alone.


Anonymous M said...

Great post. I've always found your most effective posts to be the ones that are short and to the point, which is why I usually direct people to your old archives. (Conversely, I think you deliberately meander to drive away the traffic - you've been quite good at that). Please post more in this style!

May 2, 2010 at 4:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When Billy Beck (I presume a noted anarcho capitalist, but quite educated) said that he finally reached the point of deciding whether Ayn Rand or Solzenitsyn was the greatest humanistic philosopher to date, sided with the latter, I had reservations.

Rand puts out a logical web that is quite complete and self sufficient (I'm not talking about praticality). Her epistimology is world class and may be accepted into the cannons of western philosophy. Obviously a first class intellect. Both Russians, this piece adds a humanity and a pathos. The 20th Century Motor company is bloodless lecturing next to this.

( Note: my characterization of B. Beck or anyone else is my personal opinion of what they wrote; I may have misremembered the post I think I remembered so this is all my opinion. )

May 2, 2010 at 6:03 PM  
Blogger C. Van Carter said...

Mr. Moldbug's previous remarks on HNU deserve recalling:

"[G]iven the genetic history of the human species, global equality in any quantitative trait - physical or behavioral - is about as likely as dropping a handful of quarters and having them all land on edge. Of course, as reasonable thinkers, we are prepared to consider improbable propositions. If presented with extraordinary evidence.

What, sir, is your evidence for HNU? Oh, you don't have any. I see. Once again, we find our new friend - the mainstream crank.

You'll note the familiar chutzpah of quackery. Lacking any positive factual argument for their hypothesis, how do the spinmeisters of HNU credulism - from Stephen Jay Gould down - operate? The answer is a one-paragraph textbook in charlatanship. This maneuver takes a gallbladder the size of a basketball, but it works perfectly.

First: shift the burden of proof to the converse of your unsupported hypothesis, defining it as the null hypothesis - true until proven false. Second: raise the standards for proving it false to an absurd and unsatisfiable level. (See this for a typical attempt to clear the ever-rising bar.) Third: declare victory."

May 2, 2010 at 10:24 PM  
Anonymous pancho said...

I would have to agree to that. Regarding HNU, the burden of proof is inverted and its main arguments are ad hoc. The claim's scientific value is inversally proportional to its political strength.

Truthful or not, however, it is convenient and I can only imagine the social unrest that would ensue the consensual denial of the theory.

While the obligation to publicly endorse a lie eats my guts and my spirit, many - many - more don't bother, and I rate social peace higher than my peace of mind.

So, why not leaving it be?

May 3, 2010 at 1:52 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

May 3, 2010 at 7:39 AM  
Anonymous m said...

Palmer: you misread them and/or the definition of HNU. Reread; you're preaching to the choir.

May 3, 2010 at 8:35 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...


Ooops. Missed that closed quotation mark--that and saw "HNU" as "HBD"--Jesus we need better words.

Thanks. Previous comment scrubbed.

May 3, 2010 at 8:39 AM  
Anonymous notuswind said...

It's important to remember that the mainstream consensus of HNU is enforced on moral grounds.

In other words the true position of our society is not that HNU is actually true (we all know that it probably isn't) but that to entertain its converse [HBD] will result in very wicked things. The primary evidence for this claim, in the mind of the average American, can be found in either prewar Germany or the Jim Crow South.

May 3, 2010 at 9:05 AM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

It is not just 'moral grounds' on which HNU is asserted, but really on religious ones.

We are allowed to say that physical traits such as hair, eye, and skin color; brachy- or dolichocephaly; handedness; and the propensity to suffer certain debilitating or fatal conditions such as sickle-cell anaemia or Tay-Sachs disease, are genetically determined - and remain part of respectable society. However, if we suggest (with one exception*) that behavioral or intellectual traits might also be genetically determined, we do so at the risk of being ostracized from that society.

*[The exception is, of course, homosexuality. It is perfectly acceptable to claim that there is a 'gay gene,' because this lends support to the orthodox position that homosexuality is an innate condition rather than a chosen behavior, and should not therefore be stigmatized.]

In other words, HNU orthodoxy asks us not to believe our lying eyes, but rather to accept what is opposed to their perception, on faith. MM chose the phrase 'transubstantiation redivivus' quite aptly, because in the history of eucharistic controversies we see an exactly analogous argument. Transubstantiation requires the faithful to believe that bread and wine are made into the body and blood of Christ, when to all appearances they remain bread and wine.

One of the offshoots of the eucharistic disputes of the reformation was, interestingly enough, the stimulus they provided to scientific investigation of the nature of matter. Redondi, in his 'Galileo eretico,' suggests that it was not so much Galileo's heliocentrism that provoked his persecution by the Inquisition, as it was his atomism. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, atomism was associated with Epicurus and Lucretius, and hence with Epicurean atheism. Furthermore, the antique (as opposed to the present) doctrine that atoms were indivisible and untransmutable particles was in direct opposition to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Boyle's career as a chemist grew out of his early Anglican piety. His first writings were not of a scientific character at all, but were devotional in character (e.g., "Seraphick Love," 1648). He took up the investigation of matter in an effort to refute Epicureanism, particularly as advocated by Lady Margaret Cavendish. This eventually led to the discoveries and writings which made him famous.

Perhaps the climate of rigid HNU orthodoxy mayl produce, at some future period, a man with the courage of Boyle, who, setting out in like fashion to refute heretical ideas, will turn around, after making his own investigation and evaluation of the evidence, to support and improve upon those ideas. We can always hope.

May 3, 2010 at 12:41 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

How anyone can say "both Russians" when referring to Rand and Solzhenitsyn strains credulity.

The vast gulf between the Russian (Solzhenitsyn) and the Jewish (Rand) soul and mind is as immense as any in human history.

I say this with no disrespect to either soul or culture. But let's have a little contact with reality in these comment threads.

The utter chasm that yawns up between the two on every front is glaring to any student of the history and interaction of the two peoples, as Solzhenitsyn, a true Russian, was foremost to recognize.

May 3, 2010 at 1:02 PM  
Anonymous notuswind said...

Michael S,

When I said that HNU is enforced on moral grounds I meant it in the grandest sense. So there's no disagreement between us.

Specifically, HNU is indoctrinated into the educated classes by convincing them that if we don't believe in HNU then our society will become wicked and oppressive (like Nazi Germany or the Old South). Of course, HNU is not taught in a vacuum but as part of a much larger liberal narrative, with ideas like "natural rights" and "equality" forming the cornerstone. This is where the religious element comes into play as it is not really possible to deny HNU while at the same time being faithful to this grand liberal edifice that so many people get their values from.

May 3, 2010 at 2:15 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

“Nations are the wealth of mankind, its generalized personalities...the least among them has its own unique coloration and harbors within itself a unique facet of God’s design.” - Solzhenitsyn

Some excerpts on Solzhenitsyn's "200 Years Together: Jews and Russians"

Part I:

"...The Solzhenitsyn Reader also includes twenty pages of excerpts from Two Hundred Years Together, a two volume, thousand page study of Russian-Jewish relations from 1772 until the 1970s, initially undertaken by the author in 1990 and published in Russia in 2001 and 2002. This work has aroused some vehement responses. The president of the Russian Jewish Congress described it as “weak professionally; factually so bad as to be beyond criticism; as literature, not of any merit.”

Meanwhile, certain persons assure us that the failure of a complete English translation to materialize so far is due to “the Jewish-controlled press not wanting us to read it.”

"Solzhenitsyn...regards history as a moral drama... Passivity and fatalism are favorite targets for authorial scorn: After the heroic labors and difficult, risk-laden decisions of Prime Minister Stolypin had saved Russia from the Revolution of 1905, Tsar Nicholas II is depicted stupidly musing that “things had righted themselves somehow.”

A deeply religious man, Solzhenitsyn nevertheless ridicules Christians who are inactive in the face of evil while piously telling themselves that “everything is in God’s hands.”

...Communism need never have happened. It happened because of moral or, if you prefer, spiritual failures on the part of men in the days of the Revolution itself, and in the years leading up to it.

Solzhenitsyn considers The Red Wheel, a series of historical novels on the Russian Revolution, to be his principal achievement.

Two Hundred Years Together is a byproduct of The Red Wheel. The author inevitably encountered the “Jewish question” frequently in researching the Revolution. But he was reluctant to treat it fully in his novels, because he wished to emphasize to his mainly Russian readers their own nation’s measure of responsibility for what had befallen them. Historically, Russians have often made scapegoats of the Jews to avoid facing such considerations. After the Revolution of 1905, he writes,

the ruling circles in Petersburg were not above yielding to the tempt-ingly simple view that there was nothing organically wrong with Russia and that the entire revolution, from beginning to end, was a malicious Jewish plot, part and parcel of a worldwide Jewish-Masonic conspiracy. Here was the root cause that explained it all: the Jews! Russia would long ago have ascended to the pinnacles of power and glory were it not for the Jews!

It is clear Solzhenitsyn would not accept the validity of the objection that his work, though perhaps factually accurate, “might stir up anti-Semitism.” “I have never conceded to anyone the right to conceal that which was,” he writes.

May 3, 2010 at 2:44 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Review, Strauss: 200 Years Together, excerpts:

"...Founded in Minsk in 1898, the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party (RSDWP) derived, with respect to personnel and organization, from the 'Allgemeine jüdische Arbeiterbund' in Lithuania, Poland, and Russia..."

Solzhenitsyn emphasizes, "Many more Jewish voices than Russian are heard in this book". Jewish voices, not Russian, speak of Jewish dominance in the anti-monarchial movements in the period before the war.


"The first Russian premier minister, who had honorably set the task of establishing equal rights for Jews and had even opposed the Tsar in attempting to realize it, was killed at the hands of a Jew. Was it an irony of history?" (p. 431)

The assassin was Mordko Hershovich Bogrov, a university student, grandson of a liquor concessionaire and son of a millionaire.


"Stolypin had done nothing directly against the Jews, he had even made their lives easier in some ways, but it did not come from the heart. To decide whether or not a man is an enemy of the Jews, you must look beneath the surface. Stolypin boosted Russian national interests too blatantly and too insistently, even provocatively about Russian international interests. […] the Russianness of the Duma as a representative body, the Russianness of the State. He was trying to build, not a country in which all were free, but a nationalist monarchy. So that the future of the Jews was not affected by his goodwill toward them. The development of the country along Stolypin’s lines promised no golden age for the Jews."

"Whoever holds the opinion that the revolution was not a Russian, but an alien-led revolution points to the Yiddish family names or pseudonyms to exonerate the Russian people for the revolution. On the other hand, those who try to minimize the over-proportional representation of Jews in the Bolshevik seizure of power may sometimes claim that they were not religious Jews, but rather, apostates, renegades, and atheists."

"How strong were the influence, power, fascination, and adherence of secular Jews among the religious Jews and how many atheists were active among the Bolsheviks? Can a people really just renounce its renegades? Does such a renunciation make any sense?

Solzhenitsyn traces the rise in Judeophobia, among other things, back to the brutal Bolshevistic suppression of peasant and citizen uprisings, the slaughter of priests and bishops, especially the village clergy, and finally, the extermination of the nobility, culminating in the murder of the Tsar and his family.

During the decisive years of the Civil War (1918-1920) the secret police (Cheka) was controlled by Bolshevistic Jews. The commandants of the various prisons were usually from Poland or Latvia..

By virtue of the sheer numbers liquidated and the radicalism and motivation of the perpetrators, the mass executions of Russian Orthodox priests assumed a genocidal character. The intellectual elite of Eastern Christendom in Russia was literally slaughtered.

On 27 July 1918, shortly after the murder of the Tsar and his family, the Soviet government ordered the liquidation of all pogromists; every priest was by law considered to be a pogromist. As Lunacharsky recalls, Lenin composed the text of the law by his own hand, and Lenin ordered that the clergy could be executed (vne zakona) outside the law and the courts. That meant, Solzhenitsyn comments, they could simply be shot out of hand.

May 3, 2010 at 2:49 PM  
Anonymous house of lies said...

Solzhenitsyn's last statement to his fellow countrymen before his expulsion from the USSR:

“Live Not by Lies!”

A regime based upon violence, he writes, must make use of lies because in practice it cannot use direct force against all its subjects at all times.

So of the rest it requires “only a submission to lies, a daily participation in deceit.” Each subject, he says, is thus faced with a clear choice: “will he remain a witting servant of the lies (needless to say, not due to natural predisposition, but in order to provide a living for the family), or has the time come for him to stand straight as an honest man, worthy of the respect of his children and contemporaries?”

If the latter, then Solzhenitsyn lists a number of practical steps he can take “from that day onward,” among which are that “he…will not be impelled to a meeting where a forced and distorted discussion is expected to take place; will at once walk out from a session, meeting, lecture, play, or film as soon as he hears the speaker utter a lie, ideological drivel, or shameless propaganda.”


One of the hazards of reading Solzhenitsyn is that he may make us ashamed of our own moral compromises.

May 3, 2010 at 3:15 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

BOOKS of interest to UR community...
free downloads, all .pdfs

Download The Gulag Archipelago (abridged) free here:

Download The Last Days of the Romanovs, Robert Wilton (1920)

Download The Black Book of Communism

Download Hungarian Uprising, 1956

Download 'The Anti-Humans'
(First-hand account of post-war re-education camps and brainwashing in Romania)

LATVIA: Year of Horror (1942)
(Documents Latvia under communist rule, 1940-41)


And respect, niggas

May 3, 2010 at 4:19 PM  
Anonymous true samizdatz said...

"Samizdat" brings to mind two separate but related series of incidents, both taking place in Germany. The first in occupied Germany right after the war. The second, in the Federal Republic decades later, in our era.

What marks them both with significance is their status as taboo, even here at UR, and that in both cases the samizdatiers were not just censured, but imprisoned, and nary a word spared for them even in the hallowed regions of free thought like UR today and its ideological predecessors.

True dynamite is not just censured, but suppressed with violence, political force, and a blanket of silence, and with persecution that follows the oppressed across borders even in the land of the free.

Dangerous truth begins where freedom to speak ends totally, not just partially and half heartedly.

I'm referring to the experiences of PhD chemist and publisher Germar Rudolf, in our era, and author Savitri Devi in the earlier era.

Both are true exemplars of the samizdat tradition, publishing privately, copying by hand, often on the run, hounded across borders by the authorities, and imprisoned for their activity. Not mere email writers caught with their pants down and worried about career prospects, while in no real danger of loss of freedom.

It's important to be objective and disregard one's personal persuasions and biases when pondering the nature of free speech and taboo. If you're one of the multitude, chances are you're not going to like or sympathize with the punished and persecuted. That's the essence of free speech, freedom even for those you find reprehensible. Of course you find them reprehensible! that's the point. Otherwise they would not be subject to punishment and persecution, nor would they need protection...

1. Germar Rudolf

German scholar Germar Rudolf has authored, edited and published numerous academic articles, brochures, books, and magazines in the German and in the English languages both in his native Germany and abroad. Until his abrupt deportation from the United States in Nov. 2005, he was the owner of a university-press-style publishing house that focused on detailed scientific and archival studies of well-defined historical topics. He is lauded as an academic of high standards by many professors from around the world. Yet the German authorities imprisoned him exactly because of his scholarly success, for his ground-breaking academic writings.

...A government that prescribes the writing of history by penal law is dictating to its citizens what to think, and that is the exact definition of a dictatorship. Period.

2. Savitri Devi

Excerpt from the forward of 'Defiance' 1951

"This book is merely an account of my arrest and trial, in western occupied Germany, in early 1949, on the charge of Nazi propaganda, and of my subsequent life in jail. The glimpse one gets, in it, of western occupied Germany, is a glimpse of Germany through my eyes, i.e., through the eyes of a non-German..."

May 3, 2010 at 6:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@true samzdats

gd to see someone talking about REAL taboos. i'm a college student and know what happens when THAT topic is aired. pure panic.

James M.

May 3, 2010 at 6:24 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

C. Van Carter,

just fyi, that wasn't MM's statement, it was quoted from the authors of The 10,000 Year Explosion.

It just popped out at me because I've got CofCC RSS'd, and they just published a review of it here:

The book can be downloaded online, just run a few searches. I haven't read it yet. Just the TOQ review. Looks very interesting.

May 3, 2010 at 6:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Plantation Negro as a Freeman: Observations on his Character, Conditions, and prospects in Virginia

Highly recommended, if you like the Google-book scanned screeds of nasty 'ole Crime-Thinkers as much as I do. There is little here that is out of date, actually...

May 3, 2010 at 6:59 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...


I read about half way into THE NEGRO AND HIS NEEDS, by RAYMOND PATTERSON, 1911

One passage made a particular impression:

"There were in Sumter County at the time of my visit about 7,500 whites to 19,000 negroes.
Around these five hundred white planters spread a negro population of nineteen thousand. Bearing in mind these facts, it will be possible to appreciate the view point of the white planter, expressed to me at first hand by a young man bearing a name famous in America.

This young planter was born in the South, educated at Columbia University, had five years of good business training in the North, and was then suddenly called home by the death of his father.
What he told me would shock a great many people, and yet he told it with entire frankness, fully appreciating my own mission, but believing implicitly that the severe methods of government he had adopted were absolutely necessary for the protection of his life and property.

"When my father came down into the heart of the cotton belt," said this intelligent and engaging young planter, who had all a Northern man's energy and all a Southern man's delicacy and courtesy, "this section was just recovering from the war. It was during the reconstruction period and the negroes were on top. He had not been in charge of the plantation for more than twenty-four hours when a big salt-water negro came riding up on a mule, armed with a double-barrelled shotgun. He made no bones of his errand, but hunting up my father, covered him with the shotgun. White man, he said, I ll give you just thirty minutes to get off this plantation; if you stay here after that time, I ll blow your head off.

"This was the kind of treatment which had driven every other white man off that plantation for a year or two.

"Fortunately, my father managed to decoy the negro off his mule, and engaged him in conversation until they were in the vicinity of a brush heap where his own gun lay. One barrel was loaded with buck shot for actual defence, the other barrel with split peas. Before that salt-water nigger knew what had happened to him, he got a dose from the left-hand, or split-pea barrel. It made quite a bit of a hole in the darkey's neck, but he never gave any more trouble from that day, and he is one of the old-time, stand-by darkies on the plantation at this minute."

From "Economic Problem and the Black Belt"

There's a lot more educational material, rather than merely interesting historical drama, in that chapter and the work as a whole. Check it out, it's an easy read.

May 3, 2010 at 8:43 PM  
Anonymous c23 said...

While the obligation to publicly endorse a lie eats my guts and my spirit, many - many - more don't bother, and I rate social peace higher than my peace of mind.

So, why not leaving it be?

If HNU is false, then some groups will tend to come out on top, and others on the bottom. But if HNU is believed to be true, then the only explanation for the facts on the ground is the wickedness of the neurologically blessed, to be rectified by official discrimination, or even punished.

The neurologically challenged are slowly becoming more numerous. What happens when they are the majority?

To put it another way, we have chosen shame and will get war.

May 3, 2010 at 10:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Solzhenitsyn has a keen insight on the human condition and makes a lot of sense. Dwelling on the HNU/HND issue does not contribute much.

The data support HND but, so what? We do not interact personally with statistical abstracts, we deal with individual men and women, each of whom deserves to be judged as an individual human being ... regardless of whether one has an inexplicable faith in HNU or relies solely upon the data and their own, necessarily anecdotal, experience.

The unfortunate effect of dwelling on HNU/HND is that the former often corrupts the thinking of people of good will and the latter often facilitates vile prejudices of people of ill will. HNU is particularly pernicious because it causes people of good will to advance all sorts of nonsense that is destructive of individual liberty. HND only seems worse because it inspires some of vile thinking exhibits in some of the above comments. It appears really bad and it is bad but, unlike coercive social programs adopted by governments, it doesn't really amount to much.

May 3, 2010 at 11:07 PM  
Anonymous pancho said...

Mr. true samizdatz, dictatorship would be the imprecise term.

What you really should be thinking of is 'democracy'. Liberal thinkers have managed to trick themselves into thinking that democracy has in its essence liberal guarantees so much as popular sovereignty.

Well it doesn't. "Liberal Democracy" is an antithesis and for no other reason it is a composed term.

As time went by only "Democracy" remained, the whole locution being left to be a historical label. And perfect democracy, as totalitarianism, is the coincidence of the wills of sovereign and people - as opposed to dictatorship.

May 4, 2010 at 3:15 AM  
Anonymous pancho said...

If HNU is false, then some groups will tend to come out on top, and others on the bottom. But if HNU is believed to be true, then the only explanation for the facts on the ground is the wickedness of the neurologically blessed, to be rectified by official discrimination, or even punished.

The neurologically challenged are slowly becoming more numerous. What happens when they are the majority?

To put it another way, we have chosen shame and will get war.


Assuming the falsehood of HNU, empowerment policies are like democracy in that the most we have of them, further we stray away from their goals - at which point more of them is asked, and so on.

Tough dilemma.

May 4, 2010 at 3:39 AM  
Blogger Mitchell said...

A sentence seen on the web:

"The floor has not been cleaned since perestroika."

May 4, 2010 at 5:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 11:07 pm said:

That big, honkin' elephant over there in the corner? Pay him not the slightest mind!

There, Anonymous my friend: I summed up your entire post in two sentences! What do I win?

May 4, 2010 at 10:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The referenced "story" was about free speech, no? What if the king doesn't want it? Free speech tends to be a democratic value. Valuing such seems to be at odds with MM's worldview. Or do we believe we can end democracy and maintain free speech?

May 4, 2010 at 3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


We don't have social peace now.

There's been a race war raging in the US since around 1965. Whites are not allowed to notice it, think about it, or band together for self-defense--indeed, Whites are strongly discouraged by the jewsmedia from being anything but atomized, deracinated, anomic consumers. Note the parallels, by the way, in this article, , in which we are informed in the most breathless tones of the ongoing parallel anti-Chinese pogrom taking place in the City By the Bay. You already know the narrative: the high-spirited diverse urban yoots who commit the rapes, robberies and murders are blameless and those dirty fucking gooks had it coming anyway for voting Republican, ain't it a senseless incomprehensible tragedy? De young peoples ain't got no hope and nuffin to do, we needs anotha community center wif more midnight baxitball, etc.

By the exact same pattern, large sections of every major city in the US were in the 1970s and 1980s ethnically cleansed of Whites by organized violence, with the tacit approval and sometimes even overt assistance of that entity Mr. Moldbug calls "the Cathedral" and which certain of us, less sanguine about his theories of rational government by corpocracy, call ZOG.

But let me be sure I understand your position, Pancho. (may I call you Pancho? Thanks) Are you claiming we have social peace now? I invite you to put that claim to empirical test in the same terms in which I made this offer to Jewish Atheist last year, who is, I am sure, reading this (Hi JA!). Just come to Detroit and, as the kids say, chill wif de brothaz around, oh, say, Six Mile and Livernois after dark. In the event that the Vice Lords or the Crips or the local Gangster Disciples set fails to kill you, come back to us and report on your anthropological adventure. We'll be waiting.

May 4, 2010 at 4:44 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

@anon 4:44

Social peace, lol.

One day white flight will have it's back to the wall. Let's talk about social peace then.

In the meantime, standing armies (big city PDs) will keep the chaos and misery contained to the dark quarters, and the media will keep the dirty secret from the rest of us upstanding citizens -- to the detriment most of all of the poor black victims of this macabre social experiment called civil rights.

I often wonder if this sorry spectacle will be kept up at all costs, for centuries on end, before collapsing. Will these poor SOBs have to live in squalor and misery for centuries to protect the HNU sensibilities of our liberals?

What a towering achievement of bad faith, cynicism and cruelty.

Let the darkies have some dignity.

May 4, 2010 at 6:52 PM  
Blogger nazgulnarsil said...

white flight will only have its back to the wall when government mandates diversity requirements at the neighborhood level. there isn't enough time for that level of insanity to naturally ferment before we get some sweeping tech changes that renders much of the teeth gnashing about current political realities obsolete.

May 5, 2010 at 4:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


It is later than you think. What kind of sweeping tech changes do you envision? Short of a genetically engineered virus that sterilizes both mestizos and H. Sapiens Africansis, I do not think Western Civilization has much longer to live.

Note also:

Anyone who questions the just-so stories we are spoonfed via the televitz may soon be declared Officially Insane, and can expect a visit from the SWAT team--to get him the help he so badly deserves, of course. Any parallels with Soviet psychiatry will be, of course, strictly coincidental--and anyone who notices this too loudly has a straitjacket and a padded cell waiting for him. There's room for all right-wing racist honky hetero counterrevolutionaries in People's Glorious Reeducation Center #47.

Do a Google search for the word "counterdependency" if you think this is just a voice from the fringe. The short version is that what we used to think of as "behaving like a mature adult" and "taking care of oneself and one's responsibilities" is now listed in the DSM as a symptom of mental illness and may well be listed in the upcoming DSM-V as a full-fledged "personality disorder."

It is later than you think.

May 5, 2010 at 5:38 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

The piece is in some ways reminescent of Max Stirner, though Stirner explicitly held himself above even truth.

"Yet your government requires you to believe it."
The government hasn't done anything to me. I may be a pseudonym, but more prominent folks like Sailer, Auster and Mangan aren't. Hell, Rushton is employed by a Canadian university, Kevin MacDonald by one in California and Michael Levin by one in New York. None of them are in law, but Levin's field of philosophy is close enough in bogosity.

Billy Beck declared Solzhenitsyn the greatest writer of the century (ahead of Rand) here.

"the cannons of western philosophy"
I agree, it should be subjected to a gunpowder charge, along with the rest of philosophy!

"raise the standards for proving it false to an absurd and unsatisfiable level"
"Modern man is so committed to empirical knowledge, that he sets the standard for evidence higher than either side in his disputes can attain, thus suffering his disputes to be settled by philosophical arguments as to which party must be crushed under the burden of proof."

An example of an ad-hoc argument against HNU, which is not bad by the standard of others of its kind, but still handwavey and mistaken, is here.

jkr, thanks for linking Gulag Archipelago. Also, only the very beginning of the quote was from Cochran & Harpending. The rest is quite evidently more Mencius' style.

Jew-fearing Anonymous May 4, 2010 4:44 PM:
A war that can "rage" over four and a half decades while escaping notice is a subtle war indeed. Did you know crime in L.A is now at the levels from when Leave it to Beaver was on the air?

A little while back there was a big discussion in the comments here about Post-Keynesianism aka "Modern Monetary Theory". Nick Rowe has a question for its adherents here. Hopefully the activity hasn't died out already there.

George Orwell's take on Rudyard Kipling might be of interest to many of you.

I've been reading Joseph Schumpeter's "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" recently and there are a lot of similarities to what MM writes about. Schumpeter thinks that the political structure of feudalism protected capitalism, and that the rationalist modernism which underminded feudalism will do the same to capitalism until it is replaced by socialism. The expansion of higher education, more widespread media and a resentful class of intellectuals all help to coordinate the natural antipathy of the masses against capitalism.

May 5, 2010 at 8:14 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

This blog has now been banned at my work (a public school system). Interesting.

May 6, 2010 at 4:42 AM  
Anonymous Lawful Neutral said...

Josh -

You're an idiot to browse UR on a work computer, especially if you work for the government. This kind of stuff can and will get you fired, and there is no expectation of privacy on an employer's machine. Show some self control.

May 6, 2010 at 5:44 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

I'm supposed to be reading history and current events stuff. I'm a social studies teacher.

I'll be alright. You're being a bit paranoid.

May 6, 2010 at 8:29 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...



I like what you had to say about Rushton, et al, but what of 'truesamizdatz' commenter's point:

"Dangerous truth begins where freedom to speak ends totally, not just partially and half heartedly," referring to chemist and publisher Germar Rudolf and his ilk.

They genuinely are under the Inquisition, even to an extent in America, when our government collaborates with European governments to punish American citizens, or like Zundel in Canada, D. Irving in Austria, etc.

Not even a word by the free-speech crowd there. Some taboos are actually real taboos, violently enforced.

May 6, 2010 at 8:50 AM  
Blogger Porphyrogenitus said...

"Lawful Neutral" prolly is a bit paranoid, but we love him anyway.

"Lawful Neutral" is prolly MM :p

May 6, 2010 at 10:42 AM  
Blogger Porphyrogenitus said...

"I'm supposed to be reading history and current events stuff. I'm a social studies teacher."

He's right then. You really should take the opportunity to denounce this crowd. Greater educators than you who thought academic inquiry would protect them have been fired for less.

Not that most are. But enough are.

May 6, 2010 at 10:45 AM  
Blogger Porphyrogenitus said...

TGGP: The Orwell piece is good and, as usual with him, holds up even today. Less for what he says about poor Kipling, but what he says about us in the post-Hitler age.

Which, lamentably, is true.
His essay on Ruffles & Miss Blandish expresses roughly the same attitude.

There's a great sense that however odious the previous age was, something truly valuable *was* lost when it was cast off.

There's *almost* a linkage between Orwell and Carlyle on at least this level (if not all others): That the sham-Kings and all forgot what they embodied. Raffles, Orwell says, has certain virtues (of fair play and rules, however hypocritical) but has forgotten/has know knowledge of why he holds them. They're just "there" as a hollowed-out institution.

By the late age, the current age, those are all gone and all that remains is postmodernesque Gramsciesque Fascistic power dynamics.

Ultimately we all believe on our own level that in the final analysis there's nothing more than the boot of power stamping on a human face, forever.

For Orwell, however odious and hypocritical the previous age was, this aspect of the transition into the post-Hitler age does represent a sort of tragic loss.

Here we are talking about HNU and all, but one might wonder if we'll ever truly get our humanity back. Without it, in an Orwellian* sense, does it matter if we're uniform or not?

*positive, not "Ninteen Eighty-Four" sense.

May 6, 2010 at 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and from the same Orwell essay (parts of which, well, are dated in their own way), a MMish thought in briefest form:

"Where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly. Moreover, anyone who starts out with a pessimistic, reactionary view of life tends to be justified by events, for Utopia never arrives and "the gods of the copybook headings," as Kipling himself put it, always return."

May 6, 2010 at 11:59 AM  
Anonymous Pancho said...

I like this formulation:

"Modern man is so committed to empirical knowledge, that he sets the standard for evidence higher than either side in his disputes can attain, thus suffering his disputes to be settled by philosophical arguments as to which party must be crushed under the burden of proof."

jkr, peace is not an absolute state. It could be a lot worse than gang violence.

Most scientific truths are not compelling at all if they run against the prevailing political/moral discourse. That is, EVEN IF they come to achieve academic consensus in the first place.

Darwin's innovative claims can only have been taken seriously thanks to a much broader zeitgeist change that preceded him - Mendel didn't have such luck.

Even now Darwinism is far from being unanimity, and if the controversy doesn't make people shoot themselves its only because it concerns a minor, metaphysical, aspect of their materialistic lives.

Where am I trying to get at? Well, unless such truth (assuming it is one) could be demonstrated without a doubt and were not so blatantly conflicting with the prevailing discourse so that it could be thoroughly accepted by most people, it would do more harm than good, as a half-truth only convinces half of the people and divisiveness in such a matter, being crucial as it is, could only lead to conflict. Worse than Detroit gangs.

May 6, 2010 at 12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My 7th grader just walked in the door from middle school and handed me next year's pre-enrollment forms.

Under "Required Courses" I read the following, and thought immediately of this thread here at UA:

"SOCIAL STUDIES: The eighth grade social studies curriculum consists of civics and United States history. The study of civics seeks to develop positive attitudes toward the rights and responsibilities of citizens through a study of the purpose and various facets of government" (all emphases added).

Now, my oldest daughter went through this very course two years ago, and about a quarter of the year is taken up with studying the Tulsa Race Riot.

At the end of her tutoring in the proper attitude to have toward that event - which, in truth, was entirely provoked by the black "community" with three different armed marches to the County Jail, the last of which was punctuated by drunken threats and random gunshots fired in the air by a black mob - I asked her to sum up in a few sentences what nine weeks of agit-prop had taught her.

"Basically, that everything bad that happened up there [in Tulsa] was the fault of the whites, and the blacks are owed a lot of money."

Solzhenitsyn would have understood.

May 6, 2010 at 1:17 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

n/a presents an overview by Will Provine in 1973 of how scientific writings on race changed.

Chip Smith, whose republication of "The Myth of Natural Rights" contains my foreword, denies the Holocaust. The aforementioned book doesn't come to a conclusion on the matter though it does thoroughly mock many anti-revisionist writings (this guy suggests some better ones for Rollins to tackle, not being terribly interested in that sort of thing I can't say). The IHR has been based on America for some time without the government doing anything about it. Unlike Canada, we're civilized here.

May 6, 2010 at 9:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


May 7, 2010 at 3:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If he doesn't have anything else prepared he could chew on this.

May 7, 2010 at 6:46 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

tggp, america extradited rudolf, zundle, and some other guy, against standard immigration procedure, knowing they'd be jailed.

leuchter lost everything, and the subject is thoroughly, totally censored, far more so than race.

but yeah, it's not illegal here yet, but that's the way the wind seems blowing. it's not something any historian would jump right into with no worries. but on the point, is it illegal, no, it isn't.

May 7, 2010 at 10:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ten years ago when most people were denying it I knew we'd have national "hate crimes" laws.

Now people are sanguine we're civilized here and won't have Canada-style "hate speech laws" (such laws never follow the "rule of law" as TGGP defined it in the previous thread. Selective, Marcusian application is the *point* of such laws, as with "hate crimes" laws).

We'll have them in a decade or less. By that time, the Supreme Court as it will be constituted will not strike them down, either.

May 7, 2010 at 12:06 PM  
Blogger chairmanK said...

Mencius, what the fuck happened to your blog? This is fucking embarrassing. Most of the comments are written by stormfront retards. Solzhenitsyn is wasted on this crowd.

May 7, 2010 at 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Mencius, what the fuck happened to your blog?"

It's sad, really. He used to talk about the quality of his commenters and the need to attract high-quality Brahmin's and convert them.

The more he got interested in this stuff, though, the more it started attracting the very sort he says it does, and his blog is becoming a microcosm of the problem he identied opponents of the Progressive Establishment.

Next step is he'll adopt a hiddously garish graphical template.

May 7, 2010 at 2:41 PM  
Anonymous chairmanKorean said...

I eat dogs, yo. I be one hip muthafuckin asian graduate student better recognize yall. get these stormfront chumps outta here yo they be makin me uncomfortable yo.

May 7, 2010 at 6:24 PM  
Anonymous chairmanKorean said...

forreal yo i aint playin. with stormfront chumps postin the hipness level is down here when really it needs to be up here. i mean what if mah frens found out?

May 7, 2010 at 6:44 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...


That's because mencius doesn't deal with some of the real issues. It antagonizes people who know certain things to be true, that he runs this great blog and pretends they're not.

So some of us have to needle him about it occasionally.

The blog still has a vibrant comments section.

Go read the comments page on the CDS post, it was superb. All about economics, from every angle.

If you think you know something the supposed 'stormfronters' don't, then debate them, shut them down.

Don't 'jew' out and try to ban them or avoid their legit concerns.

Or just don't read the comments, read the content.

Either way, don't bitch.

May 7, 2010 at 7:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's the bottom line on the Stormfronters: IQ 85 is IQ 85 regardless of the race or sex of the individual. IQ 115 is IQ 115, just the same. HNU is palpable nonsense, but IQ doesn't measure the quality of an individual's humanity.

The IQ 85's at Stormfront are no more intelligent than the people they loathe. The Stormfronters with IQ's over 100 are vile (or very seriously misguided) human beings, as is anybody who judges an individual by their race. In my experience, there are far more American-style "liberals" who judge individuals by their race than there are Stormfronters. However, my sample size on Stormfronter types is limited to a couple of Klan morons I met a couple of decades ago.

May 7, 2010 at 8:07 PM  
Anonymous SeigFred said...

jkr, when someone posts the kind of degenerate garbage that was posted by "ChairmanKorean," I suppose one response is to engage in a civilized discussion about why that person is an infantile jackass.

That would require more effort than it's probably worth.

Another could be to directly address their legitimate concerns. But it's hard to provide someone with psychological help in comment threads on some blog.

No matter how much it's needed.

As for "shutting" anyone down, there's all sorts of venues people speak all sorts of things. Various private forums can have a comments policy, however. MM has explained his, including:

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

Which admittedly was tongue-in-cheek, because MM, like most others, recogizes that such types have no honor and so here you are, commenting anyhow.

A it should be, I suppose.

May 7, 2010 at 8:25 PM  
Anonymous SeigFred said...

(And yes this is pompous kigger graduate student chairmanK defensing myself by pretending to be someone else cuz i know i got burnt.)

May 7, 2010 at 9:18 PM  
Anonymous SiegFred said...

Actually, no, and you're projecting. Again.

Take your rattle and your bib and your pathetic bleats and have a nice day.

May 8, 2010 at 4:03 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

yes, you are right it was me the whole time. i vent my frustration at my pathetic life by tolling on blogs.

May 8, 2010 at 4:09 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...


May 8, 2010 at 10:12 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

if that was me, trolling would be spelled properly.

Tolling on blogs would be interesting too, though. We could make idiots pay.

May 8, 2010 at 10:13 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

lets get back on topic. incomprehending buffons think we're motivated by hate.

that's not true. it's envy. back in high school my girl admitted she hooked up with the basketball team. I begged her to give me another chance, but she said I couldn't satisfy her like they could.

three inches of White Power should be enough for any woman.

In college I dated again, but I found my girl in bed with her jewish tutor. she said smart guys turned her on. I can't compete with that.

shortly after I found a group that addressed my legit concerns. In time you'll share them too.

May 8, 2010 at 10:29 AM  
Anonymous real jkr said...

thanks for the psychoanalysis.

May 8, 2010 at 1:06 PM  
Anonymous chairmanK said...

i know it chu impersonating me jkr. i will hunt chu down.

May 8, 2010 at 2:04 PM  
Anonymous SeigFred said...

(ops i meant is this is NOT pompous kigger graduate student chairmanK. its SeigFred who never post here before but moved to come out of lurking to defend chairmanK from degenerate garbage accusation that he eat dogs. chairmanK understand eat dogs unhip in America and only fashionable back in homeland.)

May 8, 2010 at 2:12 PM  
Anonymous real jkr said...

i don't know what the fsck you people are talking about. there's two clowns here impersonating each other, one of whom thinks its me. one's a VNNer, the other a cranky philosemite. and they're polluting the intellectual atmosphere with their emissions.

if you look at the timestamps, i was probably sleeping (eastern time) during their 'tard fest.

May 8, 2010 at 3:28 PM  
Anonymous real jkr said...

i'm done posting on this thread. any jkr comments henceforth aren't me.

seacrest, out.

May 8, 2010 at 3:40 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home