Monday, September 5, 2011 201 Comments

The demons

"Whether, in view of what humanity is capable, such a trait implies, along with a benevolent heart, more than ordinary quickness and accuracy of intellectual perception, may be left to the wise to determine."

--Melville, Benito Cereno
Across the last swerve of 101
Between the soundwalls, before
The road splits and opens up
To the usual emerald city,
To the San Francisco skyline -
The London of California -
(In London London, the paper says,
The best-invested now dig
Infinite pools in their basements
For sheer lack of square feet) -
Someone in '62 once threw
A soaring footbridge, now caged
Full round in Ohio chainlink,
Over all nine lanes, allowing
The new Californian to travel
In perfect comfort and safety,
From his home in the Sunnydale
Homes, to his homies in Potrero -
Obviously, I jest. Racism! In verse!
You won't say I didn't warn you.
And this shit actually happened.
I was there - not a month ago.
Not on the bridge, but on the road,
Alone in the car, evening rush hour,
Moderate traffic. As the Cougar
Swept around the curve, in a span
Not over fifteen seconds, three men
Came on the bridge. Did I call them men?
These were animals, from the ghetto.
Did I say animals? They were nobles,
In splendid robe of privilege,
Prancing with glory of lions.
Performing, sure. But just walking -
Across the road to tha Sunnydale.
Your eye might not have caught them,
From below on the freeway, but mine
And others did. When these men
Came center over the median,
One turned, faced the traffic,
Dropped to a shooter's crouch,
Pulled out his finger, and blew
Us all away - laughing, I assume,
Like a perfect fool. And then -
I slid under them, and was gone.
Now, since I'm such a racist,
My position with respect to these
Particular terrorists is clear;
The instant reaction was no less.
I simply felt, as a human being,
As a San Francisco parent,
It essential that this population
Cease at once to exist - means
No object. They could be broken
In some way, as by the whip,
Or educated into professors, or
Superman could swoop down,
Seize them by the pants and hurl
Them without trial into the Sun.
Does Superman do genocide? Heck -
What would Hitler do? - and this,
A train of thought I am not, of
Course, endorsing, but rather
Confessing - this simplicitude
Flashed like powder in my simple head.
(Hitler too, says Trevor-Roper,
Had this knack for simplicity.)
But consider the complex! We,
Apart from my rotting Cougar,
River of post-Axis automotive,
Educated and expensive,
Unimpeachably progressive -
Confronted suddenly, without
Warning, by this unmistakable
Parade of pure warrior hate,
Almost classical in its beauty,
Tablet of Akkad or Ur. What
Does a person do? Might he find
Refuge in the church of his youth?
We both know what he should think.
But here appears the animal itself.
Who would argue its humanity?
Before his eyes it is clearly itself.
What of his complexities, his
Cliches, his studies? They scatter,
They can hardly compete. But
Nothing competes with them;
For our sample driver, a man
Perfectly made for the period,
Young, bright, even cultivated,
Roughly as lost in history
As a toddler in a steel mill -
Has not a thought to think.
Instead, I think, a black smog
Of grand, impeccable despair
(Exactly as intended, I fear,
By our urban performers),
No logic at all, just emotion,
Truth in its way nonetheless,
Swirls up in an instant from
His medulla; looms; wavers;
Then blows away - as his Audi,
Too, passes the footbridge
Without so much as a BB
In the wipers; the soundwalls
Recede, and reveal the vista
Of Dorothy; and the bite
Of our cold sweet Pacific air
Elides any small unpleasantness...
No, it is this man, who exists,
Who is history; who is, I'm sure,
The future; and the drama is his,
As dangerous as elegant. His
Demons, made by him, are sent
By the great gods to scourge him,
And have doubtless barely started.
As such these creatures are divine,
Like the tiger or the killer whale,
And must not be disrespected:
A slice of advice both prudent
And compliant with federal law.


Anonymous FredR said...

So is your favorite book Mr. Sammler's Planet by Saul Bellow?

September 5, 2011 at 7:55 AM  
Blogger jwm said...

That was worthy of James Dickey. Superb.


September 5, 2011 at 8:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My position with respect to these
Particular terrorists is clear;
The instant reaction was no less.
I simply felt, as a human being,
As a San Francisco parent,
It essential that this population
Cease at once to exist - means
No object. They could be broken
In some way, as by the whip,
Or educated into professors, or
Superman could swoop down,
Seize them by the pants and hurl
Them without trial into the Sun.
Does Superman do genocide? Heck -
What would Hitler do? - and this,
A train of thought I am not, of
Course, endorsing, but rather
Confessing - this simplicitude
Flashed like powder in my simple head.

Blacks don't run America, they are unleashed on America. That's why the idea of a Black Run America is absurd. It'd be like me unleashing a pack of pit bulls into a neighbour's chicken pen and calling it Pit Bull Run Coop.

Blacks have been enabled to do what they are doing. Simple as that. Find and eliminate the enablers i.e. Jews and you halt the problem.

September 5, 2011 at 10:33 AM  
Anonymous Thrasymachus said...

>>Blacks don't run America, they are unleashed on America.<<

True day, as they say on "The Wire".

>>Find and eliminate the enablers i.e. Jews and you halt the problem.<<

As apparently deracinated as Herr Moldbug is, he has still swallowed his ethnic pride and admitted the Jews don't run everything- and painful it must have been. As a population they have certainly been eager beavers for the system but they are not its authors. That honor goes to our Cromwellian masters in Boston.

In fact I nominate "Cromwellian" as a replacement for "Orwellian" as the adjective for all that is sinister and totalitarian. It's more accurate, especially in the Anglosphere.

September 5, 2011 at 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That honor goes to our Cromwellian masters in Boston.

This simply isn't true.

September 5, 2011 at 11:13 AM  
Blogger TStockmann said...

Don't refer to your wife as a Cougar. It's either an unbecoming claim to youth or the sort of complaint that cuckolds should keep to themselves to avoid in order to avoid loss of duty, as somebody or other said about King Mark.

I should love the freedom of dysorthodox textual analysis. Or was that Freudian?

September 5, 2011 at 11:47 AM  
Blogger vanderleun said...

After posting a snippet at my page, one of my commenters remarked, "Reading Moldbug is like walking into a house of horrors where you feel in the pit of your stomach that the blood just might be real."

Tru' dat.

September 5, 2011 at 11:55 AM  
Blogger jwm said...

Or was that Freudian?

Actually, it a Mercury.


September 5, 2011 at 12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't refer to your wife as a Cougar.

I think he meant the Mercury Cougar.

September 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM  
Anonymous Peter A. Taylor said...

For me, reading Moldbug is like digging into a gallon of Häagen-Dazs chocolate ice cream and discovering after several spoonfuls that it has been laced with dog shit.

September 5, 2011 at 2:42 PM  
Anonymous I-RIGHT-I said...

Is that so? Have you ever considered that eating shit laced fake imported ice cream is almost a perfect metaphor for attending a UU church? Sorry buy anybody that sits through more than one Unitarian service forfeits their right to criticize anyone's worldview.

September 5, 2011 at 6:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For me, reading Moldbug is like digging into a gallon of Häagen-Dazs chocolate ice cream and discovering after several spoonfuls that it has been laced with dog shit.

Peter A. Taylor,

This is sort of like when I ream your wife's ass and discover after several thrusts that my rod has been caked with her shit. Good thing though is that she eats her ass off my dick.

September 5, 2011 at 7:46 PM  
Anonymous Peter A. Taylor said...

The reason I can't criticize Moldbug's worldview is that I can't figure out what it is. I can't tell when he is serious. Does he really regard fascism as right wing? I doubt it. I think he is trolling.
He's a brilliant writer, but he doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind whether he wants to communicate with people or just pull their chains.

September 5, 2011 at 9:06 PM  
Anonymous Levi Q said...

You create so much hate that you destroy the entire universe ... that's neat ... so, you think THAT makes you a TOUGH GUY, huh? But now you find yourself in a NEW UNIVERSE of beings so hateful and powerful that you're utterly DWARFED!

September 5, 2011 at 9:09 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 5, 2011 at 9:09 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

the kind of murderous pity mm is expressing toward the niggers on the bridge is the true civilized -- and civilizing -- emotion

September 5, 2011 at 9:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reason I can't criticize Moldbug's worldview is that I can't figure out what it is. I can't tell when he is serious. Does he really regard fascism as right wing? I doubt it. I think he is trolling.
He's a brilliant writer, but he doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind whether he wants to communicate with people or just pull their chains.

"While Moldbug enjoys making "outrageous" assertions:
(a) he generally attempts to make "serious" arguments supporting his "outrageous" assertions (this is the entire basis of his internet persona: that he is a brave, clever, amazingly erudite thinker with unique insights on history);"

September 5, 2011 at 10:07 PM  
Anonymous TKM said...

Does anyone know what the Mencius post is where he says something like

"Going back onto gold will annoy/irritate a lot of people. You may be surprised just how annoyed/irritated it makes them, but this is a good sign."

September 6, 2011 at 1:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

itt: betas complaining about moldbug's alpha writing abilities.

September 6, 2011 at 2:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

September 6, 2011 at 3:02 AM  
Anonymous josh said...


N/a, who I respect very much, is simply demonstrating that not all Boston Brahmin of a century ago held modern views. Well, duh. However, the faction that was ascendent was in fact of Mass. origin. Have you ever heard of the Christina socialists, the Kindergaarteners, the Nationalists (Bellamy), Elihu Root, the settlement house movement, the efficiency movement, John Harvey Kellogg, The Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations (run by Frederick T. Gates, a Christian socialist and Bellamyite Nationalist). Though these people would, no doubt, be disgusted by some of the modern positions of our progressive elite, there is no doubt, they are its ancestors.

September 6, 2011 at 3:12 AM  
Blogger death maiden said...

i like the james dickey cf. (except for the last few weak lines, especially the last one, which trivializes all that has gone before and sits the author back at the blue bottle counter with the rest of the fags)

probably my favorite trope in literature, and perhaps the most primary: the dialectic of civilization and barbarity. think "man who would be king" or "man who shot liberty valance." the meaning of all the epics, and hence of *epic* itself

the driver of the car and the animal on the bridge (zarathustra's bridge?) are of course related, but what is the genetic link?

most prototypically it is resentment. the driver has lost the animal's grace and for what? the fact he is acutely aware of it implies he is himself not fully civilized -- has not mastered animality, but only opposes it, impotently as it were

does he think civilization can't proceed unless something is done to or with the animal on the bridge? but isn't the animal what is missing from his audi-ized erudite semi-mastery, which is merely semi-concealment?

September 6, 2011 at 8:02 AM  
Anonymous Leonard said...

Taylor: of course MM considers fascism right-wing. (In this he is in agreement with about 99% of the population -- hardly a controversial viewpoint.) I suggest you look at the archives a little.

September 6, 2011 at 8:06 AM  
Blogger death maiden said...

i think the point is whether totalitarianism can occur as both a left- or a right-wing phenom and clearly it can

at the center of this poem is a totalitarian urge. if you can't see it you're not only missing the point but weren't even mailed the prospectus

September 6, 2011 at 8:25 AM  
Blogger xlbrl said...

The primitives on the bridge are Camus' reminder to the non-jungle dwellers--those who lack courage will always find a philosophy to justify it.

September 6, 2011 at 8:49 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Death Maiden is right, of course, but the greater question "The demons" raises (and of course there are two sets here) is what does MM expect society to do?

There is no ring of Fnargl, nor would it be prudent or "right" to use it to kill "animals, from the ghetto"; it's been tried and has failed.

However, the current state of things also fails (as MM has done a spectacular job in demonstrating).

So what is the answer? Xboxes for all?

I fear that like most of us, MM has realized that his diagnosis doesn't come with an adequate or acceptable treatment plan so we're just waiting on the fizzle, when the finger-guns become real.

September 6, 2011 at 11:13 AM  
Blogger jwm said...

@Death maiden:
some excellent observations.

The animal thug points his finger. Implied threat- wholesale random slaughter.

kill 'em all

Just like the laws of physics, this elicits the gut (animal)response of JQ Commuter-

kill 'em all

wholesale random slaughter.
There's your connection.


September 6, 2011 at 2:38 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

I would like to correct the historical record about a comment I made regarding whether Imperial France was leftist or conservative.

I had been operating under the assumption Napoleon should be classified as leftist by the standards of Metternich, Castlereagh and the other opposing royalist powers because the Emperor of France had expanded the Enlightenment inspired Code Napoleon, used ethnic nationalism to undermine the ethnically diverse Holy Roman Empire (later known as Austria after the First Reich was dissolved following France's victory at Austerlitz) and Imperial Russia in particular (Napoleon had broken off rebellious Poland from Russia with the creation of the Duchy of Warsaw and when France invaded Russia, Tsar Alexander I was terrified Napoleon would create a "Duchy of Kiev" with the help rebelling Ukrainians).

However, I have been reading Metternich, and it appears that Metternich (after consulting with Austrian Emperor Francis II) succeeded in convincing Napoleon to officially embrace conservatism surrender Imperial French "corporate shares" (so to speak) to Austria and the conservative European powers, which is what the most radical Jacobins had always suspected the pragmatic Bonaparte would do the moment Napoleon started vying for power in Republican France.

After Napoleon was defeated, Metternich, of course, denied that this scheme was hatched by himself, much as Pierre Trudeau denied having ever supported Adolf Hitler sometime soon after Stalingrad (it's amazing how one bad Russian winter can lower one's political social status...)

Would anyone like to guess WHAT event between Napoleon's coronation as Emperor in 1804 and his defeat in Russia was the one where Napoleon officially agreed to ultimately transfer his "Imperial class corporate shares" to Austria and explain WHY this event would have advantageous to Austria, and probably Metternich himself...

September 6, 2011 at 7:32 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Don't refer to your wife as a Cougar.

I think he meant the Mercury Cougar.

September 5, 2011 1:22 PM

I hope for MM's sake that Lady Moldbug got the joke and didn't reach for the rolling pin after reading those "Cougar references"...

September 6, 2011 at 7:36 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Moldbug is still ignorant of how pre-1848 European royalism worked.

Rather than functioning as a cartoonishly cult-like and centralized 20th century Fascistic system, Westphalian royalism was notable because of a lack of royal authoritarianism.

Westphalian royalism was OLIGARCHICAL in nature, not authoritarian.

Fascism was more of a cult of personality for petty dictators, not a true representation of classical European Monarchies. There simply is no Bourbon youth or Hapsburg youth equivalent to the Hitler youth.

Pre-Nationalism/pre-1848 European monarchs were often (but not always) weak compared to the elite oligarchical institutions of the era, such as the Catholic Church, trade Guilds, regional aristocrats, and smaller regional jurisdictions that often existed under larger "corporate conglomerate" empires such as the Holy Roman Empire and the Hanseatic League.

Moldbug obviously cannot distinguish between the First and Second Reich because he is too focused on all the conveniently photographed and filmed explosions which took place under the Third Reich to notice anything that existed before Hitler.

Napoleon remarked (exaggerating a bit too much) that Louis XIV was the only king of France worthy of the throne because it was well known in Napoleon's era that Monarchs were often figure heads who wouldn't last ten minutes on their own without aristocratic oligarchical institutions and other elite "sovereign shareholders".

Interestingly, one of the reasons these aristocratic oligarchies developed was because it was known that the children of great Monarchs would almost always regress back to mediocrity.

Since thrones were inherited to offspring in almost exactly the same was as modern corporate stock shares are handed down in wills, the other royalist corporate shareholders had an interest in strengthening their institutional power bases and making them independent of the whims of mediocre rulers and be able to outlast individual monarchs by centuries.

"Sovereign oligarchy" is a perfect way to view the Crowned Republics of Italy where the Doges were often figureheads who were elected by elite Signoria city elders who were the real powers behind the throne.

Doge != Duce.

To bring up another example, George III didn't have to be that competent a ruler because elite British institutions, such as the Royal Navy, were run by Lord Nelson and foreign policy was handled by aristocrats of the caliber of Castlereagh, were able to make him look like a more talented executive than he actually was.

September 6, 2011 at 8:00 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

I'll drop off this gift of a link for Moldbug's perusal and personal benefit.

Everything Moldbug could ever want to learn about cognitive enhancement and nutritional supplementation is at this wonderful, wonderful website.

I especially encourage scrolling down to read the forum entries about Nootropics and Resveratrol.

September 6, 2011 at 8:33 PM  
Anonymous Erik said...

OT from Norway: Aftenposten newspaper has article on Noam Chomsky, talks about how this much respected academic is the most influential and most cited and has his name on a hundred books and so on, proceeds to call Chomsky "dissident" with a straight face.

Later in the article, there's an interview where the journalist asks if Chomsky even learns from criticism, and Chomsky answers: "Yes, for instance when I talked about the murder of bin Laden, one of my critics pointed out that it wasn't murder because international law is set up to let Western leaders get away with their crimes. I learned from that."

September 7, 2011 at 3:26 AM  
Anonymous PA said...

The last line was actually quite good. It contextualized everything that preceded and suggested that these "warriors" are same as they always were: minstrels for their masters.

September 7, 2011 at 3:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

However, the faction that was ascendent was in fact of Mass. origin.


September 7, 2011 at 2:41 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

If n/a weren't so stupid I'd call him a liar.

Does your friend at "racehist" (nice skull, btw) know that the elite Jews during the "Old Deal" Lincoln Regime (which lasted from 1865 to FDR's election once "Honest Abe" had resolved certain disagreements with the South on terms favorable to Northern WASP industrial interests...) were ALSO conservative Republicans during the glory years of WASP conservatism?

Since the elite Jews of that era were conservative Republicans, the Jews could not have been responsible for the shift of America to the left following the election of FDR.

Yes, the WASPs were also conservative during that era, but all that means is that Moldbug is ultimately right that non-ethnocentric Jews assimilate into the mannerisms and customs of the inner party.

Once FDR had established the foundations for the modern Protestant-Progressive Nanny State through federal agencies, regulations, and academia, the WASPs moved to the left because FDR, via the accursed New Deal, gave the WASP elite a stake in maintaining a credentialed regulatory state. The Jews have simply been following the lead of extreme leftwing WASPs like Richard "I invented Affirmative Action" Nixon, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, John Dewey, Nelson Rockefeller, Howard Dean, Mass governor William Weld, current leftist governor of Rhode Island Lincoln Chaffee.

September 7, 2011 at 7:51 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Reform Judaism is "Lutheran-ized" version of Judaism that has no theological foundation in Judaism as it had been practiced by Jews up the their emancipation in Germany.

The Jewish nature of Jewish liberalism appears watered down at best.

September 7, 2011 at 7:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since the elite Jews of that era were conservative Republicans, the Jews could not have been responsible for the shift of America to the left following the election of FDR.

You should take an elementary logic course. Even if the former were true, the latter doesn't logically follow.

Jews and Progressivism

"The political system that had emerged in the United States at the turn of the century was one that deprived Jews of access to economic and political power and to social standing. Not surprisingly, Jews were attracted to political movements that opposed that regime. Working-class Jews espoused socialism. Many middle- and upper-class Jews, on the other hand, supported Progressivism.

September 7, 2011 at 9:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Progressivism wasn't "WASP/Protestant." It was heterogeneous and joined and co-opted by Jews. This was long before FDR.

Jews and Progressivism

"The political system that had emerged in the United States at the turn of the century was one that deprived Jews of access to economic and political power and to social standing. Not surprisingly, Jews were attracted to political movements that opposed that regime. Working-class Jews espoused socialism. Many middle- and upper-class Jews, on the other hand, supported Progressivism. The Progressives were a heterogeneous group of politicians that included diverse individuals as Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, Hiram Johnson of California, Albert Cummins of Iowa, William U'Ren of Oregon, Woodrow Wilson of New Jersey, and Theodore Roosevelt of New York, tied together by a network of organizations such as the National Municipal League and publications such as the National Municipal Review.

As Martin Shefter has noted, Progressives were united less by ideology than by a common place in the political system. In the wake of the election of 1896, the great majority of states and the national government, as well, came to be governed by one-party systems. The Progressive movement linked politicians who found their careers blocked by the leadership of the dominant party, with groups and forces that did not enjoy the favor of or access to the locally dominant party - shippers in states where that party was tied to a railroad, firms that sold in national markets in cities where the party machine was tied to businesses that sold in local markets, and so forth."


"Because it not only attacked a regime that excluded them but also advocated the principles of merit, rule by experts, and careers open to talent, and sought the creation of a powerful state that could enforce these norms, Jews supported the Progressive movement."

September 7, 2011 at 9:42 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

yes, but, undiscovered, couldn't you say that lutheranism per se was an attempt replicate an environment, and corresponding cognitive process, of judaic-level self-identfication and self-certainty -- for goyim?

September 7, 2011 at 9:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As for the WASPs/Protestants/Brahmins:

Patrician Anti-Semitism

"For the New England brahmins, the Jew served as a symbol of the greed and corruption of the new order. By assailing Jews, they attacked the industrialists, financiers, and railroad barons who were displacing them in the nation's political and economic life. This fear was expressed in a stream of anti-Semitic writings and speeches on the part of New England's leading public figures and intellectuals during the late nineteenth century."


"These themes were echoed by other New England patricians, including Henry James who used Jewish characters to symbolize greed and the decline of society. Similarly, Henry Adams's brother, Brooks, in his 1896 work, The Law of Civilization and Decay, demonstrated that throughout history Jews had used their money and financial acumen as instruments of exploitation, domination, and oppression. In the United States and Britain, productive industrial capitalism had been replaced by parasitic finance capitalism, symbolized by the Jewish usurer. This became a common theme in the literary and scholarly works of the New England patricians and other upper-class intellectuals. The Jew was attacked as the representative of a materialistic society with no values or culture."

Immigration Restriction

"From the patrician perspective, not only was the Jew was a symbol of the corruption of America's new ruling class, but the Jew symbolized the decay of American values in another was as well. To the patricians, Jewish immigrants, along with other newcomers from Southern and Eastern Europe, represented a threat to American culture, society, and the Anglo-Saxon race."


"One major vehicle for this aspect of the patrician attack on the industrialist regime was the Immigration Restriction League. The League was founded in 1894 by a trio of New England bluebloods - Charles Warren, Robert Ward, and Prescott Farnsworth Hall - and a group of their Harvard classmates. The League quickly promoted the creation of affiliates throughout the nation, often making use of the Harvard alumni network and other organizations of transplanted New Englanders."


"Among the League's most important intellectual spokesman was Edward Ross, one of the pioneers of American sociology. In his widely read 1914 work, The Old World and the New, Ross explains the importance of protecting Anglo-Saxon Americanism against pollution through immigration."


September 7, 2011 at 9:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Populist-Patrician Alliance?

"The initial support for immigration restriction was provided mainly by the political spokesman of the Northeastern upper classes. However, the vague outlines of an alliance began to develop around the issue of immigration--and on opposition to the industrialist order more generally--between the Brahmins and the political representatives of the South and rural West."


"For a brief moment at the turn of the century, what might have seemed to be an improbable alliance between agrarian radicals and patricians, an American coalition of the top and bottom, was a possibility. The two groups were divided by an enormous cultural chasm, but, nevertheless, shared a common hatred for the new capitalist order and the forces that it was bringing to power. "

September 7, 2011 at 9:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So I guess all those Jews from "1865 to FDR's election" assimilated the mannerisms and customs of the WASP Brahmins and were actually anti-Semitic and promoted Anglo-Saxonism....

September 7, 2011 at 10:02 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

So I guess all those Jews from "1865 to FDR's election" assimilated the mannerisms and customs of the WASP Brahmins and were actually anti-Semitic and promoted Anglo-Saxonism

Yeah, elite German Jews were assimilated into WASP culture.

I'm amused to see that the vaunted, pseudo-intellectual anti-semites (including the beloved, semen-stained kmac) don't have a basic understanding of Jewish history considering how much they enjoy discussing us.

For your instruction, the German American Jews like the Guggenheim's were Republicans back when the GOP was the militarily victorious inner party of Northern WASP industrial interests. 8 out of 11 Jewish American Congressmen and Senators (such as Colorado Senator Simon D Guggenheim) were Republicans.

Additionally, Anglo-Saxonry has been highly philo-semitic, even when the Anglo Saxons were "racist".

The Confederates treated Southern Jews no differently than other white Southerners and even appointed a Jew, Judah Benjamin, to run their foreign policy.

Victorian England voted for a Jewish PM, Disraeli, back when Social Darwinism and eugenics was enjoying its renaissance.

Might want to brush up on your history, boys, if you want to get into a historical debate because right now you're not up to the task and your leader, kmac, is a homeless man's Alfred Rosenberg.

September 7, 2011 at 10:25 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

The political system that had emerged in the United States at the turn of the century was one that deprived Jews of access to economic and political power and to social standing. Not surprisingly, Jews were attracted to political movements that opposed that regime.

Again, antisemites don't know what the hell they're talking about.

The elite American Jews of the time, the German American Jews, were conservative Republicans, and, as I pointed out, the Republican party was the WASP country club establishment party in the Northeast thanks to Honest Abe Lincoln's defeat of the Democrat ruled South.

September 7, 2011 at 10:31 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Reform Judaism is Protestant. The Reform movement was an attempt by Jews to modernize Judaism with a heretical form of Judaism which has no scriptural basis to help Jews successfully integrate and assimilate into Enlightenment era Europe.

The liberal Jews you despise are acting as Jews who have bought into liberal gentile norms.

Jewish particularism and ethnocentrism leads to Jewish conservatism, macdonald has everything backwards and Moldbug has everything almost entirely right:

Reform Judaism is the religious movement which arose in early nineteenth century Germany with the aim of reinterpreting (or reforming) Judaism in the light of Western thought, values and culture where such a reinterpretation does not come into conflict with Judaism’s basic principles. (Orthodox Judaism maintains that the very principle of Reform is in conflict with the basic principle of faith that the Torah is immutable.)
Emancipation and the Impulse to Reform Judaism

After the Emancipation and the emergence of the Jew into Western society, the need for a degree of adaptation of the traditional faith to the new conditions of life was keenly felt. The Haskalah movement of Enlightenment, of which Moses Mendelssohn was the leading figure, grappled with this very problem but tended to leave the traditional norms more or less intact. It was left to Reform to introduce various innovations in the synagogue service and in other areas of Jewish religious life.

Reform, however, did not, at first, become organized as a separated movement. A number of cultured laymen in various German cities tried their hand at creating liturgy and format which they believed was more keeping with Western ideals. The first Reform congregation was established in Hamburg in 1818, in the Hamburg Temple.

Reform generally came to prefer the term Temple rather than synagogue for its house of prayer in the belief that the Messianic doctrine could no longer be interpreted in terms of personal messiah who would rebuild the Temple. The new opportunities presented in the West for greater social and educational advancement and for the spirit of freedom to flourish were themselves seen as the realization of the Messianic dream and it was felt that the synagogue, standing in place of the Temple, should be known as such. The Prayer Book of the Hamburg Temple omitted most of the references in the traditional Prayer Book to the return to Zion and the restoration of the Temple service. Prayers and sermons in the German language were introduced and an organ was played to accompany the prayers.
The Reform Movement Emerges in Germany and Spreads Throughout Europe

The Hamburg rabbis enlisted a number of prominent Orthodox Rabbis to publish a stern prohibition against these reforms. Not very long afterwards, a number of Rabbis educated in German universities met in conferences in the years 1844-6; Reform ideas were put forward and a fully-fledged Reform movement became established. The leaders of Reform in Germany, Abraham Geiger and Samuel Holdheim, tried to develop a Reform theology in which Jewish particularism, while never entirely rejected, yielded to a far greater degree of universalism than was envisaged at any time in the Jewish past.

The European Reform movement was centered in Germany, but Reform congregations were also established in Vienna, Hungary, Holland and Denmark. In England, the Reform Congregation, the West London Synagogue of British Jews, was established as early as 1840. At the beginning of the twentieth century a more typical type of Reform was established in England under the influence of Claude Montefiore. This took the name Liberal Judaism. In Germany itself, however, the movement known as Liberal Judaism was more to the right than German Reform.

September 7, 2011 at 10:37 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

and they still are conservative republicans

September 7, 2011 at 10:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, elite German Jews were assimilated into WASP culture.

So did they assimilate the anti-Semitism and the Anglo-Saxonism (anti-Semitic racialism) of the WASP Brahmins as outlined above?

Again, antisemites don't know what the hell they're talking about.

No, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. That wasn't written by an "antisemite". It was written by a Jewish historian.

Additionally, Anglo-Saxonry has been highly philo-semitic, even when the Anglo Saxons were "racist".

I'm not talking about "Anglo-Saxonry". I'm talking about anti-Semitic WASP Brahmins, New England patricians.

The elite American Jews of the time, the German American Jews, were conservative Republicans

This minority of Jews doesn't support the "Jews just ape WASPs" thesis, not only because of the differences between them, but also because of the fact that most Jews weren't simply aping the WASP establishment but were actively opposing it:

Jews and Progressivism

"The political system that had emerged in the United States at the turn of the century was one that deprived Jews of access to economic and political power and to social standing. Not surprisingly, Jews were attracted to political movements that opposed that regime. Working-class Jews espoused socialism. Many middle- and upper-class Jews, on the other hand, supported Progressivism.

September 7, 2011 at 11:07 PM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

The worthwhile observation; if you ever find yourself an amoral power-lustful person who needs to deflect blame, copy the Anglo relationship with the Jews. (No need to use Jews specifically.) This scapegoating strategy is clearly highly effective.

Is Progressivism wrong? If so, it doesn't even matter if it's Jewish or not. It doesn't matter if Communism is native like apple pie or entirely foreign, because it is self-contradictory.

Anti-semitism is just straight up Aryan Physics. It wants you to rejects ideas because a foreigner thought of them.

If you ever find yourself a moral power-lustful person, the thing to do is exploit this tendency to tribalism. Absorb all true foreign ideas, and win because they're too cagey about absorbing your own - you can steal theirs but they can't steal yours.

For example, a reactionary government that managed to refine out all the true statements of Progressivism would trounce a straight up reactionary government in economic competition. (And hence military competition.)

September 8, 2011 at 3:34 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

I just posted this over at Foseti and its not directly related, but it countains a lot of my basic undertanding of the history of moder liberalism, so I'll posit it as a response to Anon/Na, with just a few extra comments.

First of all, I would like to note that Jews played a huge role in the development and dissemination of various socialisms, but pre and post 20th century. Duh. I'm not trying absolve anybody of anything, nor am I trying to pin blame on any group for anything, just trying to get at the most reasonable picture of history.

Second, since I don't directly mentino Jews in the following I will say this. I think at least some explanation of Jewish involvement in "the movement" can be attributed to the General Education fund's insistance on colleges adopting the College Entrance Examination Board's (today the College Board, still the guys who do the SAT and AP. The pres is a guy named "Gaston Wilhelm Caperton III. A CFR member, of course) criteria for admittance in exchange for grants. The CEEB was part of the "efficience movement" and was definitely not Jewish, but did result in the admittance of a disproportionate number of Jews into the Ivies.

Also, the puritan bashing was not something invented by Jews, but was inherent what was called "Progessive Christianity" in the late 1800s. Hating on the past is why they called it "progressive".

September 8, 2011 at 7:19 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

Here's what I said over there:

First of all, changing retiring the word socialist because everyone is a socialist is a disgustingly Orwellian phenomenon.

Second of all, everyone today is a socialist (well, almost everyone). Everyone today is a socialist because the socialists have spent a century purging the world of all non-socialist branches of thought.

How did they do this? Well the Rockefeller General Education Fund was pretty damn important. The Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations provided a full two thirds of ALL COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY INCOME in the first third of the century. They created the American Historical Association, American Psycological Assoc, the American Economic Assoc., the Social Science Research Council, the American Council of Learned Societies, and gave conditional grants dependent on hiring from these orgs. If you get a little happy with Wiki, you will realize that all of these orgs were run by and filled with people who would have called themselves socialists before 1920, and communists after. This should not surprise us considering that Frederick T. Gates, the man who ran the general education fund was a CHRISTIAN SOCIALIST, and BELLAMYITE NATIONALIST. In other words, non-socialist thought was defunded and eventually all the old profs. died or retired. Our entire system of political thought evolved from what came out of this filter.

Should I point out that the exact same organization funded the World Council of Churches? Funded only churches that pushed the Social Gospel/Ecumenical/Christian Socialist POV, placing political socialism above personal salvation. Should I point out that these same organizations even funded the Catholic Interracial Council to break up Catholic and ethnic solideratiy, and to push Catholicism in an Ecumenical direction (Socialist party member, WWI State dept, and editor of the Nation, Paul Blanshard's "American Freedom and Catholic Power" demonstrates the mindset).

Do I need to mention that these same orgs, the foundations, the CFR, and the various "learned society" members made up the entirety of FDR's "brain trust", and continue today to self select all of the most important positions in the Executive branch to this day.

Or that OWI coordinated the press, provided protection for press connected to the CFR, and attacked the unconnected "yellow" press.

I won't even get into the connections between these orgs and the Soviet Union

September 8, 2011 at 7:20 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

IMHO, some of you are making a mistake by focusing on the general opinion of New England patricians at this point or that point in history rather than focusing on the people who actually won. Most New England patricians were not abolitionists, but it would be ridiculous to say that abolitionism was not a movement that came from New England congregationalism.

With respect to the immigrant question, the people who actually won (ie the people whose movement eventually gained political power as I describe above) were the Christian socialist reformers. These people were associated with the ANTI-RACIST settlement house movement, for example, and were more concerned with radicalizing European immigrants, or helping to organize already radical European immigrants, or helping to promote immigration of more radical European immigrants, than to protecting the wages of American workers.

September 8, 2011 at 7:36 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

So did the foundations do what they did because Rockefeller decided he wanted to indirectly run the country, or because of Conquest's laws?

September 8, 2011 at 8:30 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

Got me. Probably the latter, though from what I can tell Jr. and David grew to relish the role.

Offering to make your *house* the site of the United Nations takes some serious balls.

September 8, 2011 at 10:08 AM  
Anonymous Gabe Ruth said...

Josh, you're Froude to Mr. Moldbug's Carlyle. Thanks for the picture, it looks pretty compelling to me. Where did you get that 1/3 of all higher ed funding for early 20th number?

I keep coming back to the anti-abolitionists' attitude. I cringe every time slavery comes up in these parts, and I won't apologize for that as I think a glib attitude towards it shows a lack of seriousness, and the unsavory character of abolitionism does not excuse that. But the greatest failure of the abolitionists, besides the war, was their lack of foresight, their belief that once things were made righteous de jure, things would come right de facto, a mindset easily recognizable today. The anti-abolitionists saw that it was absurd, without necessarily considering slavery a good thing.

September 8, 2011 at 12:23 PM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

Solving the slavery problem is easy.

You can sell yourself into slavery. You cannot sell anyone else, including your children, into slavery.

This is simply a consequence of it being okay to sell your hours on an 8/5 basis. Sell three such contracts and reach 24/5. Sell the weekend as well, and you're a slave. None of these sales are qualitatively different and so 'slavery' can't be any worse than signing a salary contract.

But you don't get to sign such on other people's behalf. You don't get to dragoon other people into signing. A promise is only valid if made for the self and not under duress.

This is simply not debatable. You can agree or be wrong. (I'm fine with you being wrong.)

Though Moldbug seems more interested in modern slavery equivalents, which can get messier.

September 8, 2011 at 12:35 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

Gabe, Thanks, but let's not get carried away.

I remembered the statistic, but couldn't remember where I saw it. I thought it had been from the Rene Wormser book (which is not online so I can't search). However, it definitely appears in Gary Allen's The Rockefeller File, which while good fun, and full of lots of easily verifiable stuff, is certainly less reliable on a statistic like that. It may have come from both, but Gary Allen does not cite his source, so cum grano salis, but, hey that's what the internet is for, isn't it.

Here's a link.

September 8, 2011 at 1:49 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

what's the sleep-segment contract going for these days?

if there's a contract involved, it's not slavery. if a contract could be drafted stipulating the forfeiture of one party's legal rights to another, and therefore simulating a condition of slavery (you have the right to torture and kill me and jerk off on my corpse) -- it would simultaneously vacate any legal obligation i might have for abiding by it

in a modern conception, "selfhood" is inalienable and can't be "sold." an actual slaver would never have deluded himself otherwise

September 8, 2011 at 2:03 PM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

"it would simultaneously vacate any legal obligation i might have for abiding by it"

I originally thought the same, but slavery isn't necessarily signing away your right to sign contracts.

One guy promises to obey another permanently. In return, some trust gets a bunch of money. Perhaps including torture rights.

Heh, even with torture is it exactly like signing a salary labour contract and being paid up front. It doesn't sound wise. But a voluntary promise is never invalid.

Partly it isn't wise because enforcement is such a bitch. Private security agencies may not agree to insure these, any more than the public one does.

September 8, 2011 at 2:17 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Let us consider what chattel slavery involved from the point of view of the slave owner. Because the slaves were his property, he was obliged to maintain them: to provide them with food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, from the cradle to the grave.

They were, of course, expected to work for their master, and to be subjected to his discipline - but the value of slaves was comparatively high, and the character of the work and the harshness of the discipline were tempered by the slaveholder's purely selfish interest in preserving his valuable assets in productive and marketable condition - quite apart from any religious or moral scruple. Accordingly, the tear-jerking portrayals of the institution by abolitionists, such as "Uncle Tom's Cabin," were considerably exaggerated. The onerousness of the slaves' condition was not unremitting. They might make some money of their own by performing small jobs "on the side," and were allowed time for entertainment and rest.

If we wish to think of any comparable institution in modern society, it is not wage labor, but rather welfare. Like the slaves of yore, the black underclass of today is provided by its Welfare Massa (Uncle Sam) with food (or at least food stamps); clothing (or at least an EBT card with which to buy it); shelter in a housing project; and medical care through Medicaid - all of these, from cradle to grave. And what work are these people expected to do? Not, to be sure, to pick cotton or tobacco all day long - they are asked only to support Democratic politicians at elections, and are mobilized from time to time to "Mau Mau the flak catchers." Instead of fiddling or blacksmithing on the side to earn a few coppers, they supplement their allowances from Welfare Massa with the proceeds of drug dealing, pimping and whoring, and the occasional strong-arm job. Excesses in such activities sometimes get them in trouble with the Overseer (urban police departments), leading not to the whipping post, but to a prison where they have a gym, a law library, and the ability to network with other criminals to compare notes and sharpen their skills.

Plus ça change...

September 8, 2011 at 2:46 PM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

While modern neo-slaves aren't physically forced into the slavery condition...

It's hard to say they're not intellectually coerced. Welfare is addictive, exactly like a drug. They're bombarded with messages to get on welfare.

I should really get on doing the moral analysis of this.

September 8, 2011 at 2:51 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 8, 2011 at 3:26 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

modernity shades it with moral association, but for most of history slavery, and its mods, was viewed solely as an economic system per se (antiquity) or a dominant feature of an economic system (middle ages)

in all cases, except ours, it died out because of its inefficiencies, in practice long before "law." in the west slaves would have it good relative to a 4th century urban prole: slavery was effectively a higher rank than degraded citizenship. call it unfreedom arbitration

something of this can be seen in china today, where wage labor is de facto serfdom but a lot more efficient (especially in remote cities, where capital mobility is nullified). firing an unproductive worker is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to punish him and building the facility to do it in

basically capitalism is to slavery as science is to magic

and the reason welfare is immoral is not because of giving money away - but because of not attaching the grants to some form of education serfdom, as in, food is contingent upon learning a trade other than fronting

September 8, 2011 at 3:26 PM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

Could you run that last paragraph by me again?

September 8, 2011 at 3:42 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

should be contingent on maintaining grades, in a vocational program set up for explicitly for it, or any type of educational program

should be tied to compulsory service or labor -- not make-work bs, but actual work that the private sector is neglecting, etc.

if you're going to have a welfare state (and to that degree many govt jobs are forms of straight-up welfare), you might as well make it productive on a full-employment model

my line is that socialism is preferable to corporatism

September 8, 2011 at 4:07 PM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

Socialism is still evil, so the point is moot. That it is self-defeating is just kind of a bonus.

What's your definition of corporatism?

September 8, 2011 at 4:26 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 8, 2011 at 11:17 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

"socialism is evil." i have no idea what a statement like that is supposed to mean. that class conflict is an absolute good? that the logic that produced it out of history is some sort of optical error? on what basis do you make a statement like that: religious? psychological? what? what do you oppose against it -- the market? isn't the market the cornerstone of what gets called "progressivism" around here?

corporatism, to me, is integration of commanding-heights private sector into the govt. i suppose you could situate it as beginning under bismarck, but it really became operative during the interwar period, when every country in europe, and america, was openly a variant of it. postwar american galbraith-style managerialism could be considered its highpoint -- but contemporary china, which seems to be consciously emulating the german empire, may well best that. The current US is a purely corporatist state laboring under some sort of bizarre collective neurosis that it's something else

every time you hear the word "socialism" used as a pejorative to describe some current socioeconomic config, rest assured it is being used completely erroneously and is actually referring to corporatism

September 8, 2011 at 11:23 PM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

Coercion is an absolute bad. The only one, actually.
Both socialism and corporatism are but political philosophies for justifying coercion.

September 9, 2011 at 3:01 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

The current US is a purely corporatist state laboring under some sort of bizarre collective neurosis that it's something else

This bizarre collective neurosis comes from the work of foundations. Read through the archives & you'll see what MM means.

Corporatism & Socialism are two tails of the same whip.

September 9, 2011 at 4:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It’s worse than mere “socialism”. It’s multicult fascism: Take from the producers to give to the centers of multicult wealth and political power.

Here’s how it “works”:

1) Confuse people about the distinction between “wealth” and “income”—probably the worst single political economic crime possible to commit in public discourse.

2) Progressively tax income while claiming you are taxing the “wealthy”.

3) Respond to all of the pathologies you create in this confusion by a proliferation of public sector “fixes” that eventually result in the public sector overtaking economic activities by “virtue” of its taxation of all economic activities.

4) Allow the truly wealthy, whose property rights would disappear in an instant in the absence of government protections, to continue to accumulate net assets without limit and without paying the costs of protection of those property rights—shifting them onto the heavily taxed producers.

5) Continue to increase the overall taxation of producers until the goose that laid the golden egg, the middle class, is dead.

6) Decry the profligacy of the middle class as it ceases to have children hence family values, and goes into the abyss of usurious debt, the economy collapses due to a failure of consumer demand and the government centralizes even more power by handing over even more wealth to the creditors in exchange for equity stake.

September 9, 2011 at 2:06 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

i agree with anon. at least socialism is (was) a pure political-power play on the part of intellectuals, based on hatred and resentment of the bourgeois and the private life: a philosophers' coup, ideally

whereas corporatism is far more internally contradictory and self-annihilating: a socialism administered by oligarchs, which is like abstinence administered by dripping diseased whores

i'd follow beria before a fucking banker, any day

September 9, 2011 at 4:50 PM  
Anonymous Gabe Ruth said...

I would agree that corporatism is more dishonest than socialism, and probably harder to course correct on because of that dishonesty. However, I think you get corporatism in order to make socialism a little closer to viable. Real socialism destroys growth which their happy future requires. The universalists (or neo-liberals if you prefer) figured this out, and so went gung-ho for "the market", shoving coal into the engine of growth as fast as they could, always with the stipulation that the wealth must be spread around, by government. And this was necessary because we are socialists, have been since the New Deal, for better or for worse. Big Whatever says OK, but you'll have to make it worth our while, since this is a "free market" and you want us to just do shit regardless of whether it's really a good move. So the pols sell the proles on the belief that the health of the stock market equals the health of the nation. TBTF, no price too high to keep "everything" from going under. Socialism yields corporatism, since the pols think Big Whatever is the golden goose.

You can say you'd rather follow a real Communist than a banker, because a banker should never really hold power since he is a businessman, but that would still be short-sighted. You can't name Beria though, if that's the alternative. You could say he poisoned Uncle Joe, but that's rather too little too late, and for all the wrong reasons.

September 9, 2011 at 5:37 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 9, 2011 at 8:31 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

ruth, i like your theory; and, yes, my comment about beria was a little glib. substitute trotsky -- the commie christ to stalin's caesar.

in light of your remarks, it's worth pointing out how originally hostile corporatism -- in sorel's time the product of disgruntled socialists and still a theory of radical labor, and, more pointedly, a radical-labor elite -- was to capitalism, to say nothing of laissez-faire. (great quote in wik from the falangist de rivera, circa 1935: "basically the Right stands for the maintenance of an economic structure, albeit an unjust one, while the Left stands for the attempt to subvert that economic structure, even though the subversion thereof would entail the destruction of much that was worthwhile."). the fascist syntheses that followed, the formation of "total" states represent the last true socieconomic creations, and the only ones native to the 20th century. we're all fascists now, which china and russia more or less rub in our face every news cycle

this was all way before neoliberalism, it has to be said, which figures as a strange post-political economics, which, again, combines reactionary and left elements. explain neoliberals and you explain everything, but good luck doing it without marxism

this is why i have trouble situating what you call "progressivism" or "universalism" in the disjoint actions of liberal-progressive "foundations" and associations." those orgs can explain why mass/idiot acceptance or saturation of a particular lying ideology occurs -- not why the talent per se flocks to and constructs that ideology. (it's also why antisemites are still so fucking stupid, because they keep picking the wrong jews to blame). neoliberalism, technically speaking, is the brainchild of chicago-school/mit/harvard post-marxist atheist jews, a strange breed of scientist. the desire for the world to be a giant vacuum of ideology, a purely economic affair, is palpable, and partly comprehensible as a reaction to (ha) endogenous jewishness (as communism) and exogenous jewishness (fascism). but good luck psychologizing these guys -- unless there's an account of the childhoods of fama or merton miller that i'm not aware of

September 9, 2011 at 8:34 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> antisemites are still so fucking stupid, because they keep picking the wrong jews to blame). neoliberalism, technically speaking, is the brainchild of chicago-school/mit/harvard post-marxist atheist jews, a strange breed of scientist. the desire for the world to be a giant vacuum of ideology, a purely economic affair, is palpable, and partly comprehensible as a reaction to (ha) endogenous jewishness (as communism) and exogenous jewishness (fascism).

So, crudely speaking, neoliberalism = Chicago School = libertarianism (or right-liberalism) with a welfare state and open borders. The last being the really salient thing, because the first two items pretty much are thoroughly proven and/or inevitable.

And the Chicago school made Gould lie about race, and made the humanities departments make kids liberate Blacks from separate bathrooms? And caused Jensen to be protested by many students when he kicked off modern HBD in (I think) the late 60s?

What's the evidence, or is this just an intuition? I intuit that there might be something to the claims about the Frankfort School influencing things, but I can't say I know of any evidence of that, except for one of the guys speaking to students at least once in the 60s.

I know Lewontin was involved with UN statements right after the war (maybe just signing them - I forget), that sound just like 1990s 'anti-racism'. Isn't that too early to be influenced by neo-liberalism? Boas, Mead, and Boasism are definitely too early.

Assuming you have the welfare state, open borders is nonsensical economics even without the 'negative externalities': that doesn't prove that open borders wasn't done for (mistaken) economic reasons, but it is still a suggestive piece of evidence. And Milton Friedman agreed that welfare and open borders don't mix, though I'm not sure when exactly he achieved this insight.

September 10, 2011 at 1:17 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

> And the Chicago school made Gould lie about race, and made the humanities departments make kids liberate Blacks from separate bathrooms? And caused Jensen to be protested

And caused the mass media and the donation-hungry politicians to give all those things favorable notice, I should add - ?

My post seems rather incomplete without that addition.

September 10, 2011 at 1:37 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

DM: because it gets them laid.

September 10, 2011 at 5:53 AM  
Anonymous josh said...


He might mean the Chicago school on sociology, not economics. Louis Wirth, Arnold Rose (the gu who probably actually wrote Myrdal's American Dilemma, commissioned of course, by the Carngie Corp btw.

Incidentally, take a look at the list of those who did "researches" for that book. Somebody decided the future of anthro was these people at least by 1938, then UNESCO made it official. What a coincidence.

September 10, 2011 at 10:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Way before neoliberalism:
The tide against the world view of the officers turned with the election of Roosevelt. " Jews served prominently in his administration," (p. 244) including Felix Frankfurter who had long been under scrutiny by MID as a "dangerous Jewish radical" (p. 244). Jews had also won the intellectual debate: "Nazi racial ideology was under attack in the press as pseudo‑science and fanatical bigotry." (p. 244) Jews also had a powerful position in the media, including ownership of several large, influential newspapers (New York Times, New York Post, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Record and Pittsburgh Post‑Gazette), radio networks (CBS, the dominant radio network, and NBC, headed by David Sarnoff), and all of the major Hollywood movie studios (see MacDonald 1998/2001).

It is remarkable that the word 'Nordic' disappeared by the 1930s although the restrictionists still had racialist views of Jews and themselves (p. 245). By 1938 eugenics was "shunned in public discourse of the day." (p. 250) Whereas such ideas were commonplace in the mainstream media in the 1920s, General George van Horn Moseley's 1938 talk on eugenics and its implications for immigration policy caused a furor when it was reported in the newspapers. Moseley was charged with anti‑Semitism although he denied referring to Jews in his talk. The incident blew over, but "henceforth, the military determined to protect itself against charges of anti‑Semitism that might sully its reputation or cause it political problems .... The army projected itself as an institution that would tolerate neither racism nor anti-Semitism" (p. 252‑253).

This when the US Army was still completely segregated!

September 10, 2011 at 10:51 AM  
Blogger death maiden said...

well i meant econ, but it's not like there were hard and fast divisions at u of c or anywhere between the social sciences in that era. mainstream econ didn't exist yet; muth and lucas did their work in the 60s.

but of course there was rockefeller and carnegie money all over the so-called saltwater and freshwater schools. the connections are not esoteric. harold laski helped rock-fellowship-recipient leo strauss find teaching posts in the US. again, it's not exactly hidden, if you know your stuff, to see just how pervasive u of c influence was in the reagan (former merrill lynch chair and deregulation innovator don regan as first treasury secretary and, later, de facto "prime minister") and thatcher admins. friedman, of course, but also the various straussians and bloomsians via the kristols (and the kagans). the washington consensus was the tail of something that had been gaining momentum over half a century.

affecting policy was the goal -- not colonizing academia. the notion that somehow the frankfurt school influenced public policy in this country, especially in the last 50 years, is ridiculous. they got a lot of hippies laid and got a lot of limousine marxists into the upper-middle class, but that's about it (and i think adorno is the strongest philosopher of the 20th century).

that's why i think a lot of the "cathedral" thesis, as i understand it, is magical thinking. getting the ear of power (which means bankers and "gentlemen," people who don't read dialectic of enlightenment by the pool) is what matters. the new left hardly fits that descriptor

September 10, 2011 at 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the notion that somehow the frankfurt school influenced public policy in this country, especially in the last 50 years, is ridiculous. they got a lot of hippies laid and got a lot of limousine marxists into the upper-middle class, but that's about it (and i think adorno is the strongest philosopher of the 20th century).that's why i think a lot of the "cathedral" thesis, as i understand it, is magical thinking. getting the ear of power (which means bankers and "gentlemen," people who don't read dialectic of enlightenment by the pool) is what matters. the new left hardly fits that descriptor

And Marx was unimportant cause only
a few bearded profs read Capital.

September 10, 2011 at 11:59 AM  
Blogger death maiden said...

re: immigration. i assume friedman called it bad econ when he was older and already irrelevant compared with what followed. wage deflation and loss of national sovereignty are almost axiomatic planks of neoliberalism. whether anything is "good" or "bad" econ is almost beside the point

September 10, 2011 at 12:04 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 10, 2011 at 12:15 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> they got a lot of hippies laid

Well, that's important too isn't it?

I don't see why bankers and gents would wreck the country just for low wages. They might be tempted, sure enough, but actually doing it is another story. But I do think people would stick it to the country, hard, to live their lefty political dream on imported mestizo and muslim votes, which is a more cathedralist explanation..... though I believe the mestizos started coming in under Reagan. I always figured he and the team were just stupid.

But that may not be the whole story either.

Anyway, what do you say... do bankers and gents control the media? They certainly couldn't carry out mass immigration if all the media decided to resist rather doggedly. I believe it was Mencius who said news media at least were considerably controlled by government because gov can grant or deny them access to stuff, eg the White House press briefings. But what else controls the news media, and what controls the non-news media? Is it $, and supply of witty content producers? After all we can see that tv shows and movies vary widely in nous and vitality ; those aren't in oversupply. Why the NYT runs that that trained ape Thomas Friedman is kind of a mystery.

To return to what I was saying, I don't see why the bankers would do it, actually do it, unless they were first relieved of their ordinary ethnopatriotism, and also convinced that immigration would create a good society. For that it seems we need philosophers/moralists and anthropologists, respectively, to convince them somehow - perhaps by just convincing everyone.

Hence my cathedralism, my looking to the intellectual and cultural forces that you rather scorn. I admit it is based as much on speculation as on documented fact.

But if it's well-documented that ethnopatriotism and HBD were taking a broad public shellacking in the 1930s, as noted above - that is certainly of great interest. It fits with cathedralism because it shows how these memes faded in - or at least could have faded in - very slowly, coming into their full stinking flower in the 60s ideology, and the 70s/80s massivization of immigration.

September 10, 2011 at 1:25 PM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

It's hard to tell who controls the media because they don't fight with the rest of the Cathedral.

They're intellectually and ideologically unified, so they can't, really - anyone capable of wielding the press can also wield the White House etc, and indeed swinging the press automatically entails swinging the House etc.

Still if intellectual fractures appeared, causing a conflict, one of them would win. We just don't know who or how.

September 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

Have Strauss and Bloom and their fans have something to do with immigration? I don't know them well at all, especially Strauss, but I always thought they were cooler than that.

I thought neocons submitted to / sold out to multicult/immigration just so they could make it a non-issue and conserve their capital for use in their imperial dreams. As opposed to actually liking immigration. Not that it really matters I guess.

September 10, 2011 at 1:37 PM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

Oh come on, you already know that neocons don't really care about anything except being in power.

September 10, 2011 at 1:40 PM  
Anonymous Gabe Ruth said...

DR, you seem to be talking about syndicalism and corporatism as the same thing. To my mind, syndicalism is not all that objectionable because it's power over those outside of individual companies or industries is limited to those that need their product.

I could have it all wrong, but syndicalism looks like small scale communism set in a larger system that could be anything, really. Corporatism looks like large scale communism, where you have very successful BIG companies that are kept from failing even if they should, and as smaller companies are absorbed the dependent class grows to the point where you get TBTF.

I have to run, will muse further later and address some up thread stuff (Josh... I was disappointed by the link).

September 10, 2011 at 4:11 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

Eg Bloom was linked to Bellow who I think was probably a sincere defender of the West - and got 'busted' for it - who knows, maybe he was a cynical defender - it's not like I know for certain...

Maybe he was both. But I give the benefit of the doubt because he seems like a cool guy, what can I do.

September 10, 2011 at 4:16 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> Oh come on, you already know that neocons don't really care about anything except being in power.

As I've mentioned, I simply don't think most people are primarily venal - particularly the best people. I'd say that the idea that they are is a sort of disinformation that we have all been exposed to.

September 10, 2011 at 4:56 PM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

Why do you think so?

September 10, 2011 at 5:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eg Bloom was linked to Bellow who I think was probably a sincere defender of the West - and got 'busted' for it - who knows, maybe he was a cynical defender - it's not like I know for certain..

Bellow was trashed for asking,"Who is the Proust of the Papuans?" He also was bitter against the WASPs for throwing away their hegemony in "Sammler's Planet" and "the Dean's December."

September 10, 2011 at 7:20 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 10, 2011 at 9:53 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

nothing really venal about the neocons' love of american power. they were true believers. and reformed marxists (per stalin) -- the anti-communist left, so no strangers to totalizing politics or social progressivism. it took them quite a while to migrate rightward out of the democratic party -- lbj being the turning point. even then they supported scoop jackson in '72 and '76, until finally finding their man.

funny the questions about media influence above, and how they tie in to this. for the straussian doctrine par excellence is that of the "esoteric" teaching: the mass of idiots can never be exposed to the truth, that there is a natural order of human rank, no god, and no transcendental validity to concepts of justice. hence a steady stream of horseshit must be provided by the inner-circle elite, via the bimboesque "gentlemen" (can't get a better representative of this type than bush II, but feel free to substitute brokaw or brian williams), to the masses. this is why i never saw a real conflict between neoconservatism and neoliberalism. they're like cops and robbers. neocons provide the cover of comforting neo-imperial democratization, which rapidly dissolves to reveal the global financialized oligarchy underneath. if there was venality here, it came much more from (on the surface) strange fellow travelers like jeff sachs.

much as it stood for everything i despised, i had a hard time not being impressed by the neocon manipulation of bush II re iraq. the spectacle of straussian intellectuals like wolfowitz and "prince of darkness" richard perle (a photo of whom is indeed worth a thousand words) on the one side and a master "guardian" like cheney on the other, manipulating a president in plain sight, toward the aim of establishing a financialist maquiliadora in the middle of the middle east. a superb gambit -- and one that would have succeeded had the republican guard simply been brought on board early on

September 10, 2011 at 9:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...



September 11, 2011 at 7:14 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

Instead of getting mad about it, you could just not read it. It's actually easier.

September 11, 2011 at 7:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone with half a brain should be able to recognize that the only differences between neocons and neolibs are in style, presentation, the kind of moralizing language used, etc.

September 11, 2011 at 10:23 AM  
Blogger death maiden said...

but the hysterical palpitations of the omega stratum of "nationalistic" anons aside, let's not forget that, in terms of influence, the neocons weren't exactly P2

September 11, 2011 at 11:43 AM  
Blogger death maiden said...

gabe -- i was referring to sorelian syndicalism, french and italian proto-fascism

September 11, 2011 at 11:52 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

I'm talking about anti-Semitic WASP Brahmins,

The "Old Deal" Abraham Lincoln WASP Brahmins weren't anti-semites, and even if they were, it didn't stop elite German Jews from joining the WASP dominated Republican party. Get your facts straight before you lecture Jews about Jewish politics.

Generally, Anglo-Saxon elites have been pretty good at recogognizing and accepting assimilated, non-ethnocentric Jews such as Disraeli, Judah Benjamin, the Warburg family, and Mayor Bloomberg as one of their own.

The anti-semites mistake is to assume that assimilated Jews are distinct in any meaningful way from elite gentiles.

There is no such thing as a Jewish elite because everything elite Jews promote is supported by elite gentiles.

Dominique Strauss Kahn is a French Jew who, if elected president of France, would behave no differently than Mitterand or Chirac.

The Jews are not an alien presence in Western civ, they are in fact a key component, having Judaized Europe via that great vehicle for Jewish genetic interests, Christianity.

Anti-semitism, is maladaptive for Europeans genetic interests.

Wouldn't Hitler have been more likely to win his war if he was able to employ German Jewish talent?

September 11, 2011 at 12:03 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

As concerns the War of Northern Aggression, I'm surprised to see how many self-reputed reactionaries are overrating the importance of the Abolitionists in sparking the war.

The reason the North went to war against the South had little to do with the abolitionists' moral grandstanding.

The abolitionists were too small and their views too fringe to have sparked the conflict.

The party that led America to Civil War was the Republican party. And the reason the Republican party fought the South was because the economic interests of the South conflicted with those of the North over a wide array of issues such as trade (the South was for free trade, the industrializing North was against it), not simply the expansion of slavery into the West.

At the beginning of the war, the South was wealthier than the North. The Northern WASP industrial interests (which controlled the newly formed Republican party) forced the South back into the Union and destroyed the Southern economy in the process in order to gain economic supremacy.

The constitutional rights of slaves was of little interest to the Northern Republican WASPs.

If anything, Lincoln's racial animosity towards blacks rivaled those of any Southern plantation owner.

And my interpretation of what led the North and South to fight was the consensus among European diplomats of the time.

When Honest Abe tried justify the Union's activities under the moral cloak of the abolitionists with the Emancipation Proclamation (the address may have been intended more for international consumption than domestic) European diplomats from Lisbon to Moscow correctly jeered at Lincoln's notion that the North was fighting for anything other than the industrializing North's economic self interest.

The abolitionist role in spurring the crisis has been largely exaggerated in order to provide moral polish to WASP led GOP's war making.

September 11, 2011 at 12:22 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

As a followup to my post on the Civil War and the abolitionists, there's too much obsessing over fringe intellectuals and minor bit political players (such as the abolitionists) for the reactionary sphere to expand beyond their narrow internet amen corner.

The reactionaries can't think beyond a small set of narrow, paleoconservative slogans to provide actual political opposition to the left.

This myopic, pseuodo-intellectual posturing leads to overemphasizing the role of fringe political players because the paleos are themselves fringers.

The problem with their narrow viewpoint is that the reactionary sphere can't see the overarching political structure of the left.

Hence, the reactionaries overemphasize the role of the abolitionists while seemingly being unaware that the Republican party had all the motivation for knocking out the South, even if the abolitionist movement, as weak as it was, had never existed.

We need conservatives who can see the leftist forest (the GOP) rather than the twigs (Abolitionism).

September 11, 2011 at 12:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The hysterical palpitations of sniveling little jews eternally worried about malign influence being attributed accurately aside, let's not forget that even if P2 had/has a proportionally greater degree of influence, the object of its influence is much less consequential and thus the overall impact of the influence is much less.

September 11, 2011 at 1:36 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

anon, if it's that important to you, you have my blessing, go ahead and slaughter some jews (an/fo dradle?)and stop waiting for necessary and/or sufficient policy shifts and consequent bureaucracy to do it for you

September 11, 2011 at 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing says "hysterical palpitation" like assuming your interlocutor wants to "slaughter" jews just because he disagrees with you.

September 11, 2011 at 3:46 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> Why do you think so?

Basically tons of guys can't wait to get machine gunned for their polity, region, political dreams. War Nerd has pondered with wonderment how as a general rule you don't have to offer men much of anything to fight, except of course a modest living while they are doing the fighting, which naturally is not even possible to dispense with.

And lots of people work for lower wages per unit effort than they could get. Many of them are of course SWPLs, and their ideals may be dumb, but this doesn't change the fact that they pass up a higher wage for idealistic reasons. --The truth value of the ideals involved is not relevant.

Of course all of these types get compensated in pride, so their behavior is at leas arguably a second-order venality, at least in part. But it's clear at least that the pride comes from eschewing first-order venality.

September 11, 2011 at 4:00 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> establishing a financialist maquiliadora in the middle of the middle east. a superb gambit -- and one that would have succeeded

Succeeded how? You think the low-grade warfare could have been obviated in some way? I tend to the opposite view.

And why are these people so awesome at controlling and staging stuff and so weak at anticipating a violent debacle in Iraq? It seems to me they believe their own 'Straussian' propaganda at least re HBD. However the three points of Straussian esoterism you list were each made explicit by Nietzsche repeatedly, so he doesn't sound super-novel to me - at least not macroscopically.

September 11, 2011 at 4:15 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> I tend to the opposite view.

And it's not like the debacle didn't impose heavy costs on them. They're history, more or less. Perhaps not entirely, but boy have they paid the price.

September 11, 2011 at 4:21 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

rs, i agree, they fucked up. some decisions --like disarming the republican guard -- are baffling. others, like non-neocon rumsfeld's decision to deploy a severely undermanned occupation force (by about 90% according to internal defense dept estimates) simply stupid

September 11, 2011 at 4:29 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

strauss considered himself a nietzschean. and was modest -- considered himself not an original philosopher, but a scholar

September 11, 2011 at 4:31 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

Oh right, I've heard that about him - guess I've read through his wik entry.

What should I read? I found Writing & Persecution on scribd once, but trailed off reading (weak attention span). Where is it that he talks about Jewish and Nordish/Christian civilizations and power formations as outgrowths of our respective fundamental characters, or whatever, as you mentioned on the other thread?

I see your points about Iraq, I forgot about that stuff. I guess they could have had at least a small chance if they'd acted smarter. Especially if they'd handed things over to a proxy that's "not /too/ nasty, but definitely not as nice as us".

September 11, 2011 at 7:05 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> The "Old Deal" Abraham Lincoln WASP Brahmins weren't anti-semites, and even if they were, it didn't stop elite German Jews from joining the WASP dominated Republican party. Get your facts straight before you lecture Jews about Jewish politics.

> Generally, Anglo-Saxon elites have been pretty good at recogognizing and accepting assimilated, non-ethnocentric Jews such as Disraeli, Judah Benjamin, the Warburg family, and Mayor Bloomberg as one of their own.

He's probably talking about a different period (little hard to keep track).

Anglo-Ams were nervous about Ashkenazi power (in America) from 1900, 1910, something like that. It is a Jewish scholar, Eric Kaufmann I believe, who has written that the fight over the 1924 immigration restriction was considered to be, at the top, a clash of Jews vs the more ethnocentric type of Anglos. My sense is Jewish immigration was really the crux of the fight. The complaints were various - short stature, whatever, but it was obviously really about Jews' ability and tendency for power.

Various forms of animosity and suspicion against Jews / Jewish power were going quite strong up until the second war. Lindburgh pointing the finger at Jews wanting to get America in the war in 1939 or '40 or whatever, as famously cited by KMac, is far from the only manifestation of this, according to what I have heard.

In the time of Lincoln and Judah Benjamin, this wasn't such an issue because there weren't enough Ashkenazim to potentially exert a >25% or >33% control over America. The animosity in 1900-45 wasn't personal, it was almost solely a matter of power competition.

September 11, 2011 at 7:22 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

rs -

good survey of the reason and revelation contrast here

excellent discussion of esoteric teaching (as reflected in the relationship between philosopher-advisers and rulers) here -- but far more interesting is the appended correspondence between strauss and alexandre kojeve: hegelian-marxist, teacher of allan bloom, largely uncredited originator of the updated "end of history" thesis pilfered by fukuyama, and soviet spy

September 11, 2011 at 8:47 PM  
Blogger Mitchell said...

Strauss-Kojève correspondence. Kojève's career.

September 11, 2011 at 11:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trying to do my bit for anti-democracy here: move

September 12, 2011 at 1:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

September 12, 2011 at 4:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A film buff points out that the fundamental problem of today-as opposed to say 1861-is the very disordered collective mind of the West:

You know what's funny? The West is haunted by NAZISTERIA, or seeing Nazis everywhere even when they don't exist. In the Middle Ages, people saw the devil everywhere. It's as though people NEEDED to see the devil and fixate on him as the source of all evil.

Nazis really did exist at one time, but they've been gone for some time. But now, they've been Satanized and turned into a spiritual presence for white liberals. Their god is the Magic Negro--also nonexistent--, their faith is Holocaustianity, and their devil is the EVIL WHITE MAN or NAZI GHOST.

Take three European movies CRIMSON RIVER, TELL NO ONE, and GIRL WITH A DRAGON TATTOO. Though Europe is being overrun by Muslim and African thugs, those movies say the great evil haunting Europe is the Evil White Man or crypto-Nazis.

CRIMSON RIVER, directed by the Jewish guy who made LA HAINE, says there is a mountaintop college of Aryan Nazis. You'd think given French demographic trends, that would be the least of their worries. But nope, it's the Nazis!!!

And in TELL NO ONE, the great evil is some ARISTOCRATIC REACTIONARY WHITE FAMILY, not Muslim and African criminal elements. Indeed, at one point, our white hero is saved by non-white thugs(who turn out to be swell guys, really)!!!

And GIRL WITH A DRAGON TATTOO, which I could stomach for 30 minutes, is another nut movie.

In the Middle Ages, people didn't know what to do about disease, hunger, pestilence, etc. So, they needed to scapegoat all the evils on the devil, witches, heretics, and even Jews. (Even in the 19th century, some people invented the mythic evil Jew through stuff like PROTOCOLS OF ELDERS OF ZION.)

Now, it's the Nazis. Even though London recently burned thanks to black immigrant youths, the real evil is the Nazi ghost haunting Europe. Just as people in the Middle Ages hoped and prayed that things would improve if they burned witches, today's white folks hope and pray that problems with non-whites will be solved if we just root out the Nazi ghosts and their agents and burn them at the stake.

The sick soul of Europe is most evident in CACHE by Haneke. It's as if every white guy is guilty, even for what happened when he was a kid. And PIANO TEACHER says classical music is all about European mania for control and order; it too is a form of Nazism. And WHITE RIBBON says European Christian communities were breeding grounds for Nazis; Nazi spirit must still be around since European culture is still around.

He made a movie called SEVENTH CONTINENT where a white family kills itself. His message seems to be white people should commit suicide cuz the evil is really within them. For a secularist, he sure believes in his own brand of the Original Sin or Occidental Sin.

September 12, 2011 at 5:54 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

There was definfitely some kind of split in the early 20th century with the anti-semite old radical left, epitomized by Charles R. Crane, eventually losing to the Jew-Wasp (epitomized by Walter Lippman, maybe?) alliance we know today. I wish I knew more about it.

I also wish I knew more about the relationship between these factions, the Nazis and Stalin. It seems like there is something there.

Also the relationship between these factions, Rockefeller and Morgan. Frenemies? Carrol Quigley said:

"None Dare Call It Conspiracy insists that international bankers were a single bloc, were all powerful and remain so today. I, on the contrary, stated in my book that they were much divided, often fought among themselves, had great influence but not control of political life and were sharply reduced in power about 1931-1940, when they became less influential than monopolized industry.["

The Rockefeller faction? Crane referred to "Jake Schiff and his jew crowd". As Truth magazine, December 16, 1912, pointed out, "Mr. Schiff is head of the great private banking house of Kuhn, Loeb &Company, which represents the Rothschild interests on this side of the Atlantic. He is described as a financial strategist and has been for years the financial minister of the great impersonal power known as Standard Oil."

All of these people are so interconnected that its hard to place anyone.

September 12, 2011 at 7:56 AM  
Blogger death maiden said...

anon, you're sure, now -- absolutely sure -- that you're not diseased?

September 12, 2011 at 10:17 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Josh - Ron Chernow's books "The House of Morgan" and "The Warburgs" will answer some of your questions.

There was a competitive rivalry between Morgan and Kuhn, Loeb & Co., which began to be seen in ethnic terms with the onset of WWI in Europe, before the U.S. joined it. Morgan was supportive of British interests, while Kuhn, Loeb was seen as sympathetic to the Germans. Contrary to popular perceptions influenced by its later history under the Nazis, Wilhelmine Germany was not particularly anti-Semitic; indeed, the advent of the Second Reich encouraged the assimilation of Jews and gave them greater opportunities than they had previously enjoyed.

As for the relations between Nazis and Bolsheviks, while it is true that Nazis portrayed themselves as resolute enemies of communism, the fact is that, before the rise of the Nazis, Soviet Russia (which was not a signatory to the Treaty of Versailles) had surreptitiously helped Germany to re-arm itself, in violation of that treaty, See Cecil Melville's book "The Russian Face of Germany - An Account of the Secret Military Relations between the German and Soviet-Russian Governments" (1932). And, of course, the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact of 1939 lasted almost two years. These are episodes that have been given rather sparse coverage, due to the strong influence of Communism on the writing of the history of the era in the years following WWII.

September 12, 2011 at 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon, you're sure, now -- absolutely sure -- that you're not diseased?

I know that people like you-who think that the 100 million murdered by the radical egalitarians in the 20th Century are a trifling matter-are pieces of shit.

September 12, 2011 at 12:55 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

As long as we're all here, can we just take a second to agree that this is a really good poem?

September 12, 2011 at 1:24 PM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

Is it? Awesome.
Nice job, MM. (I can't tell good poetry from a stump.)

September 12, 2011 at 1:27 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> anon, you're sure, now -- absolutely sure -- that you're not diseased?

I guess you must have some plan for reviving the West without dealing with 'satanized NS'. That's comforting news.

September 12, 2011 at 3:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stop replying to death maiden. death maiden is the troll mittelwerk, who has been trolling this blog for a few weeks now, and everytime he's called out for being a troll he scurries away like the beta he is under a new name (same style of writing and jewish themes though).

September 12, 2011 at 4:16 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

to me, the nazis were just germans in funny hats. but as a movement of sentimental, genocidal, homosexual jew-envious civil servants, they certainly qualify as satanic. and let's not even talk about fighting a war, much less losing it, to scratch such a delicious secret itch

but if it's about killing people, i don't really think it'd be very hard at all, with the right analytic, to find 100,000,000 on the planet worthy of it. but, in honor of darwin at least, you'd want to spread it around a bit

September 12, 2011 at 4:25 PM  
Anonymous Bonald said...

Jews are parasites. They can't live by themselves. That's why Jews like death maiden freak out and shriek on about genocide and extermination at anything with even just a whiff of separation. It sounds absurd and hysterical and like an overreaction, but there is some truth behind it. There is an instinctive recognition that mere separation can be mortally devastating.

September 12, 2011 at 6:04 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 12, 2011 at 7:04 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

"bonald" (yeah. right)

you're the one who lives up your mother's ass, with your secret little internet fetish, never to see the light of day.

i mean, look at yourself: pure castration complex. have you ever once in your life confronted a jew and said what you just said to me?

and why not genocide, nazi-manque faggot? i would love to exterminate you. separation, indeed

September 12, 2011 at 7:09 PM  
Anonymous Bonald said...

I've said it IRL both to Jewish friends and acquaintances. The former react to it like fat friends do when you point out that they're fat - with sheepish acknowledgment. The latter are more intractable. I just tell them it's what "scientists say".

My point is that we need to empathize. It's not just hysteria and exaggerated histrionics when they react that way to any intimation of separation. To think that would be to deny human biodiversity and wrongly assume that all population groups are the same and just like us. Separation wouldn't be genocide or extermination for us. It can be mortally devastating for them.

September 12, 2011 at 8:44 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

NS is not something to be proud of, but how about your own crimes in E. Europe and your endangerment of Germany? It's strange how little air time that gets. So that's why people get irritated ; think of it what you will.

September 13, 2011 at 12:17 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

UR seems to be governed by some mutant form of Godwin's Law, which I guess makes sense, since being called a Nazi here is far less offensive than in most places. It's a shame, though.

Josh, as our host has said, a reactionary has to be right ALL the time. That is his only hope. Did you look at any of the other stuff on that link you put up? I've got nothing against conspiracy enthusiasts, but to mention another tenet of this blog (which seems to be ignored at times), extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I do love the poem, though. The toddler in a steel mill... Is that a Moldbug original? It sounds familiar to me, but that image is PERFECT.

TUJ, if we were living in the late 1850's, your objection to focusing on the abolitionists would make more sense. But now, the rapacious industrial North having won and destroyed the South for base reasons, they create a guard against any insurrection in the minds of all citizens by insinuating that all objection to domination by the USG is a coded call for the reinstitution of race based slavery or genocide. So while you are quite right that the abolitionists were fig leaves for the Union, the situation has changed. We are all abolitionists now, even Alrenous and Michael. But it is the nature of the Puritan that is our enemy, for it will not be enough until the lion lays down with the lamb and the gap is eliminated. Also, it's amusing when a self-styled reactionary chides his confreres for not being orthodox, or something. Please do that more often.

September 13, 2011 at 6:17 AM  
Anonymous Rollory said...

"As long as we're all here, can we just take a second to agree that this is a really good poem?"

No. It doesn't rhyme and it doesn't scan (or at least I can't find any way to make it do so).

The content is good, the form is bad. Not poetic at all.

September 13, 2011 at 7:14 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

Euthyphro's dilemma as applied to poetry.

Is the poem good because someone likes it, or does someone like it because it is good?

September 13, 2011 at 7:21 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

I make no claims about the poems "goodness". I guess as formalists we can assign value to a poem based on rules like rhyme and meter, but I am a philistine in most regards and must apprehend beauty and truth in art at a more primitive level of understanding, if at all. It spoke to me, that's all I care for most of the time.

September 13, 2011 at 7:32 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

You strongly imply your answer, which is A) good because you find it so.

September 13, 2011 at 7:34 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

You strongly imply that this is a simple empirical question with a right or wrong answer, which is probably why you don't have any use for poetry.

September 13, 2011 at 7:39 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

I didn't say I had no use for it, I said I can't tell the difference. This is because it requires skill, which I lack.

You imply you don't know what goodness is, which is odd for someone who claims to like poetry, and indeed inconsistent.

"apprehend beauty and truth in art"

Do you honestly think a beautiful, true poem isn't good? Does it matter how 'primitive' the truth and beauty are?

You appreciate poetry because it is useful to you; it 'speaks' and you find that valuable. So let me rephrase the question:

Does poetry speak to you because it is true and/or beautiful, or is it beautiful because it speaks to you?
Since you only care that it spoke to you, you don't care if it can or should speak to others. Ergo, A).

Philosophy is the art of not playing silly buggers with yourself; master that and yes, every question is simple and has a yes or no answer. Or rather, if it doesn't, you're asking the question wrong (silly buggers) and will only confuse yourself.

September 13, 2011 at 7:50 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

For someone whose ultimate evil is coercion, you seem awfully concerned with what others "should" think.

Your rephrasing is much more precise than your original, and the answer is therefore obvious. You asked the original bad question, not I.

When I said I make no claims about the poems goodness I wasn't saying I don't know what goodness is, only that I, like you, lack the technical knowledge to evaluate the thing as Rollory did. I said further that I think it has value, regardless of its technical merit, because it spoke to me.

September 13, 2011 at 8:07 AM  
Anonymous Rollory said...

"My Last Duchess" is an example of something that superficially looks like this but that does scan and work as a poem. I remember reading that aloud in high school english, I blew the minds of everyone else in the room, because they hadn't realized that 1) one didn't have to put in artificial pauses at the line breaks, but could just read the sentences as if they were ordinary written english, 2) when read in that manner, the rhythm of the syllables and the naturalness of the line-end rhymes is suddenly much much clearer, and makes it seem much more poetic. Sort of an audible version of those 3-D pictures you have to stare at crosseyed or whatever and then it suddenly jumps out at you (no, I have never managed to see those correctly).

I can't find anything similar in Moldbug's piece. Unfortunately. As I said, I like the content. But I resist renaming "prose that has been formatted to look like poetry" as "poetry".

September 13, 2011 at 8:08 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

Good points, Alrenous.
Can we all I agree that *I* like the poem?


I have read enough to feel confident about the gist of everything I said earlier. A single network of people (whether controlled by a central cabal or not) came to control all of those institutions. The boundries of this network became the boundries of acceptable thought. This is just the Cathedral theory spelled out. Many of the founders of these groups were involved in the various protestant movements of the late 1800s which were themselves overlapping and interlocking. All of this is verifiable by simple googling. The influence of the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundation is also easily verifiable by searching google books, google news archive, and open library. Not all from anti-Rock writers either. Their activities weren't a secret. But as, I said earlier, I would like to know more about the internal politics of the movement. There are so many players (the Fabians, Rothschilds, Cecil Rhodes and the Roundtable movement, the banks, the CFR, all of the people and groups I have already mentioned, etc. etc.)

September 13, 2011 at 8:21 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

Moldbug somewhat explains his prosidy (as of 2007) here:

"Thanks! Actually the verse is not meant to scan at all, at least not in anything like metric feet.

Anyway, my view, which admittedly puts me in a minority but is certainly not my invention, is that the natural line in English, at least modern conversational English "as she is spoke," is a four-stressed line with arbitrary count and placement of unstressed syllables.

One way to hear this natural line is to read verse, rather than in the sonorous diction of Garrick and Kean, at a normal conversational speed with normal conversational enunciation. Or even exaggerate the speed, like a car salesman, to counteract the usual recital voice.

If you try this exercise with the above, I think you will hear the four-stress line. At least I hear it. It is certainly true that if you recite this poem in the usual manner in which one hears poetry recited, it sounds like terrible pentameter.

The idea that actors should speak in conversational English dates, of course, to the 20th century. For some reason it has gained much less acceptance in poetry, which is always essentially a monologue.

Even when you read silently, your brain is sounding out the words - if you take a functional MRI of a subject reading silently, the area of motor cortex that controls the voicebox is active.

And there is certainly nothing wrong with reading - silently or otherwise - in a Garrick and Kean metered voice. Or, for that matter, in a hushed, pompous NPR free-verse voice. Many very fine 20th-century poets wrote in each of these voices.

However, I am very confident that if you read it in either of these voices, my verse sounds like absolute crap, because it is not written to be sounded in this way. Read it as if you were making a telemarketing call, and it should sound fine (and if it doesn't, I hope someone will tell me)."

September 13, 2011 at 8:26 AM  
Anonymous Rollory said...

Ok, now you have pointed that out, I hear it. Thank you.

It's the variable unstressed syllables that threw me off.

September 13, 2011 at 8:32 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

"Good points, Alrenous.
Can we all I agree that *I* like the poem?"

I congratulated MM on making a poem that at least some people like. I personally answer in the, "Either way works for me," so good work regardless.
Oh shit! Yeah, scanning it at speed I totally hear the voice he's going for. I hesitantly guess that English speakers naturally, dynamically compress unstressed syllables, which gives it meter. Something functionally identical, anyway.


"For someone whose ultimate evil is coercion, you seem awfully concerned with what others "should" think."

1) Either you believe in reason or you don't. If you don't, no harm no foul. If you do, either I've made an error or you should believe me.

2) True. I once worked out that changing someone's belief without consent is vandalism. However, attempting to change my belief constitutes consent, especially as you can walk away at any time.

3) False. I mention only facts as I see them; that you have implied X. If you don't wish to imply X, deny X and re-state so you don't imply X.

2+3) I think you should be aware of what you're implying. I think I should poke you with making it explicit to see what happens.

"Your rephrasing is much more precise than your original, and the answer is therefore obvious."

I honestly can't see any meaningful difference.* So no, the answer isn't obvious. I really don't know if you meant to imply A) or not, or indeed what you now mean to imply.

"When I said I make no claims about the poems goodness I wasn't saying I don't know what goodness is, only that I, like you, lack the technical knowledge"

Then you need to drop the scare quotes. Conventionally, that means you don't believe in it. If that's not what you mean, you need to say something else.

You seem to be trying to evade. If it really isn't true that you're implying X, you could state as much and explain my error.

Or, you know, just ignore me.

Until then, is poetry good because you like it, or do you like it because it is good?
Is poetry valuable only if and when someone likes it, or does it have intrinsic properties that should cause people to like it, whether they do in fact like it, or not?

So I guess you'd say both? Maybe?

*Poetry being 'good' automatically implies, to me, either skillful poetry or appreciated poetry - the two previous sentences look exactly equivalent to me. This may represent a lack of skill on my part in recognizing easily understood sentences. Though, I'd prefer not to make a habit of writing tortured jargon sentences, regardless.

September 13, 2011 at 8:34 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

I wasn't criticizing the conclusion, only the source (which has some good entertainment value). Although, the claim I was looking for verification of doesn't look as extraordinary now as it did when I first read it. At the beginning of the 20th, people thought much differently about higher education. Hell, la Wik shows something like 5% of young adults with a bachelors in 1950, so when we talk about higher ed even earlier, we are talking about the real (and thus small) elite, not anyone with an IQ over 90 like today. This actually makes your point stronger, I guess, because that means that at minimum a third of these elite were indebted to these foundations, and when one's survival instincts and the human sense of loyalty are pointing in the same direction, the truth doesn't stand a chance when it doesn't.

September 13, 2011 at 8:49 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

He's trying to make the prose as poetic as possible.

I think he's dead on that any American English equivalent of "blank verse" (which is what he's going for viz his usage) has to be four beats per line.

Where I think he's off is that 1) it doesn't matter where the unstressed syllables are and 2) his count:


If we're supposed to either elide (which English doesn't do superbly well) or tone down one of the syllables in "last swerve" what are we to do with "soundwalls" that comes right after it?

I don't have much of a problem with truncating a line (were it iambic, the second quoted line would need another syllable before soundwalls), but I think his variation swings too deep into prose.

It could be fixed with some sound edits ("road" for "101," etc.) but MM's generally not interested in editing them once they've been "released into the wild."

September 13, 2011 at 9:19 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

I'm sorry. I'm really sorry about this, but it is just too tempting...

Is meter good because you like it, or do you like meter because it is good?

September 13, 2011 at 9:22 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...


But one is personal and one is universal.

You can think meter is good and it is (for you).

Or meter can be good and makes you like it.

Sort of like the difference between Dubstep and Mozart.

September 13, 2011 at 9:54 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

A data point that I thought was interesting, from a talk with a coworker today:

Working as a runner for a bank in NY as his first job in 1968, for $65 a week, the workforce was a very motley crew, very diverse. Also, the boss (of his department) filled key spots with women (the assumption that these were essentially concubines is denied up front, as the guy had progressive ideas). Anyway, the diverse workforce showed great solidarity. He ended up quitting in disgust at the attitudes of those damn conservatives following the Kent State shootings (or possibly getting fired for being too loudly saying what he thought of them, after which his old boss prevented his unemployment benefits).

Regarding the evaporation of that solidarity in a diverse work force, our story teller "doesn't know what happened". He's thinks of himself as a pinko to the core but experiences cognitive dissonance on a daily basis, and there's one thing he's sure of: conservatives are Nazis.

September 13, 2011 at 1:23 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

An aphorism of Chesterton's is appropriate to several points discussed here:

"The problem of Free Verse, like the problem of the African Race in the American Republic, seems to be rather more problematical after it has been freed than it was before it was freed."

September 13, 2011 at 2:49 PM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

I suppose I should also say that the he visited America in 1921. From his write up of the trip:

"Most Englishmen know a good deal of American fiction, and nothing whatever of American history. They know more about the autocrat of the breakfast-table than about the autocrat of the army and the people, the one great democratic despot of modern times; the Napoleon of the New World. The only notion the English public ever got about American politics they got from a novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin; and to say the least of it, it was no exception to the prevalence of fiction over fact."

September 14, 2011 at 6:44 AM  
Blogger death maiden said...

maybe, but nazis weren't conservatives

September 14, 2011 at 6:45 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

Gabe, I got the email note but your comment is apparently not appearing here.

Can we get a concrete definition of slavery here? Specifically, I'd like to distinguish between involuntary slavery and contracting out your labour in perpetuity.

Either I'd like to confine, for discussion, the term 'slavery' for involuntary servitude, or else we need to start using the voluntary/involuntary modifiers. (Need, unless you enjoy being vague and ambiguous.) If the former, we need a term of art for voluntary slavery.

Being a pussy about the ring of Fnargl is a good and noble thing. More importantly, if we can figure out why people are being 'pussies,' we can figure out if it is stable, and if so, exploit it to de-curse the ring.

However, at present we have a system predicated on using the ring, and nobody is. This is the worst of both worlds.

September 14, 2011 at 6:45 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

Not sure what happened there. When I put up the second post it erased the first. Luckily hitting the back button resurrected it.

So Nazism is a bigger tent than conservatism, a rectangle != squares sort of thing? I think you should read Mr. Nock on labels.

September 14, 2011 at 6:51 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

One more try:

Michael, for a little while there I thought you had just destroyed my last hero. However, that quote displays such extreme glibness that I reserve judgment until I see it in context (I have three serfs of mine tracking it down; it's apparently on Google Books, but buried beyond free preview limits). Whatever he meant by it, I am confident that he does not sympathize with the viewpoint of the slave holder, pragmatically ethical or not.

"Carlyle's defense of slavery is a thoroughly ridiculous thing, weak alike in argument and in moral instinct. The truth is, that he only took it up from the passion for applying everywhere his paradoxical defense of aristocracy. He blundered, of course, because he did not see that slavery has nothing in the world to do with aristocracy, that it is, indeed, almost its opposite. The defense which Carlyle and all its thoughtful defenders have made for aristocracy was that a few persons could more rapidly and firmly decide public affairs in the interests of the people. But slavery is not even supposed to be a government for the good of the governed. It is a possession of the governed avowedly for the good of the governors. Aristocracy uses the strong for the service of the weak; slavery uses the weak for the service of the strong."

This was written in 1902. I think your quote was nearer the end of his life, early 1930's.

That is from 1935, and sadly he sounds like Tom Hayden. But the disgust his kind words for democracy will generate here should be tempered by his acknowledgment of what we all see to be true now, that democracy is a fiction in the modern world. His belief that it could have worked before modernity is mostly irrelevant, and his point about other options not really being an improvement carries weight for me. Whenever someone calls for a return to monarchy (or other forms government bearing no claim for legitimacy besides historical accident, might, and the continuity of private property), on the grounds that monarchies minded their own business for the most part and didn't abuse their citizens as badly as modern alternatives have, I can't help but think that they are discounting two things: the old kings, to one degree or another, feared God, and any modern government will have the means to dominate its citizens to a degree undreamed of by the old monarchs, no matter its form.
Chesterton's position seems to be that given the capacity for domination that the modern sovereign has, democracy in all it's horror is STILL preferable. I don't know if he's right, but I know this: we live with Fnargl now, we're just such pussies that he hasn't even had to bust out the finger snap, yet.

September 14, 2011 at 6:53 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

Specifically, both kinds of slavery are responsible-dependent pairs.

However, I'm only abolitionist on one of them.

September 14, 2011 at 7:01 AM  
Blogger death maiden said...

alrenous -

slavery, legally, is simple: you or your labor are property of another. modern constitutional legal orders based on individual civil rights cannot legally replicate this, as there can be no extralegal basis for making one work for another. debasement is one thing -- but if a debased worker leaves a job, you can't force her to come back, you can only sue for damages. the state, as they say, reserves the monopoly on coercion

September 14, 2011 at 7:08 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

Alright you pendant, here is how I differentiate those two things:

Slavery = involuntary servitude
Employment = servitude under conditions agreed upon by both parties

This strikes me as pretty straightforward, but then maybe your acknowledged difficulty in recognizing easily understood sentences, whatever that means, is getting in the way.

When you said before that you had solved the problem of slavery, you were wrong. You solved the problem of welfare dependency and unemployment among the unskilled. The problem of slavery was the belief that a man is a piece of property. Even if you allow that a man can sell all his time, even if you allow that a man can sell his life (sort of a Most Dangerous Game thing), you must acknowledge that slavery fails to rise to that standard.

September 14, 2011 at 7:12 AM  
Blogger death maiden said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 14, 2011 at 7:14 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

See, that's the exact same blindness to implications as before. It's not the specific implication that bother me, but the general principle.

"Slavery = involuntary servitude [...] the belief that a man is a piece of property"

Your definition of slavery is the idea that man is a piece of property. As long as nobody is treating a human being a property, you're okay.

I mainly agree.

But first, most would find that a truly full-time employment contract looks like slavery. Imagine the regs were relaxed and someone did it. How long before that store is colloquially called the slave shop?

More immediately relevant, I think a contract should allow the full-employer to sell the full-employee to another full-employer, exactly how corporations transfer agreements between outgoing and incoming CEOs. (Assuming we can assure the new one won't be unforeseeably-by-the-employee harmfully different.)

Do you consider that slavery?

Going back to my first point, since it will end up being called slavery anyway, I figure I may as well call it slavery now. I'm fine with using your terms for discussion, though.

September 14, 2011 at 7:22 AM  
Blogger death maiden said...

gabe -- the nazis were strongly anti-capitalist, but of course strongly pro- private property. this is fascism.

it was a society-wide movement; "revolt of the middle classes" is bs. and, of course, like all fascism, it had its origin in and got its steam from radical workers' movements -- private-property and functionalist variants of socialism.

the big tent was a slaughterhouse; certainly you must be familiar with ...

September 14, 2011 at 7:22 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

I can't win with you. I define my usage in unambiguous terms, and you slide in something else I said and say that is my definition. I try to be polite because I have an irrational and indefensible belief that it is good to do so, but I will not respond to any more mischaracterizations or questions that can be answered perfectly well based on previous statements. It seems to me that if you're concerned about colloquial usage, your search for precision is pointless. Why don't you try fixing the schools first?

Not sure what you're getting at. My question was how you got to the conclusion you implied, that conservatives really are Nazis. The assertion that Nazis weren't conservatives can come next, I guess. If you believe in private property (even if you limit that to the right kind of people), you are conservative in at least some sense. And as our host so deftly demonstrates, the volk (more or less all of it, as you say, though I'm not sure why you feel it is necessary) saw the Fuhrer as the savior because he was preserving something they wanted preserved (or at least that's what he sold, and they bought).

I don't really get the anti-capitalist charge. Anti-international capitalism, no question. But if you're for private property, but against capitalism, what do you do with it? Subsistence farming? Nature preserves? Call it capitalism in one country.

September 14, 2011 at 7:59 AM  
Blogger death maiden said...

you can basically pick up any decent history of the nazis, open a page almost at random, and learn all about the anti-capitalism of the nazis

September 14, 2011 at 8:03 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

@Gabe Ruth - If you are referring to my quotation of Chesterton on free verse, I do not interpret it as an endorsement of negro slavery. It is rather an acknowledgment that free verses, rather like free negroes, are problematical. In either case, although there is a 'talented tenth' that has really benefitted by being free, the benefits of freedom to the other nine-tenths have been dubious at best.

From the slave barracks to the welfare projects - what progress. Similarly, an antiquarian book dealer friend of mine used to describe a certain class of thin volumes as "welfare poetry" - i.e., published only with the aid of a
government grant!

September 14, 2011 at 8:05 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

"and you slide in something else I said and say that is my definition."

Because your second definition implies the first.

"I try to be polite because I have an irrational and indefensible belief that it is good to do so"

I do regret being impolite. Unfortunately I'm an asshole; I don't know how not to be. My options are be silent or be an asshole.

As you can just ignore me, silence is unambiguously worse. That and you're a big boy, you can take it. And if you call me on specific instances I'll apologize; just realize I can't recognize them if you don't call me on it, and even so I probably won't be able to come up with alternatives.

My colloquial usage point is an aside, hence, 'I'm happy to use your terms.' Just something to think about.

Thinking humans are property results in involuntary slavery. Hence, humans==property directly implies your definition. I cannot understand how this isn't obvious, especially as I've pointed it out.
Again, this may be because I have a hard time with what's easy to understand and what isn't.

Similarly, human!=property results in repudiating involuntary slavery. If this isn't as obvious to me as it seems, I am happy to explain.

September 14, 2011 at 8:05 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

I agree with your assessment of the quote, based on the integrity of his worldview.

I can't get over this either/or choice between slavery and welfare dependency that you present. It smells like a lefty tactic, which is why it surprises me in you. Like people who think that not supporting welfare equals non-coercive eugenics (which to my eyes looks like a contradiction in terms), which is evil, because the Nazis had something to do with eugenics, QED. Natural selection is fine because of St. Darwin, but money is a social construct so it's not natural, see?

Look, I have no problem blasting Lincoln or FDR: one ended what you see as the preferable method of dealing with "problematic" people while the other set in motion the institutionalization of the replacement method. But pining for the antibellum South is still pretty unseemly. I love UR, but this ambiguous attitude is why I can't share it with many people.

Can we state that race based slavery is an evil, so was the Civil War, and welfare helps no one? Do I really need to show my work here?

Also, with regards to the results of freedom to the "other nine tenths", a ratio which I find amusing: if you actually believe that welfare is in many ways similar to slavery, I would ask you to admit that it is at least possible that there may be some negative consequences from that institution that could possibly hamper the productivity of its dependents, and either by means of dysgenics or learned helplessness. I will not dispute genetic factors by any means. I just say that what we have here is nowhere close to a natural experiment.

Give me a title of a decent history. But I will make a prediction: Nazi anti-capitalism in action will be curiously indistinguishable from another anti-X-ism that I can't seem to put my finger on at the moment.

September 14, 2011 at 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

I do not think there is an either/or choice between slavery and welfare. The choice is, rather, whether the untalented nine-tenths of the American black population shall be honestly employed in menial labor that suits their capacities (a circumstance that does not require them to be slaves), or shall be idle on the dole, and not infrequently criminal.

If you overlay a bell-curve showing the IQ distribution of the white population, having its median at 100, with a bell-curve showing the IQ distribution of the black population, with its median at 85, you will need no other explanation for the persistence of a disproportionately black lower class. There are, furthermore, profound disincentives under the welfare state to the employment of workers of low skill and low intelligence.

When all the government-imposed overhead is added to the government-mandated minimum wage, the cost of employing such people exceeds their productive value. In addition, the prospect of losing welfare benefits upon accepting even the humblest gainful employment constitutes an effective tax on income from such employment that even a person with an IQ of 85 understands as a negative incentive. It is far more rewarding for such a person to collect the dole and to supplement it with the proceeds of crime. The left's answer to this highly unsatisfactory state of affairs has been to describe anyone who criticises the legal and economic institutions that brought it about as enemies of all that is humane and decent.

It's precisely because I don't accept that welfare is the only alternative to slavery that I point out their similarities. They illustrate the inherent contradictions of the welfare state - the offspring of an elite intelligentsia's embrace of egalitarian ideology. It was born defective, and can't be remedied.

September 14, 2011 at 2:16 PM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

What would you conclude if it turned out that even if government overhead and minimum wage were removed, some such people could not be profitably employed?

September 14, 2011 at 2:20 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

That we had better not let those peoples' population fraction increase very much.

September 14, 2011 at 6:04 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

@Alrenous - Some such people could not be profitably employed in the past, after the end of slavery and before the New Deal/Great Society. For them there were provided the lunatic asylum, the facility for the severely mentally defective, the prison, and the poor-farm. Such institutions will always be needed for a few; but certainly for far fewer than the present welfare state provides.

Another institution, which has suffered badly as one of the welfare state's consequences - whether really unintended, who can say - is the family. The state has effectively replaced the father/breadwinner amongst many of the lower classes, particularly blacks, whose rate of illegitimate births now exceeds 70%.

The breakdown of marriage and family that has been propagated by the welfare state has done severe damage to an institution of civil society that, in the past, did much to support those who could not support themselves. The baleful effects have reached far beyond the black underclass. For example, how many aged and feeble people now languish in nursing homes, subsisting on Medicare or Medicaid, who in the past would have been cared for by their children?

September 14, 2011 at 6:38 PM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

He writes for NR, but Michael Knox Beran is good writing about the old social safety nets. Michael, sorry I put words in your mouth. Can you tell me where the toddler in a steel mill image comes from? I feel like I've read it before.

September 14, 2011 at 7:05 PM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

A little while back I read most of an exchange between our host and one Greg Cochran regarding the level of stupidity required to invade Iraq. Mr. Moldbug mostly took the line that hindsight is 20/20, and assumptions about the logical capacity of dictators in the Middle East were not something the leaders of the Great Satan were inclined to make at that moment in history. Cochran relentlessly insisted that it was obvious to him, based on imports, GDP, etc., that Iraq was incapable of producing anything worth worrying about, and so the more subjective assessment of whether they would use WMD was moot. Moldbug seemed to retreat to the position that it was not insane to take down Saddam, at worst it was just an overabundance of precaution, and if we had handled the thing properly we could have improved the situation regardless of the validity of our motivating assumptions.

So I read this today:

I have learned to always consider the source, so I don't put a whole lot of stock in this, but I do wonder: is this just a guy shamelessly filling in all unknown or unprovable data with worst case scenario stuff to reassure people who read NR that they've been right all along? The guy apparently teaches at the Marine War College, and from a casual perusal is as predictably hawkish as they come (favored Libyan adventure, etc.). Can any of this stuff be checked by out?

September 15, 2011 at 9:17 AM  
Anonymous negro bolshevik sufragette gangsta rapper irl said...

1) Not only are those whom I despise animals, I have heard that they are matter as well! Disgusting as the thought may be, we must be brave contrarians and embrace it.

2) The Nazis had almost no principled opinions on economics whatsoever (probably an advantage, all told.) They disliked "finance capital," but not for reasons more complex than "banking = Jews = bad;" they liked invading beknighted untermenschen and taking everything that wasn't nailed down, but what self-respecting developed country didn't? The Nazis are only anti-capitalist if you subscribe to otherworldly libertarianism as the One True Capitalism.

3) Petty crime probably isn't that much less socially productive than most service industry jobs nowadays. Plus crime is more conducive to the development of critical thinking, &c. Pity that it's been on the decline for so long.

September 15, 2011 at 10:41 AM  
Anonymous Frogger said...

Capitalism tends to be anti-nationalist, anti-racialist. It isn't surprising that the Nazis were wary of it.

As Noam Chomsky explains

"See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist – it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super-exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist – just because it is anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic – there is no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all that junk that is produced – that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance."

September 15, 2011 at 1:48 PM  
Anonymous negro bolshevik sufragette gangsta rap said...

That doesn't make sense historically, as discourses of race and nationhood only really got going with capitalism. Of course any particular identity is likely to get disrupted by capitalism at some point or another, but capitalism is not really on the way to abolishing the nation-state or ethnic idenity.

Of course specific regimes within capitalism will lead to changes in consciousness, including in a (subjectively) anti-racist direction. Back when settler colonialism was of crucial importance explicit biological racism was the province of actual elites; now, it's relegated to losers who post on blogs like this.

Capitalism very specifically doesn't want everyone to be interchangeable producers and consumers - first of all, because it's not a person and doesn't want anything, strictly speaking; but also because objectively the cogs in a capitalist machine are not at all, objectively, interchangeable - there is a division of labor fostering interdependent skill sets, specialization and wealth differentiation among regions, your standard classes - nor does capitalism "want" people to be subjectively interchangeable - the tendency is to foster the liberal conception of us all as unique snowflakes. This isn't at all incompatible with racial identity being fostered, as conceptions of liberal citizenship have been pointedly based on racial exclusion from the very beginning - Domenico Losurdo has a good book on this.

September 15, 2011 at 7:15 PM  
Anonymous Rollory said...

Cochran uses publicly released and available information - information about and released by Arab Muslim countries, which are known to lie about anything they feel like lying about - and claims to derive from that information further data about top-secret governmental projects; specifically, accurate and extensive enough data to state with certainty that such projects don't exist. When it is the very nature of such projects that the governments engaging in them generally wish for everyone else to believe that they don't exist.

Is it really necessary to explain any further why Cochran, however insightful he is as regards physics and human evolutionary biology - fields where it never occurs to Nature to try to lie - has not drawn trustworthy conclusions as regards foreign policy?

September 16, 2011 at 9:33 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

Good points, Michael.

I still think someone hoping to replace the welfare state should have a plan for large numbers of unemployable people, but I can see there's very good reasons to think it's overwhelmingly unlikely.

Someone brought up how horses became obsolete. However, non-wild horses can't take care of themselves and humans can.

Though having written the above explicitly, I realized I don't really know why everyone else is discussing a hypothetical replacement government. I do it to have an ideal to compare reality to; to gain perspective. How about you?

Also I'm intrinsically curious about how government functions.

September 16, 2011 at 9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it really necessary to explain any further why Cochran, however insightful he is as regards physics and human evolutionary biology - fields where it never occurs to Nature to try to lie - has not drawn trustworthy conclusions as regards foreign policy?

Nature "lies" all the time and is quite deceptive. And the media through which we interact with nature - our senses, established thought, etc. "lie" and are deceptive.

September 16, 2011 at 11:01 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

Your brain is deceptive.

As I mentioned, the art of philosophy is learning not to play silly buggers with yourself. After that, seeing reality is easy.

So, your brain is deceptive by training. Undo the training, win science.

September 16, 2011 at 11:10 AM  
Anonymous Eugenick said...

"I still think someone hoping to replace the welfare state should have a plan for large numbers of unemployable people, but I can see there's very good reasons to think it's overwhelmingly unlikely."

There is a simple way to make the welfare state viable long-term: sterilize anyone who wants welfare and THEN help that person survive. Such a system will be stable in the long term, because it will ensure that the genes that are a risk factor for having to use welfare will be weeded out of existence. As and added bonus, it will have a nice effect on the population's average IQ and conscientiousness.

The current version of socialism ensures that there will be more and more people who need welfare (due to higher birth rates for low IQ people) , and less and less people to tax. In the end, the whole system will collapse like a huge house of cards, and the helpless low-IQ population, unable to sustain itself and having already multiplied their numbers like rabbits, without foresight, will starve on a scale not seen since the Holodomor. HBD-denying socialism is simply the postponing of a small genocide among the low-IQ NOW in favor of a much larger one later, after they had multiplied their numbers by a large factor. All because of one mistaken assumption: Human Neurological Uniformity. Isn't it tragic, how ignoring even a tiny bit of knowledge/science can doom millions to death by starvation?

Standard no-welfare libertarianism is also unworkable given HBD, because all of the people who are not cognitively capable of finding jobs in the highly-automated service economy will in this case be given incentives to steal. Socialism is also theft, but at least it's done in an orderly, elegant manner that presents no risks for the physical integrity of the victim. The costs of the "chaotic socialism" inherent to libertarianism will be much higher, unless the libertarian is willing to take a gun and use it (highly doubtful)

September 16, 2011 at 6:51 PM  
Anonymous Awful said...

Standard no-welfare libertarianism is also unworkable given HBD, because all of the people who are not cognitively capable of finding jobs in the highly-automated service economy will in this case be given incentives to steal. Socialism is also theft, but at least it's done in an orderly, elegant manner that presents no risks for the physical integrity of the victim. The costs of the "chaotic socialism" inherent to libertarianism will be much higher, unless the libertarian is willing to take a gun and use it (highly doubtful)

You're accepting the liberal bromide that crime is caused by poverty/unemployment. The reasoning here is that Tyrone sells crack and knocks over convenience stores because he is poor and jobless. If only honest employment in a factory was available, Tyrone would be an honest chap. Sadly, our society has failed him.

History tells a different story. Crime has fallen throughout the current recession and fell throughout the 1930s as well. Crime increased in the 1960s and 1920s when the economy was booming.

It is true that many criminals come from a relatively poor background, but that doesn't mean that poverty causes criminality. Rather low (intelligence/work-ethic/conscientiousness/future-orientation) causes both poverty and criminality.

September 16, 2011 at 9:06 PM  
Anonymous Eugenick said...

"You're accepting the liberal bromide that crime is caused by poverty/unemployment."

No I don't - at least not NOW, under a welfare state in which not all menial jobs are automated... yet. But what do you think will happen once a libertarian society finds ways to automate most or not all tasks that are low-IQ people are capable of? Do you think they will just drop dead or commit suicide? No - they will steal from the high-IQ people.

There are only two ways to deal with the problem:
1) shoot them
2) providing welfare in a sustainable manner

No doubt that both of these approaches will be tried in a Patchwork of SovCorps.

September 17, 2011 at 10:49 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Tasks are automated only when doing so offers an economy of substitution. To suppose that all unskilled labor will eventually be eliminated by automation is unrealistic.

Even now, there is a large "informal economy" in which illegal immigrants find various sorts of low-wage labor, because they are working off-the-record for cash, and do not enjoy the dubious protections of the regulatory state, which make it impossible for the native-born to find work. Automation is never, for example, going to eliminate the job of a housemaid or a gardener. Yet wages-and-hours laws,
minimum wage laws, mandatory workers' and unemployment compensation insurances, and the requirement that taxes be withheld from wages and remitted periodically to government, make it prohibitive to
hire a native-born citizen for domestic service. And, of course, the native-born can avail themselves of the dole. There's a strong economy of substitution here, in favor of hiring the undocumented worker.

Were these disincentives to the employment of the native-born to be eliminated, and a realistic effort made to control immigration, it is quite possible that many of the long-term
clientele of the welfare state could find work suited to their abilities.

As for the predisposition of the lower classes to crime, this, too, is a matter of wrong incentives, or better put, lack of sufficient disincentive. More vigorous law enforcement and more severe consequences for violation are the answer. Singapore provides the example to emulate.

September 17, 2011 at 4:59 PM  
Anonymous negro bolshevik sufragette gangsta rap said...

The recent period has been one of rising IQs and falling crime rates/physical violence in general. If there's some sort of dysgenic apocalypse coming it appears to be very well hidden. (Although I doubt that stupidity/present-orientation really correlate much with criminality to begin with - with getting caught, most assuredly.)

A good deal of violence would be required to get a meaningful portion of first world workers on sub-current-minimum wages without supplement of public assistance, but it could probably be accomplished. I guess we'll see over the next decade.

September 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> The recent period has been one of rising IQs and falling crime rates/physical violence in general.

Since the 90s? It's because of vast expansion of imprisonment. Something near 4x per capita since 1980. Thus crime sank as criminal impulse rose, probably by a lot.

September 18, 2011 at 2:30 AM  
Anonymous negro bolshevik suffragette gangsta rap said...

Since the 70s. Apparently the (as an earlier commented posits) wicked Shylocks' plan to unchain the pit bulls and sic them on the upstanding but helpless white chickens appears not to have been successful. Maybe they're the inherently stupid ones? Or perhaps the Yankee genetic stock has benefitted from the addition of the most enterprising and future-oriented part of its southern neighbors? The vast expansion of the prison system (which is mostly drug-related, is the actual policy choice breaking up the African-American family, and isn't going to lower murder &c. rates anyway, just make more of them occur between inmates) is a labor market policy common to freer-market countries in general, regardless of ethnic composition; the decrease in violence has accompanied rich nations in general, regardless of prison policy choices, as the populations have become more fat and decadent, as ibn Khaldoun would say.

September 18, 2011 at 5:27 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

" the decrease in violencie has accompanied rich nations in general,"

Statements like this show why praxeology must precede empiricism for history. The richness of the rich nations is not exactly an independent variable.

September 18, 2011 at 12:33 PM  
Anonymous negro bolshevik sufragette gangsta rap said...

Yes, why not, and let's accept Kant's preemptive disproof of general relativity as well.

(And trivially it's independent if we're not talking about countries that became or ceased to be rich during this period but indexing it to a year before the trend we're trying to explain.)

September 18, 2011 at 4:46 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 19, 2011 at 1:24 PM  
Blogger death maiden said...

and neither are the "decrease in violence" nor the qualities responsible for the increase in wealth in the modern era any kind of absolute markers of fitness.

both are about domestication, normalization, rationalization, etc. the nig who succumbs to thuglife, the luckily born whitefolks who plays his hand -- they're only different if you overdetermine genetics. or, sociologically speaking, are of the type who overdetermines genetics

September 19, 2011 at 1:25 PM  
Anonymous rs said...

September 20, 2011 at 7:46 PM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

If meter is good because people like it, then I suggest thinking about the generalized form of the following factor:

Things are sometimes liked because others like them. In this first fork, that makes the poem good. There is no such thing as a poem, that everyone likes, that sucks.

If people like meter because it is good, then they can fail to appreciate a good poem...but that poem is always appreciable.
Secondly it implies that poems are good in ways that other things are not: poems are a unique form of wealth instead of yet another form of generalized wealth.

Thus I can say that someone who likes bad poetry or music is not appreciating the art - I can only guess at what they're actually appreciating.

Moreover, no, in fact taste is not relative or subjective. Either poems offer unique wealth or they don't. Either a particular poem exemplifies that unique wealth or it doesn't.
If they do and it does, and someone doesn't appreciate it, then they don't like and/or understand poetry, period.

Still, I do suspect this view uncharitably disparages the 'good because liked' view, and also makes untrue discriminations. I will think about it some more.

September 21, 2011 at 10:53 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

Well, shit. Saying poetry is good because people like it violates locality.

I have a poem on Alpha Centauri. No one likes it. Then someone on Earth starts to like it. It instantly becomes 'good' on Centauri. My evaluation goes from right to wrong but there's no possible way I could know.

If so, poems can be neither good, nor bad - rather a person's experience of the poem is good or bad. All you can say is some individuals like it, and perhaps predict based on similarity that other persons will like it.

It has other problems with causation, too.

If it is predictable in principle when someone likes it, then it must be caused by the properties of the poem.

If it isn't, then it violates causality. (Randomness does not solve this.)

More accurately, the prediction is based on the properties of the poem...and the rest of the observer's environment.

If there is any (unique-to-poems) contribution from the poem at all, then one can be mistaken about the poem and thus whether you like it, and thus whether it is good. And then taste is absolute.

So getting back to Euthyphro, is buying ice cream pious because Hermes likes it, or etc?

If the properties of commerce imply piety, then Hermes can be wrong. If it is determined by Hermes-as-environment, then he can change his mind. (Violating locality...but set that aside.)

At which point I suggest there are interesting implications for God. He can un-sin people by changing his mind. However, he's still bound by the laws of logic - he cannot make one person a sinner and another not due to the same action. This is very surprisingly restrictive because all the implications must also not contradict.

In theory God could also change the laws of logic but good luck imagining alternatives.

So I can just assume that it is impossible to make all free-willed agents non-sinners, no matter how the world is arranged.

Except...he could use the null set, which has no contradictions.

I hope you'll excuse the leap (for space) but this means 'sin' reduces to 'unwise.' Self-destructive and suchlike, which in turn implies morality is discoverable without God even if God exists.

Which was Plato's point in the first place.
This proof is not verified.

September 21, 2011 at 11:18 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

> If so, poems can be neither good, nor bad - rather a person's experience of the poem is good or bad.

Yes, obviously. We only agree in part about what's good because we are neurologically similar. Drugs can enhance aesthesis, and what is less notorious, they can ablate it - or at least ablate it in reference to normal art objects such as Die Windsbraut.

While there is no drug that can make me like Wasteland and stop liking Prufrock I'm sure it an be done in principle. Such a 'drug' is indubitably in my genome and in a way there is no need for the scare quotes, it's the same thing. That doesn't mean my genome can necessarily create sentience itself in the first place, which in fact I do not necessarily believe.

September 21, 2011 at 11:43 AM  
Blogger death maiden said...

nonsense. on the other side of a person's judgment of whether a poem is good or bad is the poet's production of the poem, which can certainly be good or bad relative to how accurately it embodies his intentions re his subject matter -- which is a kind of performance that can of course be measured against similar performances. and on an on.

art is social, not linked merely to poet and reader, for instance, but to Poetry, its social functions and social nonfunctions. as such, it's a true agora, with ranks of artworks, critics, and appraisers. it's also technical, going back to its original meaning in greek.

meter was just a traditional -- socially mediated -- way of doing poetry. it can't be linked to it essentially. it's similar to the relation between grand and "small" themes. a poem about waterloo is not necessarily better than a poem about a cat.

September 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

So last night I had an interesting interaction with a non-reactionary that I happen to be married to. I briefly sketched out a post our host wrote some time back about the inherent futility of democratic libertarianism, a la Will Wilkinson, that I thought was pretty good (in that it was accurately and amusingly argued). She became quite irritated at me, for reasons that were not obvious even to her, but the interesting thing was how she objected.

First, she objected to conflating an IQ of 100 with being normal, and high IQ with worldly success. I pointed out that this was nonsense (in the aggregate), and she shifted seamlessly to telling me that I was an asshole for bringing IQ into it at all (which is undeniable, and a symptom of reading characters such as anyone on this thread, unfortunately). I was then accused of nihilism, not believing that people ever do things for reasons besides self interest, and being an elitist who thinks his arguments are too sophisticated for the common man. But then she said an interesting thing, which will not surprise any readers here, but which still tickled me. She questioned why I read people like that, because their ideas are clearly un-Christian (and we both are, and try to be good ones). I asked her if Christian belief compels one to embrace socialism. She said no, because she's a good conservative (not a Nazi, DM), but I'm not sure where she would go if relentlessly pursued on this point.

In any other situation it would have been enjoyable to see all the underlying assumptions of the mainstream worldview paraded out, and then demolish them with relish. To preserve domestic harmony, I qualified slightly, planted some seeds, and shut up. But it's always interesting to see how many Christians think, deep down, that socialists are better people (in Christian terms!) than they are.

September 22, 2011 at 8:35 AM  
Anonymous josh said...


What denomination are you?

September 22, 2011 at 9:02 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

Well, I guess I'm asking for that with the personal stuff... I'm Catholic.

September 22, 2011 at 9:23 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

didn't mean to get personal, I just like to place people historically.

I'm sure your better off just not talking about politics, but I wonder how she would respond to something like Jim Kalb. That guy makes me want to be a Catholic.

E. Michael Jones' "Slaughter of Citites" does a good job of explaining the protestantization of American Catholicism while documenting one of the great crimes in American history. It's also crazy long and not the kind of anything a non-weirdo reactionary will ever read.

I'm not giving you advice or anything. I wonder if people want this kind of information or if its even good for them.

September 22, 2011 at 11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Jews are not an alien presence in Western civ, they are in fact a key component, having Judaized Europe via that great vehicle for Jewish genetic interests, Christianity.

Anti-semitism, is maladaptive for Europeans genetic interests."

Holy shit. Did I just read that? One of us is on drugs, or —

Why We Want You Gone: Exhibit A


September 25, 2011 at 4:30 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home