Friday, February 24, 2012 57 Comments

The year of jellyfish

Extra! Extra! Update from East England!

Either there are two wily and capable 21st-century Céline impersonators roaming the East English internets - or (despite the best efforts of the legitimate and authorized Post-European authorities) that rogue Maître Derville remains on the loose:
All this is nothing I want more, I want millions, hordes, packs, ships, trains, lines, docks stations, packet avalanches, breaking tons, it literally rains, the year of jellyfish, so that everywhere, taxis, basements, sewers, he falls by parachute, it drips and that headed ahead of the legions and columns perched on a giant blind guides a monstrous dwarf, the Hungarian dwarf.

I want them to roam in Neuilly, they sleep on the bearings of the XVI century, they meddle at Fauchon, beg at Hédiard, paluchent clients of Balenciaga, sniff those of Cartier steered Weston, Old England and Poussin Bleu, they vomit on Lacoste shirts, they shootent Grand Vefour, they Mansonisent in Chevreuse Valley, they up the fire at Angelina, they nicate the Crillon, the George plunder V, craps on the carpet at the Ritz, pray at Matignon by thousands, do their racing on the Exchange, and piss in St. Laurent.

I want them to violate Constance Marie, and Alix Charles Edward, I want them crament The Century, The World and Regine, they sodomize clients of contemporary art galleries, they gangbanguent of the American Plaza, hijackent the big guns of the Vendôme car park, and shoot automatic weapons streets of Treviso, Place Furstenberg, the Parc Monceau and Placentia.

I want the barbarian armies, severed heads, where application of crap killings, sharia, the green flag in black scabbard, an ethnic bomb, flooding, drowning, panic, hell, escape and exodus, firefighters lynched, sores flabbergasted, journalists strung, cops eaten; armies disarmed; Legion devoured, aviation vaudouisée, the Republic collapsed, Mariane bewitched by reduction with pins in the cu *, Paname in flames, Charles Maxentius in the gutter ass in the air, Ernestine cramée in his Mini, and everything else included remote descendants, castrated and galleys. Dammit!
Dammit! In addition to the obvious suspect, this material is also remarkably reminiscent of perhaps Brasillach's most famous passage, which I won't quote because it's anti-Semitic and I'm yet another greasy, simian (half-) Yid. If you look, perhaps you can find it. (Also, I hereby nominate "Mansonisent" as Franglicism of the year.)

Meanwhile, via the vile, racist Unamusement Park, a small but plucky group of American artists has (barely) dodged The Man to compose an illustrated anthem to this same shocking, yet precise, vision of the new century. Surely you can spare five minutes for a concentrated dose of pure urban reality? Don't miss the unexpected blast of diversity toward the close of the work:

The New York Times, journal of record, describes Mr. Flame as:
...a pure-energy rapper who just blows the house in.
Indeed. And especially with reviews like that (in the journal of record), how could a man be afraid of another man? Or, more poetically (if in translation):
What's a neighbor with some money without a team?
People say that neighbor's not real neighbor genes.
Certainly a complex point. Concerned, we put the question to one of dead America's great ecclesiastical voices, the very, very Rev. R.L. Dabney, who in To Major-General Howard (1865) dipped his own bad wick in pure pyrophoric bile and screamed with tongue on fire. Perhaps you'll be surprised to see Stonewall Jackson's personal theology consultant make this strong Christian case for affirmative action:
Having shown you the starting point of that career of beneficence to the African, from which you are solemnly bound to God and history to advance, I now return to strengthen the already irresistible argument of that obligation. If the South, with all its disadvantages, has done this modicum of good to this poor people, the North, their present guardians, with their vast advantages, must do far more.

The South was the inferior section (so the North told us) in number, in wealth, in progress, in intelligence, in education, in religion. The South (so the North says) held the Africans under an antiquated, unrighteous and mischievous relation—that of domestic slavery. The North now has them on the new footing, which is, of course, precisely the right one.

The South was their oppressor; the North is their generous liberator. The South was hagridden in all its energies for good (so we were instructed) by the "barbarism of slavery"; the North contains the most civilized, enlightened and efficient people on earth.

Now, if you do not surpass our poor performances for the negro with this mighty contrast in your favor, how mighty will be the just reprobation which will be visited upon you by the common sentiment of mankind and by the Lord of Hosts? If you do not surpass our deeds as far as your power and greatness surpass ours, how can you stand at His bar, even beside us sinners? He has taught us that "a man is accepted according to that which he hath, and not according to that which he hath not." To this righteous rule we intend to hold you, as our successors in the guardianship of the negro.

If there are any who endeavor to lull your energies in this work, by saying that the negro, being now a free man, must take care of himself like other people; that he should be thrown on his own resources, and that, if he does not provide for his own well-being, he should be left to suffer, I beseech you, in the behalf of humanity, of justice and of your own good name, not to hearken to them.

I ask you solemnly whether the freedmen have an "even start" in the race for subsistence with the other laboring men of the nation, marked as they are by difference of race and color, obstructed by stubborn prejudices, and disqualified (as you hold) for the responsibilities of self-support, to some extent, by the evil effects of their recent bondage upon their character? Is it fair, or right, or merciful to compel him to enter the stadium, and leave him to this fierce competition under these grave disadvantages?

Again, no peasantry under the sun was ever required or was ever able to sustain themselves when connected with the soil by no tenure of any form. Under our system our slaves had the most permanent and beneficial form of tenancy; for their master's lands were bound to them by law for furnishing them homes, occupations and subsistence during the whole continuance of the master's tenure. But you have ended all this, and consigned four millions of people to a condition of homelessness. Will the North thus make gipsies of them, and then hold them responsible for the ruin which is inevitable from such a condition?

But there is another argument equally weighty. By adopting the unfeeling policy of throwing the negro upon his own resources, to sink or swim as he may, you run too great a risk of verifying the most biting reproaches and objections of your enemies.

They, in case of his failure, will argue thus: that the great question in debate between the defenders of slavery and the advocates of emancipation was whether the negro was capable of self-control: that the former, who professed to be more intimately acquainted with his character, denied that he was capable of it, and solemnly warned you of the danger of his ruin, if he was intrusted with his own direction, in this country, and that you, in insisting on the experiment in spite of this warning, assumed the whole responsibility.

Sir, if the freedmen should perchance fail to swim successfully, that argument would be too damaging to you and your people. You cannot afford to venture upon this risk. You are compelled by the interests of your own consistency and good name, to take effectual care that the negro shall swim; and that better than before. In the name of justice, I remonstrate against your throwing him off in his present state, by the inexorable fact that he was translated into it, neither by us, nor by himself, but by you alone; for out of that fact proceeds an obligation upon you, to make your experiment successful, which will cleave to you even to the judgment day.

And out of that fact proceeds this farther obligation: that seeing you have persisted, of your own free will, in making this experiment of his liberation, you and your people are bound to bestow anything or everything, and to do everything, except sin, to insure that it shall be, as compared with his previous condition, a blessing to him. For, if you were not willing to do all this, were you not bound to let him alone?

When the shipmaster urges landsmen to embark in his ship, and venture the perils.of the deep, he thereby incurs an obligation, if a storm arises, to do everything and risk everything, even to his own life, for the rescue of his charge. If, then, you and your people should find that it will require the labors of another million of busy hands, and the expenditure of three thousand millions more of the national wealth, to obviate the evils and dangers arising to the freedmen from your experiment upon their previous condition: yea, if to do this, it is necessary to make the care and maintenance of the African the sole business and labor of the whole mighty North, you will be bound to do it at this cost.

And I beg you, sir, let no one vainly think to evade this duty which they owe you in your charge, by saying that perhaps even so profuse an expenditure as this, for the benefit of the Africans, would fail of its object; because they hold that making a prosperous career is one of those things like chewing their own food, or repenting of their own sins, which people must do for themselves, or else they are impossible to be done; and that so no amount of help can make the freedmen prosperous as such, without the right putting forth of their own spontaneity.

For, do you not see that this plea surrenders you into the hands of those bitter adversaries, the Pro-Slavery men? Is this not the very thing they said? This was precisely their argument to show that philanthropy required the Africans in this country should be kept in a dependent condition. If your section acquiesces in the failure of your experiment of their liberation on this ground, what will this be but the admission of the damning charge that your measure is a blunder and a crime, aggravated by the warning so emphatic, which your opponents gave you, and to which you refused to listen?

But I feel bound, as your zealous and faithful supporter in your humane task, to give you one more caution. The objectors who watch you with so severe an eye have even a darker suggestion to make than the charge of headstrong rashness and criminal mistake in your experiment of emancipation. They are heard gloomily to insinuate that the ruin of the African (which they so persistently assert must result from the change) is not the blunder of the North, but the foreseen and intended result!

Are you aware of the existence of this frightful innuendo? It is my duty to reveal it to you, that you may be put upon your guard. These stern critics are heard darkly hinting that they know Northern statesmen and presses who now admit, with a sardonic shrug, that the black man, deprived of the benignant shield of domestic servitude, must of course perish like the red man.

These critics are heard inferring that the true meaning of Northern Republicanism and Free Soil is, that the white race must be free to shoulder the black race off this continent, and monopolize the sunny soil, which the God of nations gave the latter as their heritage. They take a sort of grim pleasure in pointing to the dead infants, which, they say, usually marked the liberating course of your armies through the South, in displaying the destitution and mortality which, they charge, are permitted in the vast settlements of freedmen under your care; in insinuating the rumors of official returns of a mortality already incurred in the Southwest, made to your government, so hideous that their suppression was a necessity; and in relating how the jungles which are encroaching upon the once smiling "coasts" of the Mississippi, in Louisiana, already envelope the graves of half the black population in that State!

And the terrible inference from all this, which they intimate is, that the great and powerful North only permits these disasters because it intends them; that, not satisfied with the wide domain which Providence has assigned to them, they now pretend to liberate the slave whom they have seen too prosperous under his domestic servitude, in order to destroy him, and grasp, in addition, the soil which he has occupied.

Now, sir, it is incumbent on you, that the premises on which, with so dangerous a plausibility, they ground this tremendous charge, be effectually contradicted by happy and beneficent results. You must refute this monstrous indictment, and there is only one way to do it, by actually showing that you conserve and bless the African race, multiply their numbers, and confirm their prosperity on the soil, more than we have done.

I repeat, the North must refute it thus. For, of course, every Northern man, while indignantly denying and abhorring it, admits (what is as plain as the sun at midday) that if the charge were indeed true, it would convict his people of the blackest public crime of the nineteenth century; a crime which would be found to involve every aggravation and every element of enormity which the nomenclature of ethics enables us to describe. It would be the deliberate, calculated, cold-blooded, selfish dedication of an innocent race of four millions to annihilation; the murder, with malice prepence, of a nation!

Not by the comparatively merciful process of the royal Hun, whose maxim was, that "thick grass is cut more easily than thin," summary massacre; but by the slowly eating cancer of destitution, degradation, immorality, protracting the long agony through two or three generations, thus multiplying the victims who would be permitted to be born only to sin, to suffer and to perish; and insuring the everlasting perdition of the soul, along with the body, by cunningly making their own vices the executioners of the doom.

It would include the blackest guilt of treason being done under the deceitful mask of benefaction and by pretended liberators. The unrighteousness of its motive would concur with its treachery to enhance its guilt to the most stupendous height; for upon this interpretation of the purpose of the North, that motive would be, first to weaken and disable its late adversary, the South, by destroying that part of the people which was guilty of no sin against you, and then, by this union of fraud and force, to seize and enjoy the space which God gave them, and laws and constitution guaranteed.

This, indeed, would be the picture which these accusers would then present of your splendid act, that you came as a pretended friend and deliverer to the African, and while he embraced you as his benefactor in all his simple confidence and joy, you thrust your sword through and through his heart, in order to reach, with a flesh wound, the hated white man who
stood behind him, whom you could not otherwise reach.

The deed would receive an additional shade of blackness from every reproach which the North has ever uttered against us for our supposed oppression of the black man, from every profession of your superior humanity toward him—from every assertion of your superior civilization, light and Christianity. For is it not the righteous penalty of the servant who knew the will of his Divine Master and did it not, to be beaten with many stripes?

If the North should, indeed, after all its claims of the traits which exalt a people, have this most accursed deed fastened upon it, then would be fulfilled against it that awful warning which the Son of God thundered against the most boastful of the abusers of His teachings: "Thou Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell."
There's more, but I'm afraid it gets a little anti-Semitic here. Oh well. Later, our Reverend continues:
Another of your difficulties will be found in the enormous misconceptions which now fill the minds of the freedmen. The mischief of one of these I have already indicated. It suited your purposes, during the season of strife, diligently to teach the negro that the white people of the South were their oppressors and enemies. Well, sir, they have learned your lesson effectually, and will not speedily unlearn it.

The consequence is that you have thereby stripped yourself of the aid of eight millions of white people in your arduous task, and these, the white people among whom the larger part of the freedmen still live, among whom alone are to be found persons familiar with African character, and among whom alone has there ever been, or will there ever be an ingenuous personal affection for individuals of that race. We have lost the ability to guide, counsel, or instruct them. The larger part of them evidently confound liberty with license; and to them, liberty means living without earning a living.

Accustomed to see their masters performing little manual labor (because they were necessarily occupied with the more important, and often more arduous, labor of superintendence), the freedmen assume that, to be free, is to be like their masters in the former particular. They forget this little difference, that a man cannot be usefully occupied in the labor of superintendence, when he has nobody to superintend.

Your first task, sir, will be to convince them of this mistake, and, as I have proved, you are bound to do this, without causing or permitting them to suffer any painful consequence of this error. Your emissaries, armed and clerical, diligently taught them that all the labor rendered by them in servitude was uncompensated; and that every dollar of the proceeds of that labor taken by the landholder, was a robbery from them.

(A good and certain home and livelihood at all times, sustenance for their families, provision for their decrepitude, and maintenance for those they left behind them are, in the eyes of these philosophers, no compensation at all, even for that labor which is least skilled; because, I presume, they were so secure and regular. And it is the established doctrine of the Abolition school, that, while labor is entitled to wages, capital is not; in accordance with which truth, those good people, as is well known, always lend out their money for nothing, and pay away the whole profits of their costly factories in wages to operatives.)

The consequence of this doctrine among the freedmen is this: They argue that all the property in the country being the fruit of their unrequited labor, they may now help themselves to a fair return, whenever and however they can. Hence a habit of what we old fashioned Southerners used to call "theft," which renders them of rather doubtful utility as hired laborers.

You will have a great deal of trouble, sir, in correcting this mistake; and again, I urge that you are bound to do this, without permitting or causing the freedmen to taste any of its bitter consequences. For, I reason of this as of all other misconceptions which they learned of you, that you are solemnly bound not to let them suffer for what was your error. What, will you punish them for believing you? It would be a monstrous iniquity.

You have this task then, gently to educate them out of this innocent mistake of stealing everything which comes to their hand, by "moral suasion," without stocks, whipping posts, jails, or any such harsh measures; and meantime, to generously repair all the evil consequences of those thefts, to themselves or others, out of your own inexhaustible pockets. Do you not think, sir, that to effect this the "schoolmaster" will have to go "abroad" pretty considerably?

But, perhaps, the greatest of your difficulties is the one which has been hitherto least appreciated—the novelty of your task.

You, sir, are appointed to do what no other mortal has hitherto done successfully: to transmute four millions of slaves, of an alien race and lower culture, all at once into citizens, without allowing them to suffer or deteriorate on your hands. You have no precedents to guide you. You cannot resort to the pages of political history to find there the lights which may show you your momentous duties.

But there is no other guide in political science. The machinery of moral causes, which forms a political society, is too complex for any finite mind to foresee, by its a priori speculations, what wheels will be moved by the spring which he touches. His only safe guide is the experience of previous results under similar conditions. If he attempts to act beyond; this his action is, in the worst sense, experiment; a blind guess, leading him by haphazard to unforeseen results.

In the sciences of material things, these experiments have been useful and are legitimate. The philosopher may properly deal thus with his metallic ore; he may venture his unproved hypothesis concerning it; he may submit it to new solvents, or acids, or fires; oftentimes he will find that his hypothesis is false and leads to nothing; but sometimes he will find that it is the occasion of stumbling upon the key to one of nature's precious secrets.

Now, his justification is that the ore which he eats with corrosive acids, or melts in his furnace, suffers nothing in this blundering process of questioning after new truth. It has no nerves to be fretted under his handling; no heart to be wrung; no sentient or intellectual destiny to be perverted or destroyed under his mistakes, and, above all, no immortal soul to be lost in his hands.

But, in social science, mere experiments are crimes; for the subjects of them are immortal intelligences, endowed by God with a moral destiny, with hearts to bleed under errors, and never-dying souls to be lost.

Fearful, then, is the responsibility of him who handles a social revolution new in the history of man. He must march; yet he cannot know whether or not the path which he selects will lead him over the bleeding hearts and ruined destinies of his own charge. For such, the only adequate director is the Spirit of God; and his best resort is prayer. To that resort I sincerely and solemnly commend you; and close by subscribing myself,

Your very obedient servant,
Sept. 12, 1865. Prince Edward County, Va.
I think it's pretty clear that the Rev. Dabney picked the wrong year to stop sniffing glue. (You can probably guess how he feels about dancing.)

It's also pretty clear that our correspondent is... well.. a racist. Oh, well. And on this count, alas, it can't be too soon to start worrying about M. Derville himself:
Okay, now really, one thing we must do is to stop the shit auscultate social sticky to find the worst crevards as this purple pine. Many guys found themselves in the heading of news items for less than that, cold case.

Tell me about French workers, fishermen who play against drowning with a fake pair face a sea emptied, between twelve crazy diktats of Brussels.

Cause me the last French peasants without women, crushed by the banks and the bureaucracy, now ten times less numerous than clandos.

Tell me about the sleepless nights and thousands of craftsmen and small businessmen who do more than pay for it not to lay, I learned the old workers slamming mouth open and their widows, featuring shabby pensions fifth no lift, which freed me of Ingé's forced expatriates, and five bins in mathematics who drive trams.

I plead the distress, theft, failure and the unbridgeable social rung of a ladder turned into curse of caste, tell me the new untouchables, the French who are dying in the street for a moment fell, talk to me of the guy who missed three boxes and ends up sleeping in his car, because I planted the chick on a bad plan that ends up with two kids and alimony which never happens, because of my poor cuckold of missed, the con, my double.

What empathy for ours? Where is it? Zero, struggle for my life wolf, Memee dying, dying, soon I... And you inherit the wreckage, I spend indifferent, you dry the flooded towns, missed the psychiatric, drunk, stoned, my brother on methadone, I you close, I kill you dirty bum, I'll pass on it, like this old, encalaminée in newspapers under the porch pissing vomit when Junks come.

You are what I can become and I hate you, the living dead on the bench, I do not look at you, I'm afraid of myself. Tell me about my people, tell me about the death of my people, tell me about this insane decadence, from what I see on my street. Cortex, tell me about the people you hate, cause me to your foreign mine.

I say this with shoulder scared to speak French in mainland China, in North Curé under islamosyndicale judiciary, in large Courtelinistan East in Kafkaland, Vrounze in red, and green flag again without return of tolerance, freedom not to think, and seizure arrest on dissent.

Like all here, I have nothing to shake, no arms, of this parasite to tailless fish mouth camel rot abyssal black smokers, before it occurs out of the cold chain, which seeks notoriety down, his mother would have expanded in a shithole turquiforme following a prolapse smoky that our world would not have another aspect, northern lights and flower girls included.

But faced with so much ugliness useless my anger overflows. By cons, and all hatred, our people are dying, our people die, it is colonized. He is the worst breed of muddy depths of the dregs of the slums of bastards the end of the cul fifteenth circle of hell, and fools hate goitrous uneducated, idiots .... calcified.

By a horrible plot we have become the botched vagina fuck the world rotten, the receptacle of all the juice herpes pus exotic, a human shit is spawned on this satellite is the devil it is for our poor mouth, it fails in our garden.

Revolt: National Revolution! Treason! To arms! Your children will die, it's that easy! And two months in jail for these words required by the prosecution, will pan in the mouth, shut up!

Democracy requires my cuckold! They kill us, we catch, do not you see? Are we subhuman? We train in the junk, the junk you see? There she is, this bitch mad, that bitch city, before us, we splutter of ass in the face, what to do? Do you believe that we will build a nation with such dogs? What does this fucking racist? The war? Why not. My ancestors, they would on a hook to fish for shark and the case would have been washed.

Dog, dead dog, suicide, fatal that floats in the bathtub acid, dead in the pool, washed with black horizon, tomorrow ? Ask yourself tomorrow. You think you get out, bourgeois? Weigh the weight of your ass you will reap not a ruble. The exponential decay of your minority ass you bourrera the Xénocortex you'll dekulakize.

Cholera sue you, beri-beri and vomit born *gro, yellow fever and ebola coca cola, run faster than your ass on a sledge to Meuhgève. Your saliva without agony, devoured pipe is called demography, motherfuckers baby boom, Sicilian Mafia Fourth Reich of the Vem Pourriblique, Weimar sur Seine, the crazy twisted, collapsed under the immense flight of locusts polygamous and a flood sticky from the south in flames.

Babylon bursts, burst! My Country Flame, burning!
Northern lights and flower girls included! Neighbors - I rest my case.


Blogger nazgulnarsil said...

I think the lack of sleep must be getting to our host.

February 24, 2012 at 12:26 AM  
Blogger Anomaly UK said...

I like Dabney's shipmaster parable. It sounds better in Italian:

"Vada a Bordo, cazzo"

February 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM  
Blogger Unamused said...

"the vile, racist Unamusement Park"

do not make me tickle you

February 24, 2012 at 2:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jewish Liberalism: the Allinsmith Study

"Polling data is not kind to Moldbug's hilarious explanation for Jewish leftism. In a 1940s survey of eight religious denominations, Congregationalist respondents were least liberal. In Boston, high-SES Jews were more likely to vote for Adlai Stevenson for president in 1952 than low-SES non-Jews -- and low-SES non-Jews voted for Stevenson at twice the rate of high-SES non-Jews."

February 24, 2012 at 2:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Derville is entertaining and has a way with words even in crude translation - ebola coca cola indeed - however I find his negativity off-putting. Who ever solved a problem in the spirit in which Derville appears to approach life?

This kind of self-pitying rant also characterises most "WN" writing and blogs such as Dennis Mangan's. It inspires a feeling of hopelessness and encourages a self-righteous cult mentality in which the possibility of error in some respects is denied.

I much prefer our host's mixture of historically-guided destruction of falsehood and constructive illumination of the harmful devices and machinations that are leading our civilisation astray - long may this continue.

February 24, 2012 at 5:02 AM  
Blogger Colin said...

I wish Moldbug would ask one of his Francophone friends to glance at these before he posted them. I know he gets a kick out of Google Translate, but I would say that's the XVI arrondisement and not the XVI century over which the barbarians are summoned to prowl. Fun either way, I admit.

February 24, 2012 at 8:54 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Since Moldbug has an interest in strategic leaks from the government, and "the plot to make Ted Kennedy president", this account of why Mark Felt became Deep Throat may be of interest. Apparently, removing Nixon wasn't even the goal. Removing the FBI director (so Nixon would appoint Felt to take his place) was.

Dabney was right that there was a strong undercurrent of white separatism in Free Soil ideology, but he was quite wrong about emancipation to blacks being like conquest to indians. They just became sharecroppers, with laws attempting to limit their opportunity to be hired elsewhere but still earning considerably more than they did under slavery (as I've discussed before). Black unemployment really only became higher than the rate among whites in the mid twentieth century.

February 24, 2012 at 7:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I found Dabney's article on the "Dancing Question" on

The article contains an excerpt from this poem of Byron on the subject of the indecency of the waltz. I find it somewhat disingenuous of Rev. Dabney to have quoted from this poem as though to suggest that even Byron finds the waltz grotesque, because the final verse of the poem sheds doubt on the earnestness of the entire poem including the sentiments expressed in the passage (from At once love's... to If such thou lovest...) that Dabney excerpted.

Furthermore, I found the refutation of Dabney's argument that follows his essay to be more convincing. For example, it points out that Dabney's reference to the scriptural prohibition in three places of "rioting" or "revelling" as though this referred to dancing is rather a stretch.

Nonetheless, although Dabney's immense concern over the apparently trivial issue of dancing might at first seem ridiculous, there is some sense in it in the context of his time. He himself admits to the effect that dancing is no grave sin, but it is important for Christians (or indeed, to much the same effect, social conservatives) to attend most closely to those activities that lie near the dividing line between the realms of the penitent and the ungodly - because it is in treading here that citizens of the spiritual kingdom are most likely to succumb to the temptations of the Adversary.

Also, although dancing today is synonymous with animal behaviour that makes the waltz or the round dance seem most civilised and harmless by comparison, on consideration one imagines that a form of dancing in which ventral fronting and eye-contact occurs is more likely to lead to intimacy in comparison to one in which the male and female don't even face one another.

Still, one shudders to think what Bishop Meade, who considered square dancing to be "wrong, improper and of bad effect", or Bishop Johns who found round dances to be "lascivious" and a "demoralising dissipation" would think of the astoundingly vulgar civilisation that theirs has become only 130 years later.

February 25, 2012 at 5:30 AM  
Blogger Daniel A. Nagy said...

The counter-argument:

OFFTOPIC: Nazgul is a reasonably widespread female name among turkic-speaking Central Asians. Means something along the lines of "whimsy flower".

February 25, 2012 at 5:14 PM  
Anonymous Dewey said...

Well-posted exposure of the problem of the North in Negro education. The article by the 1865 Southerner is quite prophetic in its warning. Every Northerner should know this part of the Civil War history, it helps remove the blinders we Northerner's are raised with. This stance is so reactionary, it should cause the uninitiated to leap backwards from their chair.
In order to raise the Negroes, we need to treat them differently.
They are a very different race than Europeans.
When they began to be called Blacks, it was to make their race "just the color of the skin."
Judging someone based on the "color of their skin, not the content of their character" became the Bad Thing to Do.
Well, Blacks are not just black-skinned, they are Negroes. Negro is more of a racial term, as in the "Negroid" race. Let's bring it back, to bring us back to sense.
Well, we Northerners were blinded to the "content of character", in the end being trained to only see "the color of the skin". Paradoxically, this has had the effect of Northerner's having a guilty, forbidden pleasure in judging by the color of the skin. No cookies!!! Don't even look at them!
In reality, the color of the skin is the least important facet of Negroes, it is their Negroid character and instincts that are the most important.
The only way for a person to advance is to understand their own weaknesses and strengths.
If we cannot acknowledge the weaknesses of the Negro race, than we can never work to remedy this. Their weaknesses of impulsiveness always have a possible strength, if they are programmed correctly. Given the right biological programming, the right cultural structure, a Negro might go from impulsive to creative.

I stand with W.E.B. Dubois, a truly numinous Negro:

February 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Kiwiguy said...

Interesting thoughts by Rev Dabney :)

I just came across this blog whose author has also found a rich collection of old writing about different populations and their respective traits.

February 26, 2012 at 5:18 PM  
Anonymous B said...

Neighbor, that ain't shit. Check out this piece of folk ethnography right here, my neighbor:

"My young neighbors straight Taliban!"

You can swing by and visit on a long lunch break if the spirit moves you.

February 27, 2012 at 1:41 AM  
Blogger Daniel A. Nagy said...

OFFTOPIC: One charming Nazgul just told me that her name means "delicate flower". Apparently, my proficiency in Kyrgyz language leaves much to be desired.

February 27, 2012 at 12:39 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Mencius has talked of a war between the "Red State" DoD and "Blue State", er, State. Check out this graph of donations from the military. Obama rakes it in from DoD, boots on the ground support Paul. I'd like to see some data on donations from the State Department. I've cited some stats on them before, but it seemed rather paltry.

February 27, 2012 at 7:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DoD has 700,000 civilian employees whose donations presumably contribute to the DoD total in that graph. Only a small percentage of those employees must actually exert significant control over DoD's behaviour, therefore I don't consider that graph to be strong evidence against Moldbug's idea.

Average DoD employees are more likely to support Obama partly because all civil servants tend to be liberals, and partly because they may feel that their jobs would be at risk (more so than "boots on the ground") if Paul were to scale down the extent of the military's activities abroad and slash the DoD budget as he has proposed.

February 28, 2012 at 3:47 AM  
Anonymous B said...

Very true. There are 13,000 lazy neighbors at DFAS alone, handling military pay and completely indistinguishable from the neighbors at the DMV and Social Security office.

Furthermore, there are many in uniform (away from the combat troops) who are just as lazy, worthless and entitled. For instance, see them swarm out of the woodwork on this Army Times article's comments to defend disgraced Sergeant Major King against the attacks of insolent whiteys who insinuate that it's desirable for senior enlisted leaders to have seen combat: Note the distinctly Soviet tone of the comments.

Why would they vote Right?

February 28, 2012 at 4:58 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

Have you jerks all read Celine? I bet Mencius had the time of his life reading it, in spite of himself. I did, it completely blew my mind. Only the first two are any good as far as I know. Procure yourself only Manheim's renditions, he's very talented. I also have his Mein Kampf, have read some three pages. There's probably a lot of interesting foreign books done by him. As a continental specimen who only speaks English, I'm grateful for his exertions; Walter Kaufmann also comes to mind for his Nietzsche. I could recommend about a million other books for you young lads, so overly anxious to finally 'comprehend all', but they're beyond the scope of your limited mind. For access to the full text of prehistoric verse epics I unearthed in my backyard while living among the Bantu, send a 1,000-page essay on the master race.

February 28, 2012 at 7:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very telling that the most non-interventionist candidate receives the most donations from active duty military...the Marine Corps having the highest percent for Paul. The other four candidates would send them on more overseas contingency operations with ambiguous missions in a heartbeat. Understand that a large group of active duty aren't donating and in fact don't even know who their senators and US representatives are. I've even run into several DoD civilians out here overseas who don't know who the vice president is. Out of 300,000 active duty Air Force members, if just .3% donated $100 each, that's already the 100k from the graph. If I had to guess, I'd say the donations come from young officers (2Lt to Major) & mid level enlisted guys (E-6 to E-7). The higher ranks don't care who's boss, they just carry out the orders & enforce policy. 1 stars and whatever the combatant commander, secdef & white house ask of them. Yes, the politically aware active duty types..don't stay active duty for long. The young officers will get out after 4-8 years to go to law school or business school. Being a Paulite while serving in the executive branch creates cognitive dissonance. You believe the DoD should not do X, because, yes, it is unconstitutional. Yet, your primary function, mission, reason to wake up is to conduct X..poorly, inefficiently, every day. Granted, folks that do X range from a marine E-2 earning 15k per year before taxes to a GS-14 overseas making 110k with free housing. In most cases, the 14 has mouths to feed and send kids to private college. The Paul voting enlisted man..tends to get out early and use the GI Bill..a coveted benefit in its own right. The marine couldn't give a hoot if Paul causes DoD civilians in the DC area to be downsized. Correct, DoD civilians, whatever their foreign policy opinions are, lean towards benefits and job security. DoD civilians fall into 2 categories: the advanced degree holding, first real job, no military background kids; and the retired military guys shifting into the 'second career.' In general, the old guys despite the younguns convinced they don't know shit, and the younguns pray everyday for the old timers to retire..but they never do. No, the cold warriors fight on..into their late 60s.. They may be only ones who can actually afford a nice house in Arlington or Alexandria...with 40 years service. I've spent 5 years overseas with DoD, and everytime Paul says 'I mean..what are we even doing in Country X ???' He's so cute. I mean, there are tens of thousands of us here in that is good..comfortable middle class, baby..go to hell Ron.

February 28, 2012 at 9:00 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Mencius earlier depicted the neoconservatives in the Pentagon as footsoldiers of Red against the forces of Blue at Foggy Bottom.

February 28, 2012 at 5:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TGGP: Indeed, but I don't believe that that idea of Moldbug's embodies the claim that all the hundreds of thousands of DoD civil servants who are presumably counted as DoD employees in the graph are necessarily red-staters - only that DoD's foreign policy behaviour, whoever is responsible for that, can be characterised as such.

Surely, responsibility for the part of DoD's behaviour that interests us is not evenly weighted amongst those who are classed as DoD employees for the purposes of those data. Therefore, given the numbers involved whatever signal there might be present is entirely lost in the noise of contributions from employees who are scarcely a part of any DoD ethos and who have no meaningful influence over the relevant part of its behaviour.

Therefore, I conclude that the graph although interesting tells us little about the veracity of the idea of Moldbug's to which you refer. I presume that the graph was intended to be evidence in disfavour of his idea.

February 29, 2012 at 4:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dodciv overseas email.gissimos at yahoo
all questions answered

February 29, 2012 at 7:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Therefore, given the numbers involved whatever signal there might be present is entirely lost in the noise of contributions from employees who are scarcely a part of any DoD ethos and who have no meaningful influence over the relevant part of its behaviour.

So if the data also identified the individual persons, rank, positions, etc., would you consider it useful for judging Moldbug's claim?

February 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM  
Blogger king abdaoe said...

Thanks very possible, please visit my humble blog


February 29, 2012 at 1:53 PM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

Entering open thread mode, has anyone ever read Gene Callahan? He dissed Charles Murray in a recent blog post, so I assume he doesn't get link love because he isn't an orthodox team player, but he's pretty good. Anybody got an answer?

Also worth a look for the denizens of UR, the Last Psychiatrist:

February 29, 2012 at 7:13 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Gene Callahan used to be associated with LVMI, now he spends most of his time bitching about them.

The Last Psychiatrist always reduces everything to NARCISSISM.

February 29, 2012 at 7:33 PM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

Beats reducing everything to data. Anyway, it's free therapy and the style really reminds me of our host.

And I guess since Callahan changed his mind on some things he can be ignored. Actually, it's not a bad idea to ignore what he writes about libertarians/anarchists. He links to some pretty banal anti-libertarian arguments at times, and I think it's a form of penance for serving that cause earlier in life.

February 29, 2012 at 8:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

March 1, 2012 at 4:34 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

I don't intend to dissuade anyone from reading Callahan. I've learned a couple things from him. Unfortunately I can't remember what those things are.

I expect I have a much higher opinion of data and a lower opinion of therapy than you, because I've found nothing of value from TLP.

Funny that the Chicago (where I live!) article states that the gangs formed a group called "Black United Voters of Chicago", but in the picture up top the tattooed person is, of course, rather melanin-deficient.

March 1, 2012 at 5:40 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Whoa, Will Wilkinson seems to be suggesting that eugenicists are better social scientists.

March 3, 2012 at 7:01 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

I am delighted Mordechai Melvindichter has returned to the much neglected topic of the American Austro-Prussian war of 1860-1865 because there is no other way to understand why the Northern elite became protestant-liberal AKA "Nanny State" between 1932 and 1945 without understanding why the pre-FDR elite was conservative - and no, the elite's shift to the left was not instigated by the Jews because the elite American Jews, the German Jews, were conservative from 1865 and a bit into the 1950's.

But before I get into that, I must point out Rev. Dabney's essay,where he claims the South wanted to be good caretakers of the negro, is nonsense.

I concede it is true that the North was (and still is) more racist than the South and that Abraham "Bismarck" Lincoln's loathing for the black race rivaled that of any plantation owner.

I also concede the South's treatment of their slaves was generally much better than the treatment of slaves elsewhere in the America's. Case in point, America was able to stop importing slaves soon after the War of Secession because our slave population experienced natural population growth whereas the Spanish, French, and Portuguese colonialists in Latin America had to keep importing slaves because their slave populations were not naturally growing.

However, the South was only willing to be benefactors of the blacks up to a point.

If the CSA had either won the war or been allowed to secede by the North, it is highly likely that the newly freed South would have expelled most or all of their black population once the South's industrialization began to catch up with the North's industrialization.

In the end, the moral issue of slavery is just a smokescreen - for both Northerners and Southerners - to hide the fact the war was caused by economic conflict of interests, not the morality of holding slaves.

The North and South fought the war because it was in the interests of the industrial protectionist North to keep the pro-free trade South from seceding because a free CSA would have flooded North America with British, French, and German goods.

In addition, the CSA was also hell bent on expanding slavery into the West - an economic objective that was fiercely opposed by Free Soil whites.

The motivations for the war were similar to those that led to the Austro-Prussian war of 1866 - Protestant Prussia fought Catholic Austria for Control of the Western German city states because the German West was highly developed. Likewise, the Union fought the CSA for control of the American West because the American West had the potential to be developed.

Neither the Union nor the CSA was fighting over moral objections (or moral support) over black slavery, and neither was either side liberal. The war was a contest between two conservative visions of America; Hamiltonian capitalism vs Jeffersonian capitalism.

March 5, 2012 at 11:37 AM  
Blogger Mitchell said...

I just had a thought: could the North's subjugation of the South be regarded as a prototype for the USA's 20th-century global empire of democracy? Maybe this is an obvious subtext of the discussion but I must have missed any overt attempt to develop this theme...

March 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM  
Blogger Debra said...

I wonder what the original French sounds like ? I could read it.. but am not inspired to do so.
The author's tone rather resembles Adolf's in certain respects.
Where melancholic despair takes you unless you do not manage to find.. WISDOM.
The world has ever been so before us...
The curse of consciousness ?
Interesting material by Dabney.
When we condescendingly, and patronizingly criticize it, our own terrible prejudices become so much more apparent..
Like work for money=freedom ?
Isn't it odd how each new... IDEAL becomes an imperative, and freedom keeps slip sliding away ?

March 6, 2012 at 7:20 AM  
Blogger Debra said...

Undiscovered Jew, don't make the fatal mistake of idolatry of filthy lucre, for example, in imagining that ONLY financial/economic interests set off wars/conflicts.
For the time being, at least, we are still more complicated than that.
In spite of constantly beating on the drum and PROMOTING idolatry of filthy lucre, while moaning and wringing our hands about it. (You, I presume, are well equipped to know what I am talking about here.)

March 6, 2012 at 7:25 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

In what sense is Jeffersonian Capitalism conservative? In what sense is the Hamiltonian system conservative?

Prussia was obviously very influential among the post civil war ruling class, who adopted their education system and much of their philosophy. Prussia's conscription system apparently influenced Bellamy's utopianism. He called it, "The Religion of Solidarity". Apparently a whole class of American's were prepared for this kind of scientific, Hegelian, Christian, state-capitalism. Just about all of the related social movements of the 1890s, Bellamyism and theosophy, the Social Gospel, the efficiency movement, the charitable trusts, feminism and eugenics, were influenced by Prussianism.

March 6, 2012 at 8:02 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

I have no doubt that if he could keep his job, Mr. Wilkinson would whole-heartedly endorse eugenics. But he gives voice to the required doubts at the end (while denouncing wrongthink among certain unnamed right wingers as a bonus). For what it's worth, I reject eugenics as government policy also, but not just because I hate Nazi's and like my job.

That's one of your more interesting little pedantic hints, but like Debra I think your relentless reductionism is misleading, and like Josh I find your violent misuse of political taxonomy tiresome and mendacious.

Sounds like the ennui may kill you any day now. I hope you pull through, though I can't really blame you for not finding the translation inspiring. And who criticized Danby? How childish of us to imagine that paying slaves to work instead of using them as tools was an improvement from their point of view (yet we're the one's who make an idol of lucre?). Don't we know that true fulfillment only comes from working for yourself on your own property and enjoying the fruits of your labor therein?

How does theosophy figure on that list? It seems to me that as demented as they were, they believed in the reality of something beyond human capacity, an is that no ought could change. They thought they could tap into this reality and derive some power to maybe bring some of those oughts into being, but they knew man could not do this as he was (and still is). The progressives, on the other hand, believed the righteousness of their cause guaranteed their triumph (see the zeitgeist), and also demonstrated the wickedness of their foes, allowing them to destroy them by any means with a clean conscience. And TUJ, I know, there were many, maybe even most, who jumped on the bandwagon for the lucre. It has ever been thus. But people are strange things, and many need to tell themselves something to sleep at night.

March 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Rather than "Jeffersonian capitalism" vs. "Hamltonian capitalism," the economic conflict between North and South can be more simply characterised as agricultural vs. industrial/financial interests. John Taylor of Caroline saw this clearly as early as the period 1810-14, in which he wrote the essays gathered in his volume "Arator" (first published in collected form in 1818).

To Taylor, the "capitalist" was always a rent-seeker, striving to enrich himself by political influence, while the farmer sought only to benefit by his own efforts. He wrote:

"Monarchies and aristocracies, being founded in the principle of distributing wealth by law, can only subsist by frauds and deceptions to dupe ignorance into such an opinion, that such distributions are intended for its benefit; but in genuine republics, founded on the principle of leaving wealth to be distributed by merit and industry, these treacheries of government are treasons against nations.

"They substitute the principle which constitutes an aristocracy, for the principle which constitutes a true republic; strike with a fatal ignorance, or a sordid malignity, at the heart of the political system; and effect a fraudulent and treasonable revolution.

"My fellow laborers, mechanical or agricultural, let us never be deluded into an opinion, that a distribution of wealth by the government or by law, will advance our interest. We are the least successful courtiers of any rank in society, and of course have the worst prospect of sharing in any species of wealth, bestowed by governments...

"The interest of labour covers every national majority, and every legal bounty is paid by labour. This interest cannot receive legal bounties, because there cannot exist a treasury for their payment. The utmost boon with which government can endow it, is the enjoyment of that portion of its own earning, which the public good can spare. Whenever bounties are pretended to be bestowed on labour, by privileges to feudal barons to defend it, to bishops to save it, or to capitalists or bankers to enrich it, an aristocratical order is unavoidably erected to pilfer and enslave it; because though majorities cannot be enriched or ennobled by bounties or privileges, minorities can; and these bounties or privileges must of course settle, not against, but conformably with the laws of nature, both moral and physical.

"...(W)e got rid of tythes, and now we clasp banks, patronage, and protecting duties to our bosoms. Ten per centum upon labour was paid to a priesthood, forming a body of men which extended knowledge, and cultivated good morals, as some compensation for forming into a legal faction, guided by the spirit of encroachment upon the rights and property of the majority. Forty per centum is now paid on our labour, to a legal faction guided by the same spirit, and pretending to no religion, to no morality, and to no patriotism, except to the religion, morality, and patriotism of making itself daily richer, which says it will enrich the nation, just as the self same faction has enriched England..."

It is worth remembering that the author of this passionate denunciation of capitalism was among the most socially prominent men in the Commonwealth of Virginia, one of its United States senators, its leading legal practitioner, the owner of "several plantations, thousands of undeveloped acres in western Kentucky, and over one hundred and fifty slaves" (M.E. Bradford, introduction to the 1977 edition of "Arator").

March 6, 2012 at 1:46 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

I just had a thought: could the North's subjugation of the South be regarded as a prototype for the USA's 20th-century global empire of democracy? Maybe this is an obvious subtext of the discussion but I must have missed any overt attempt to develop this theme...


The North's subjugation of the South was consistent with the wars of consolidation of the second half of the 19th century when the European royalist powers adopted nationalism and royalist centralization.

The leaders of the "Consolidation Wars", so to speak, included Garibaldi, Bismarck, Tsarist Pan-Slavism, and Greece's territorial war with Turkey in the early 20th Century to carve out a "Greater Greece" out of the Western end of the collapsing Ottoman Empire.

March 6, 2012 at 6:33 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...


The Civil War was viewed by 19th Century European nationalists as an act of Anglo "Anschluss".

In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler himself identified with Lincoln's view that the states role was to serve the Union and drew analogies between Abe's repression of states rights with Bismarck's war on the rights of smaller German jurisdictions.

And who else on this egregious blog has more historical and political credibility than Adolf Hitler?

Behold the pro-Lincoln and pro-Union Adolf:

In one of Lew's July 19 posts he noted that Hitler was pro-Lincoln and pro-Union. Indeed he was: in Mein Kampf he invoked Lincoln's anti-states' rights argument from his First Inaugural Address to make his own case against states' rights in Germany.

It's also worth noting that shortly after his reelection in 1864 Lincoln received a gushing letter of praise and congratulation from Karl Marx, another huge fan. The letter can be found in any number of Marx archives on the internet.

And as Edmund Wilson wrote in his book, Patriotic Gore: Essays on the Civil War, Lincoln, Bismark and Lenin did more than any other individuals in their respective countries to introduce centralized governmental power and bureaucracy.

I am only suggesting that Jaffa's smart aleck remark is historically backwards: Hitler was a consolidationist, just like Jaffa. Hitler understood all too well that the surest way to establish dictatorial government was to concentrate power at the center; Jaffa has never learned this lesson.


On page 566 of the 1999 Mariner/Houghton Mifflin edition of Mein Kampf Hitler clearly expresses the Lincoln/Jaffa view: "[T]he individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states."

This is consistent with the argument put forth in Lincoln's First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861) where he said: "[T]he Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence . . . by the Articles of Confederation in 1778 . . . and establishing the Constitution. . . . It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union . . ." Jaffa has spent a lifetime repeating this theory.

March 6, 2012 at 6:45 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...


Hitler (p. 567) mocked what he called "so-called sovereign states" in Germany because they stood in the way of a centralized Reich with their "impotence" and "fragmentation." Such impotence and fragmentation of government was purposely designed by some of the American founders precisely because they wanted to limit the powers of the central government.

Hitler praises Otto von Bismarck for proving "the greatness of his statesmanship" by gradually diminishing the sovereignty of the German states and centralizing governmental power in Germany. This was a most welcome development, Hitler wrote, since the power of the central state in Germany was supposedly threatened by "the struggle between federalism and centralization so shrewdly propagated by the Jews in 1919-20-21 and afterward . . ." (p. 565). Federalism is "a league of sovereign states which ban together of their own free will, on the strength of their sovereignty" to cede some (but not all) of their sovereignty to form "the common federation" (p. 566). Hitler was violently opposed to such a system.

But Bismarck did not go nearly far enough in destroying states' rights, said Hitler. "And so today this state, for the sake of its own existence, is obliged to curtail the sovereign rights of the individual provinces more and more, not only out of general material considerations, but from ideal considerations as well" (p. 572). Thus, a rule "basic for us National Socialists is derived: A powerful national Reich . . ." (emphasis in original, p. 572).

March 6, 2012 at 6:45 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...


Undiscovered Jew, don't make the fatal mistake of idolatry of filthy lucre, for example, in imagining that ONLY financial/economic interests set off wars/conflicts.

I never said otherwise, I was only speaking about the causes of the US Civil War.

In what sense is Jeffersonian Capitalism conservative? In what sense is the Hamiltonian system conservative?

Capitalism is conserative in the American/Protestant context because the founding fathers created a government that would serve the business interests of wealthy land owners - why else were the founders so keen on the idea of only giving the right to vote to wealthier landowners?

The US government was conceived by both the Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians as a vehicle for wealthy white businessmen, and it was a glorious free market paradise indeed from 1787 to 1932.

After 1932, FDR corrupted the government by turning white businessmen into slaves for the DC bureaucratic apparatus/Civil Service/Cathedral, although Ronald Reagan succeeded to some extent with his Lincoln/Capitalist insurgency in the 1980s against the FDR/Bureaucratic/Civil Service establishment.

Back to the Civil War, the Jeffersonians wanted America to be a business paradise for regional landowners. To protect regional bussiness interests, the Jeffersonians favored delegating as much government power to the states as possible.

The Hamiltonian conservatives (best exemplified by Lincoln) felt Northern businessmen would have their economic intersts best protected by a National government that would promote continent wide capitalism and a nationwide pro-business industrial policy.

Ultimately, the Hamiltonians won in the 1860s and the Guilded Age Republican industrial policy set off America's spectacular economic development from 1865 to the Depression.

March 6, 2012 at 7:16 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Prussia was obviously very influential among the post civil war ruling class, who adopted their education system and much of their philosophy. Prussia's conscription system apparently influenced Bellamy's utopianism. He called it, "The Religion of Solidarity". Apparently a whole class of American's were prepared for this kind of scientific, Hegelian, Christian, state-capitalism.

Although Prussia was a conservative power, Bismarck adopted Conscription (which was previously viewed by European royals as a leftist idea because Conscription was originally used by the French Jacobins during their disastrous French Revolutionary Wars) and moderate socialism to try and take away some of the more popular positions of the radical socialist left and incorporate those ideas with the European royalist right.

Prior to Bismarck, Metternich had suggested the Concert of Europe outlaw conscription because Metternich feared conscription would be used to promote ethnic nationalism which would destabilize the multiethnic European powers, especially Metternich's Austria.

However, Bismarck was himself a consolidationist conservative, however much may have differed from Westphalian conservatives such as Metternich and Castlereagh.

March 6, 2012 at 7:24 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

And TUJ, I know, there were many, maybe even most, who jumped on the bandwagon for the lucre. It has ever been thus. But people are strange things, and many need to tell themselves something to sleep at night.

This is true, but it doesn't change the fact pre-FDR American politics becomes much easier to understand if you understand the economic motivations between various American political factions - something that has been completely lost to those who only view American politics from the perspective of slavery.

March 6, 2012 at 7:31 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Rather than "Jeffersonian capitalism" vs. "Hamltonian capitalism," the economic conflict between North and South can be more simply characterised as agricultural vs. industrial/financial interests.

Of course it can be viewed as an agricultural vs. industrial conflict of interest with Jeffersonians representing the agriculturalists and Hamiltonians representing industrial corporatists.

In fact, the very economic characteristics of agricultural based economics vs. industrial based economics helps explain why Jeffersonians viewed the role of the federal government so differently.

Hamiltonian industrialists supported a more "nationalist" economic industrial policy because they faced stiffer economic competition from an industrializing and nationalizing Europe.

The Agrarian South, by contrast, was more interested in regional economic conditions, and hence they took to the idea the Union should defer to regional state interests.

March 6, 2012 at 7:41 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

While no movement fails to conserve *something* the Jeffersonian movements central unity was a shared vision of a radically remade world based on the sovereignty of the people, anti-heirarchy, and anti-clericalism. This rhetoric had consequences that led to the end of the congressional caucus, the creation of party conventions and expanded suffrage, the bribery and flattery of the common man, which led to a steady movement away from traditional standards morality. But, it was done by white people, so I suppose it was conservative.

March 7, 2012 at 8:52 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

The difference between the U.S civil war and the Austro-Prussian war was that the former involved one region seceding and the other fighting to keep it within a political unit, while the latter was intended to prevent one country from joining a new political unit. I don't know much about the economy of Austria though, was it really much more agrarian than Prussia's?

March 8, 2012 at 7:20 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

While no movement fails to conserve *something* the Jeffersonian movements central unity was a shared vision of a radically remade world based on the sovereignty of the people, anti-heirarchy, and anti-clericalism.

Jefferson, and most of the founders in general, believed in a meritocratic aristocracy where the sovereignty of wealthy landowners and that the government would serve the wealthy.

American conservatism (both the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian flavors) is rule by wealthy businessmen. Period.

Apparently, you don't feel free Jeffersonian market corporatism of the 1776-1860 and Hamiltonian* nationalist corporatism from 1865-1932 are conservative.


Just as the iPad comes in only two colors, black or white, American politics comes in only two flavors Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian capitalism, or Wilsonian/FDR nanny state socialism.

I know the American conservative tradition isn't as satisfying as, say, the Carolingian or Hapsburg governing traditions, but that's all American conservatism really amounts to, having government serve business interests.

When Calvin Coolidge (as good a Lincoln structure functionary as there ever was) said "The business of America is business" he was simply stating the truth - the American government - as understood by both Jefferson and Hamilton - is supposed to be nothing more than an extended political organ of American capitalism in exactly the same way the German Labor Front was nothing more than an extended political organ of the Nazi party.

The sin of FDR and the man who would have been FDR (Woodrow Wilson) was they perverted the American governing structure by establishing a public Civil Service/Cathedral feedback loop that is trying enslave the capitalist sector.

* Btw, I consider myself to be a Hamilton/Lincoln/Coolidge/Corporatist conservative because there is no other viable political structure that could possibly stand a chance against the FDR Civil Service.

To restore American conservatism, one must be trained by the Sith Lord, Abraham Lincoln, himself because Lincoln - the Corporate Consolidationist - is the only type of American conservative there ever will be.

The other Protestant Conservative Sith Lord, TJeff, was liquidated during the unfortunate events of 1860-1865. Alas, you employ the dark powers of the Sith Lord you have, not the Sith Lord you want.

March 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

''Conservatives'' in America have no actual platform. I don't think they have since the death of Robert Taft, frankly, and by the time he shuffled off this mortal coil, the Old Right coalition of Hamiltonian isolationists, agrarian Romantics, and Jeffersonian nativists had been essentially defanged by the relentless assault of FDR, Frankfurter and cronies. Really, as Murray Rothbard pointed out, the GOP is simply a party of military capitalism and is devoid of a political bent - the exception being Nixon's effort to give real political legs to the post-1964 new coalition of White voters but we all know how the Jews and their shabbos goy fellow travelers responded to that effort.

So in essence America has a party that is a defense industry cipher, recently animated by Zionist ideologues, that claims it is interested in public morals because it trots out shrill church ladies like Bachmann who finger wag over things like bad language and sexual hygiene and faux Catholics like Santorum who speak incessantly of ''family values'' - which in reality translates to a cloying lifestyle preference for a lesser stage of alienation (nuclear family in isolation) in lieu of a greater stage of alienation (unfettered expressive individualism and state promoted sodomy).

A party that is committed to guarding public morals looks like the NSDAP or Hezbollah - pious men under arms enforcing the natural order. There really isn't a middle ground in the modern state on these kinds of questions.

March 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

My response to TGGP was deleted by a malfunctioning Google algorithm so let's try this one more time.

The difference between the U.S civil war and the Austro-Prussian war was that the former involved one region seceding and the other fighting to keep it within a political unit, while the latter was intended to prevent one country from joining a new political unit.

I don't agree. The two sides were fighting over the future development of the Western Frontier. Since I've already explained the North's motivations for war, I'll take a look at the South's.

The South was not fighting for an inferred constitutional right to secede.

The South was fighting to expand slavery into the frontier. The North (including candidate Lincoln) was willing to allow slavery to continue in the South on the condition slavery did not go beyond the South.

The South ultimately provoked the war by making completely unreasonable demands that slavery be expanded beyond the old Missouri Compromise borders and then by attacking Union forts.

It was only after the North refused further expansion of slavery that the South decided secede and then provoked the North further by attacking Union forces.

Ultimately, it was the South that brought the war down upon itself for the sake of expanding an economic system that even slave owners knew would be rendered obsolete by technology.

But the South would not have seceded if their demands for slavery in the frontier had been accepted by the Republicans. Secession was simply a convenience, not a sacred constitutional principal, any pro-CSA arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.

I don't know much about the economy of Austria though, was it really much more agrarian than Prussia's?

Austria's economic sophistication varied quite a bit by region.

In 1866, the German and Bohemian/Central European portions of Austria were economically developed in cosmopolitan sense, but they may not have been as industrial focused as Prussia's. Vienna was more known as ritzy center of cosmopolitanism, modernity, and European high culture - and not machinery.

The poorer Eastern European regions of the Empire were still agriculture-centric, but I don't get the sense the agricultural-industrial differences between Austria and Prussia in 1866 was quite as stark as the agricultural-industrial differences between the North and South of 1860.

March 10, 2012 at 8:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

''Conservatives'' in America have no actual platform. I don't think they have since the death of Robert Taft, frankly, and by the time he shuffled off this mortal coil, the Old Right coalition of Hamiltonian isolationists, agrarian Romantics, and Jeffersonian nativists had been essentially defanged by the relentless assault of FDR, Frankfurter and cronies.

Just remember that the South was the most pro-war part of the country prior to Pearl Harbor. It didn't have a single AFC chapter. The anti-interventionist movement was composed of far more than the Old Right-but you weren't Old Right if you weren't anti-interventionist.

March 12, 2012 at 9:29 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

TLP ain't just about narcissism. Check it:

Interesting little bit on the Oregon constitution found on la Wik after reading the first:

"The vote on slavery was 2,645 to allow slavery and 7,727 to make it illegal, and the vote to make it illegal for Blacks to live in the state was 8,640 to ban them and 1,081 to allow them to live in the state."

Anti-slavery != pro-black people wins again.

March 13, 2012 at 6:56 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

I referenced the anti-black beliefs of anti-slavery forces as part of my argument here, discussing why we regard Jim Crow as worse than immigration restriction.

March 13, 2012 at 11:06 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

I am pressed for time, but I shall return with more wisdom in the comments tomorrow.

However, I want to point out that the above quotes concerning Hitler's view that the US Unification war was a contest over competing conservative political organizing structures - and certainly not the morality of slavery - was not particular to Hitler. Rather, this was the mainstream opinion of just about every 19th Century European politician.

March 15, 2012 at 8:44 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Anti-slavery != pro-black people wins again.

I referenced the anti-black beliefs of anti-slavery forces as part of my argument here, discussing why we regard Jim Crow as worse than immigration restriction.

Words from the Great Conglomerator himself:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Abraham Lincoln ~ September 18, 1858

March 15, 2012 at 8:50 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

If you have any pretensions whatever to the condition of a SWPL in good standing, it would be incumbent on you to view this masterpiece of the ancien regime:

March 17, 2012 at 12:06 AM  
Blogger Debra said...

Hey, Undiscovered Jew, I definitely suggest that you read "The Quiet American", if you have not already read it.. Graham Greene ?
It has some very nice insights into the big difference between U.S. culture and attitudes, and European ones.
Was Adolf Hitler a closet American ?
Dictators are so much less classy than kings.
Not to mention the fact that they don't have a religious ? ideological ? leg to stand on...
It seems to me that the centralized, authoritarian nation state was already pretty much in place under Louis XIV, wasn't it ?
Maybe, just maybe, 19th century European and American nationalism runs right back to the tremendous opposition evident in the forces involved in the French Revolution... substituting "liberté/égalité/fraternité" for "The King, The Church, The nation ? country ?".
Those... ABSTRACT ideas... they are SO abstract, I think...

March 19, 2012 at 3:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wnat moAR


March 20, 2012 at 10:57 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

I had heard the name "Edmund Wilson" before and thought he was just a standard boring mid 20th century Marxist literary figure. I didn't know one of his most famous works is a very politically incorrect (by modern standards) account of the Civil War. I suppose it would seem more normal to Steve Sailer, who doesn't find Robert Redford's sympathies for an executed accused accomplice of John Wilkes Booth as being that unusual for someone of that generation.

March 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home