That Macafee video

If you are epileptic, do not watch this video from John Macafee. Do not watch it. In fact, don’t bother watching it at all. I can sum it up as the following : We must exit/ kill politics to become libertarians which is good and synonymous with technological process. People, can this be anymore wrong? At all?

Let us break this down a bit. We must end politics, how? By becoming libertarians. OK, how does this allow us to exit politics? Well, we all become our own government in effect, so that everyone is their own king, beholden to no one. …so everyone becomes a politician then? Right? So, the solution to ubiquitous politics, brought to us by classical liberalism, is to make everyone a politician. Hum, ok. That sounds like it should work. Let me proscribe some bloodletting for the gaping wound on your leg while we are at it. You can’t bleed if you have no more blood left, right? Makes sense.

Macafee, head over to the darkside to end politics. Drop the quackery.

A day in the life of the reactionary vampire.

The vampire sauntered down the spiral staircase humming Beethovan’s symphony number 9 to himself as he carried his copy of Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy. He reads it often when he feels to need to bare his fangs in uncontrollable reflexive mirth, chuckling in a raspy manner, as is his way. But today, he has other things on his mind, and he can’t help but feel a little reflective about the state of the world outside of his library, as he hears loud music emanating, pungently, from the house full of African looking “Syrian” refugees across the street. He remembers when it was inhabited by a family who would often go to picnic in the nearby park in smart, civilised attire. Ahh, but alas, no more. No one picnics in that park anymore. “Carlyle” he thinks to himself as he looks on the scene of devastation, now there was a human I could talk to, so few of them can see beneath the surface of their present fads and fashions to the electricity pulsing under the surface, crackling along the lines of the beneath the surface reality that forms the structure of things as they are.

Turning his head from the window to his bookcase lined with dusty tomes from floor to ceiling, he decided to reacquaint himself with his copy of The Later Day Pamphlets. He recalled the day he met Carlyle, with his wild beard and burning eyes. Talking with speed and passion of the collapse he could see. He was right of course, He had seen it himself for some time, but that one of the puny humans could see it with such clarity was astonishing. It was as if he was touched with the hand of the supernatural. He had an almost sixth sense. He reminded him of a young Frenchman named De Jouvenel he had met some years later whilst touring Europe as had done for so many centuries, each time the decay becoming more obvious to him, with the occasional bout of depraved savagery supplying entertainment and opportunities for easy hunting. He had seen Cologne ablaze in amber, ohh Cologne, and Berlin in rubbles with bedraggled people dragging carts, and before that he had seen Paris a mob filled murder orgy, the storming of the Bastille being like a memory from last week.

As he looked at the bookcase and back to the street, he shook his head and a smile drew across his face as he thought to himself how the puny humans had no idea what was happening, worse they thought it was the greatest thing ever, a veritable ascent into paradise. Most even considered the process a form of enlightenment, and when pressed to explain what was going on claimed it was a process of science, and then also a magic force called progress, or zeitgeist. At the thought, a low chuckle escaped his smiling face as he drifted across the room in one fluid movement.

Halting before the bookcase, he decided against reading today, that could wait, he needed music; he needed something cultured to scrub the pollution of the world outside from his mind. Taking his seat in front of his grand piano, ornately decorated, he began to play, he had gotten it during the riots of the French Revolution; so close to being broken into pieces for kindling. ‘Brahms, I need some Brahms’ and with that his hands flew as Hungarian Dance No5 filled the air and the library was transported out of the present. His mind now aflame as the pace of the music freed him from the London streets outside of his window. Visions of the magnificence of Paris, of Vienna, of Madrid filled his mind as he closed his eyes. Shining beacons of the height of civilisation, the people dancing in tune to the hum of industry and excellence. Now gone. He stopped playing abruptly. The thought of the Paris of the ZUS, London of the East End, the smoking ruins, the destruction was too much.

He had kept himself up-to-date with all of the political ideas, he had seen the spread of destruction. Words like liberalism, communism, conservatism were humorous to him, for he saw that the only words that really mattered were three Latin words that he rolled over in his head, again, and again; imperium in imperio, imperium in imperio….

He recalled how a long time ago, the kings of Europe, with whom he had mingled, began to surround themselves with the intellectuals and the rising classes of commoners. He could see it clearly now with the ages passing. At first it was a trickle, then a flood as the Kings and Queens jealously guarded their power against the nobility, and brought in the new wealthy, the lawyers, the intellectuals. How ridiculous they were. Descartes with his silly philosophy, the lunacy of Rousseau, the crazy ideas of the encyclopaedists, and as for the religious lunatics like Martin Luther…well. He could see the process, like gradual glaciations, creeping, bit, by bit, until it burst; a flood. The inmates took over the asylum, the monarchs could not halt what they started, they did not understand it, and Europe was ablaze. First, the crazy Americans who had exited with their cancerous ideas, then the French; then everyone. There was no magical progress to it. It was a disaster, a mistake. A mistake invited by the monarchs themselves, they fed the silly little imperium in imperioistas. Fed them as means to attack their enemies. Everyone can be free under the king! That Frenchman, what was his name again? Ahh De Jouvenel, he saw it too. Imperium in Imperio…

Imperium in imperio? what a silly concept, like worshiping cancer, and how like cancer this idea is to the humans. If the body is an analogy for society, imperium in imperio is rooting for cancer. Every puny human with anything intelligent to say of society once compared it to a body, with each section of society being specialised, differentiated and organised towards the same overall goal, each section having their own purpose. Aristotle saw this so wisely, these pretentious little Imperium in imperioistas, these liberals, conservatives, communists, alt-rightists: everyone now was an imperium in imperioista. Rooting for cancer, yes, cancer was the analogy. Where the cells of the body would be understandable in context to the organ, which was itself understandable to the body, the imperioistas saw the cells as divisible, separable, capable of existing independent of the body with their own personal telos- like cancer cells. All equal- like cancer cells. All undifferentiated- like cancer cells. All their own little kings; imperium in imperio. The cancer started in England, then spread to those colonies attached to the bounty of the New World. Carlyle saw it coming, saw the spreading chaos. America was given reprieve because of its wealth, but the day would come when the bill would be paid, and here it is. The cancer then spread back to Europe, until it was completely tumour infested by the time of that outbreak of barbarism the silly humans called the First World War. The last redoubts mopped up in the colonies of Africa and Asia after the Second bout of barbarism in the 1930s. Everyone was an imperium in imperioista now.

He saw, only too clearly, that there was one split, and only one that mattered- imperium in imperio. The humans? So few saw it, so few. The rest were busy making up new names for variations of the same thing. The insanity seemed to know no bounds. Every enemy of the concept was merely a complaint that it was not true imperium in imperio, the perversity of the situation being morbidly fascinating to him. He had no time for the labels they attached to themselves. But what fun it was, watching the best among them debasing themselves in worship to a zeitgeist of progress like a bunch of African tribespeople worshiping the sun, all the while knowing it was nothing more than a mindless process of centralised unsecure power battering society with cancer.

To preserve this idol of progress, they erected all sorts of bizarre systems. Republicanism, democracy, scientific government, rule by law. The litany of systems which could govern for the people to ensure that the cancer cells could operate independently, with each reaching their personal telos, was endless. Anything which denied this was squashed, obliterated, caste out as illegal, money came flowing to every new quack who could come up with a scheme for rule by system.Cancer or death was the cry, and they got both. Some it killed quick, some it kills slow. Every man a king now. Every man a cancer cell.

First Principles

There is an interesting post up on the Future Primeval site on the epistemic value of tradition, and its comparability to Bayesian inference. The post caught my eye because it matches with other things I have been reading, specifically Aristotle and the concept of Endoxa as utilized by Alistair MacIntyre for his conception of tradition. As his entry on the IEP page helpfully explains:

MacIntyre holds that his historicist, particularist critique of modernity is consistent with Thomism because of the way that he understands the acquisition of first principles. In chapter 10 (pp. 164-182), MacIntyre compares Thomas Aquinas’s account of the acquisition of first principles with those of Descartes, Hobbes, Hume, Bentham, and Kant. MacIntyre explains that according to Thomas Aquinas, individuals reach first principles through “a work of dialectical construction” (p. 174). For Thomas Aquinas, by questioning and examining one’s experience, one may eventually arrive at first principles, which one may then apply to the understanding of one’s questions and experience. Descartes and his successors, by contrast, along with certain “notable Thomists of the last hundred years” (p. 175), have proposed that philosophy begins from knowledge of some “set of necessarily true first principles which any truly rational person is able to evaluate as true” (p. 175). Thus for the moderns, philosophy is a technical rather than moral endeavor, while for the Thomist, whether one might recognize first principles or be able to apply them depends in part on one’s moral development (pp. 186-182).

The modern account of first principles justifies an approach to philosophy that rejects tradition. The modern liberal individualist approach is anti-traditional. It denies that our understanding is tradition-constituted and it denies that different cultures may differ in their standards of rationality and justice:

The standpoint of traditions is necessarily at odds with one of the central characteristics of cosmopolitan modernity: the confident belief that all cultural phenomena must be potentially translucent to understanding, that all texts must be capable of being translated into the language which the adherents of modernity speak to one another (p. 327)

Modernity does not see tradition as the key that unlocks moral and political understanding, but as a superfluous accumulation of opinions that tend to prejudice moral and political reasoning.

Although modernity rejects tradition as a method of moral and political enquiry, MacIntyre finds that it nevertheless bears all the characteristics of a moral and political tradition. MacIntyre identifies the peculiar standards of the liberal tradition in the latter part of chapter 17, and summarizes the story of the liberal tradition at the outset of chapter 18:

Liberalism, beginning as a repudiation of tradition in the name of abstract, universal principles of reason, turned itself into a politically embodied power, whose inability to bring its debates on the nature and context of those universal principles to a conclusion has had the unintended effect of transforming liberalism into a tradition (p. 349).

From MacIntyre’s perspective, there is no question of deciding whether or not to work within a tradition; everyone who struggles with practical, moral, and political questions simply does.

Can we not replace this “moral” development with the “prior experience” of the future primeval post, and arrive at the same conclusions – experience is vital in all fields for the individual to really understand, be this scientific or ethical, this experience can either be personal experience, or experience passed down through tradition/ Bayesian priors. But if we do this, then we find that we are working from an Aristotelian framework in which Phronesis is key, and we are directly rejecting modern philosophy. Also, is it not very clear from this that the (I love science!) scientific method and modern philosophy are egalitarianism at core? The character of the actor employing the tools is assumed to be irrelevant, as is their experience and knowledge, because they/ we are assumed to be able to see those first principles without tradition.

This tradition from the MacIntyre angle is fundamentally Aristotlean endoxa. A reasoning from generally accepted opinions, which is what traditions are, are they not? There are no magical first principles, nor any magical objective points of departure. You start from a set of experiences and established points, and then build from there, and reach Thomistic first principles. How did these generally accepted principals, these “priors” come about? Who knows, and who cares, you work with what you have and proceed from there. There are no magic universals which are the stock and trade of the Enlightenment ™ and modernity here.

(Bonus: Bayesian Marxism)

cultural marxist muppets

 has been raising questions about the rise of the new left and exactly how it came to be. A couple a of commentators have been providing interesting details of the geneology of cultural Marxism, but the discussion is flawed by a failure to appreciate that power dictates culture, not vice versa. This assumption leads people to assume that thinkers in the new left developed new concepts which then spread through some enlightening process (not clear how) and then warped society. The truth is more interesting, and it absolves Marxist to a great degree.

Marcus Cicero is recorded as saying that the sinews of war are infinite money, and this holds true for culture as well. When one looks at how cultural Marxist had such an overwhelming influence, we have to look at how they managed to fund their adventures, because without funding they could not do anything. They would just be whack jobs no one listened to. So who paid them? Short answer – the liberal elite.

There are vast conspiracy theories involving the liberal elite and Marxism, all hold treasure troves of information but apply a ridiculously flawed model to the information. The very same people funding the likes of Marcuse and the entire “Marxist” cadre of new left lunatics were basically liberals, progressives or ultra Calvinists. These liberals had a stock political theory which involved “liberty” and equality and market freedom. Just look at the real power behind who unleashed the new left and supplied their war with the sinews of infinite money, which was then used to push laws– The Rockefellers, McGreorge Bundy who was everywhere in the Kennedy government after going through the CFR elite (recall the Milner group), Alan Pifer (doesn’t even have his own wiki page, but has a really interesting entry under the Carnegie company), Moorfield Story the founder of the NAACP (along with a whole host of liberal Jews and other Brahmin –all liberal/ republican/ progressive/ reform etc.) the list goes on, and their lack of presence in the spot light is telling. Without these guys MLK is a preacher, Rosa Parks is some dumb woman sitting at the back of the bus, Marcuse is probably a high school teacher or bureaucrat.

These guys were not Marxists, and were not in some big conspiracy to push Marxism. Just read the republican drivel they wrote. They were gatekeepers pushing liberalism, but using Marxist” lunatic foot soldiers, just like they still doing using feral human foot soldiers in places like Fergusan. Want to drum up a mess to liberalise society for the proletariat revolution and attack those racists who oppose us? Hum, here is some money. Go get em! We need our “vibrant and tolerant” open societies. We need our world republic of free markets.

The Marxist and new left lunatics that get to be the public face of the liberal machine are an excellent camouflage. The only problem with this is that these people when funded like crazy then get into position of building their own little academic fiefs, and the thing starts going extra crazy. But even this problem becomes an opportunity, as you can still direct the nutters towards enemies of liberalism, even if it is over ever increasingly absurd concepts. The whole time the victims of this assault keep blaming “Marxists.”

It is pretty impressive.

This tells you that the new left was created by money being hosed at any idiot calling for “liberalism” no matter what their putative aims were. Who cares about that? Their jobs is to wreck things to free society, they were never going to take over. That’s not their role.

Response to Amerika Blog

Amerika blog has a post up about the alt-right swallowing up neoreaction which is interesting, but not because of the aim of the post. Apparently neoreaction is a salon and a philosophy, which does not make much sense to me, but neither does the rest of the post, and there are more interesting things to do than get bogged down with what neoreaction is. What really gets my attention are the following segments:

You will note that all of these overlap. For example, all favour Nationalism and strong hierarchy. Many favor aristocracy, such as monarchists, reactionaries and traditionalists. Some are nearly indistinguishable from one another, except for a fundamental idea or two, such as reactionaries and traditionalists. And so on. A complete definition of these is beyond this article.

And:

Within this realm, we might see Neoreaction as a response by the middle classes to the degeneration of their countries. The basic idea of Neoreaction is that we should treat government like a business, expect it to act like a business and limit it, and allow the dual forces of capitalism and free association to fix everything else. This is not far removed from the original American ideas of Thomas Jefferson, or even Jared Taylor’s notion that if we removed anti-discrimination law, this country might have a chance at survival.

And finally:

Your average Neoreactionary, like the middle class, wants to escape two things: the icky people who have now infested his society, and the government which has become so parasitic that it is difficult not to notice the daily blood drainage. He believes that a System can work, that the good bourgeois can form gated communities and get away from the icky people, and then the good life will return.”

The reason I find these segments funny is that they are utterly contradictory but demonstrate exactly my issue with neoreaction. Monarchism is non-nationalist, so how you can have monarchical nationalism is beyond me. One is based on authority flowing down, the other is based on imperium in imperio. This is made even more strange in the second of the quotes in which it is claimed that government should be like a business, but limited. Well, by who is it limited? And if they can limit it, then they are the government are they not? Or is this the shareholders? in which case why the “we should”? There is an evasiveness here that is typical, and I have mentioned that the concept of a constitutional sov corp is inherently retarded before.

The final paragraph is the icing on the cake, in that it is clearly outlining anti-government libertarianism, which is impossible to square with monarchism except in the overall spirit of obtaining liberty.

It is fairly simple, either you support imperium in imperio, or you don’t. Neoreaction as it stands supports it, which places the likes of Moldbug out of the fold, which is something that should really be discussed, and something I have been pointing out for a while. It is why articles that cover the whole Alt-right/ neoreaction fiasco have such a hard time making sense of it all. Land, the neoreaction blogsphere, the alt-right, WN, identarians etc. etc. all veer into imperium in imperio, whilst Moldbug and about half a dozen people (myself included) veer away from it.

Power of culture

Spandrell has a couple of posts positing that a new religion is needed as a means to head off the pending Islamisation of the west. Now, whilst I share his concerns about the shocking and stupid importation of populations more fecund then the host population, I disagree with absolutely everything else he wrote.

The first point of disagreement is with his conception of epistemic advantage. I don’t buy it. Ideas don’t win because they convince with their brilliant truth. There is a seriously suspect anthropology at work under that assumption, which fails to take into account actual events. I will go further and make the claim that there is a modernist liberal anthropology at work there which is based on liberal concepts of human interaction.

In reality, what succeeds is not premised on epistemic value, that is transparently false. What succeeds is what is of value to power systems within which they exist. In the first of the recent posts, Spandrell uses the example of the rise of Christianity. Now I have little knowledge of early Christianity, but given I hold to the premise that power determines culture, my first act was to have a look around the literature to see if The Iron Law of Rebellious Tools/ Moldbug’s para-alliance was applicable. It looks like it is applicable, and I would be interested to hear from anyone with a better grasp of the situation. There is an interesting looking book with the title “Constantine and the Bishops” by H.A.Drake which seems to indicate that Christianity was functionally controlled by bishops outside of the traditional Roman power structure who obtained Imperial grace as useful allies. There are even claims that power in the form of the emperor acted on which strains of Christianity were successful:

“His concern for order and stability within the empire also led him to intervene in internal Christian quarrels, the two most important of which were those involving the Arian heresy in the East and the Donatist schism in North Africa. Tracing how Constantine dealt with the two cases, Drake demonstrates that in both “he showed a consistent tendency to come down on the side of Christians who would be inclusive ” (p. 250). In dealing with Donatist rigorists, unyielding Arians, and purist Nicene fathers, Drake concludes, “Constantine favored not only peace and harmony but also inclusiveness and flexibility” (p. 271). The argument is that Constantine’s agenda was for “a moderate and inclusive Christianity, who would in turn be part of a coalition of Christians and pagans united behind a policy that provided a religiously neutral public space” (Ibid.). What happened in the later years of his reign, according to Drake, is that “Constantine lost control of the agenda, and, ultimately, … the message” (p. 272).

It would look to me as if we have unsecure power acting on culture for its own logical needs. It does not take a great leap of imagination to transport this mechanism to the present day, and look at the morphing of Christianity into tolerant, inclusive and flexible Unitarianism. Do you get Jim Jones without the power within which he operates supporting him? I don’t think so. Power dictates culture, culture does not dictate power.

Will the elite convert en-masse to Islam? no. If we all developed a sophisticated religion with all the bells and whistles we thought would help, would that help? no. Power would act on it to turn it inclusive, flexible and tolerant. This can be achieved by simply making any version of the religion which was not tolerant, illegal. This would occasion “moderates” who would make the religion “moderate” so that it could be practiced. These moderates would mysteriously find themselves wildly successful and flush with grants. Obviously because they have an epistemic advantage over the non-inclusive branches…

Nothing in politics wins because it was clearly true or patently more correct. Power determines it.

(I will leave comments open for any recommendations for books)