the alt-right

just stupid idle stoner thoughts but i feel like i could cobble together a more coherent WS ideology than all of these morons. it reminds me of the alexander roda-roda quote "Anti-Semitism could really amount to something if the Jews would just take charge of it." maybe that's what enoch and his 'diversity officer' wife were up to.

Mordy otm.

From the looks of it, the "alt right" may create a lot of memes and pollute social media, but the bulk of Trump fanatics are from the other wing of the far right - the so-called "Patriot" movement, which is a lot bigger and which the media doesn't really cover. Those people can be every bit as racist.

Don't know how these guys keep it up, seems like a lot of work being such an asshole and making up crazy theories.

Everybody's gotta have a hobby.

The irony of Buzzfeed highlighting this will not have been missed but:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-media-is-falling-all-over-itself-to-cover-the-deplorabal?utm_term=.kgDLG9epN#.luODodLwm

https://mobile.twitter.com/joeyayoub/status/822597804430426113

A+

The one set to "Born in the USA" is quality too

http://twitter.com/prttybadtweeter/status/822620848897069056

Can someone make a playlist please? I can't find the Lethal Bizzle one somebody mentioned elsewhere, I found The Producers and Slayer though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW2TvVM20zE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6G4wljB4jE

Most are gifs i think.

Lethal Bizzle: https://twitter.com/mtthwtknsn/status/822706370554241024

RATM: https://twitter.com/Jacqueimo/status/822644112218353664

This one is quite impressive: https://twitter.com/tristandross/status/822849333141917698

unlike what most internet milquetoasts think the problem w/ punching richard spencer isn't that it's violence but that it really isn't violent enough

idk crying all over the internet about being cuffed on the ear is pretty bad optics for anyone trying to be taken seriously as the potential leader of a race war.

Nah, I like the idea of living in a world where the occasional sucker punch captured on video is sufficient to remind us of the cathartic qualities of violence and its futility at the same time

preferably always after the punchee begins explaining pepe the frog

idk crying all over the internet about being cuffed on the ear is [/s]pretty bad optics for anyone trying to be taken seriously as the potential leader of a race war.[/s]

every bully ever.

a personal favorite: https://twitter.com/donswaynos/status/822806687207870464

this video has inspired me and i'm not even joking

i didn't know hitlers were this accessible and it looks like that antifa straight up peeled and got away with it

i read a wikihow article about how to punch better tonight

lolololol

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/behind-the-internets-dark-anti-democracy-movement/516243/

this is "kantbot" ranting in times square about trump and german idealism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOk6HB609po

it's kinda wild that a philosophy of govt (authoritarianism/monarchism) that was the predominant one throughout every culture in the world for thousands of years is so marginal now that its adherents are seen as weird kooks [and apparently the most powerful man in the United States]. presumably some of this has to do w/ complete hegemony the cathedral has over the ideological overton window bc i imagine the idea that democracy is a failure and people need a strong leader to make decisions for them is probably much more popular among citizens than it appears. (and an idea so simple and at one time so omnipresent doesn't really need moldbug and nick land to write treatises justifying it in the modern world.)

I really don't think that idea was ever omnipresent. Took a heck of a lot of violence to stamp out all other ideas all the time.

how is it arguable that monarchism/authoritarianism has been the most common form of government in human history

lol @ that tumblr in the article.. what a bunch of boring dinks http://post-anathema.tumblr.com/

Video was hilarious. Is that really Kantbot?

kurt otm these guys sound as delusional and cloistered as the worst lefty academic

how is it arguable that monarchism/authoritarianism has been the most common form of government in human history

― Οὖτις, 10. februar 2017 22:57 (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That's not what I'm arguing at all. But I'm saying that that was the case, not because most people wanted it to, but through incredible violence. Most Trump voters don't want an authoritarian leader to take care of them as well. They want him to take care of *those people*, you know.

I really don't think that idea was ever omnipresent. Took a heck of a lot of violence to stamp out all other ideas all the time.

it's interesting bc during the english civil war by far the predominant revolutionary perspective was monarchist w/ reform and those who were anti-monarchy were the edgy kooks marginalized from the central discourse. even during the french revolution it takes some time to go from constitutional monarchy to no monarchy (and even then they couldn't help but get back in bed w/ an authoritarian almost immediately, and then following him straight back to the monarchy)> and the french revolution is really the genesis in western civ of things like universal emancipation going mainstream! i've been thinking a bit about this recently but it seems pretty evident that there was a political breakthrough in terms of our expectations for the correct organization of society that took a long time to ferment before hitting a critical mass. i always wondered what the deal was with brunelleschi's innovation in perspective - like how could it be that in thousands and thousands of years of human art no one put it together and then suddenly in the 15th century this guy figures it out and boom now a five year old can draw a horizon. (iirc martin jay writes about this kind of breakthrough of human thought in... Songs of Experience i want to say?)

and now we can't go back (or at least not w/out, as Nick Land describes it, the sisyphean task of rolling back democracy) - the switch has been flipped.

---

the atlantic piece is kind of a shit article sadly proving the nrx ppl right - it treats them like a freak show when their ideas, while wrong, are worth engaging w/. i think i understand politics better today for having worked through some of moldbug's provocations and figuring out where they work and where they fail. at the v least i don't understand why ppl are into having their opinions regurgitated back to them - listening to things that agree w/ what you already believe, reading things you already believe, etc. isn't it boring engaging w/ work that you could produce yourself from scratch? i'd always prefer to read something i never could/would have written. (tho tbph nrx turns out to be pretty superficial once you scratch the initial insights about cultural hegemony - there isn't much /there/ there in terms of a real ideology. presumably one reason no one wants to be interviewed is bc v few of these ppl feel confident engaging in discourse that might challenge their beliefs / force them to convince an outsider. nick land seems bright enough tho and incidentally also seems to be the least personally attached to the ideology casting it more as an anticipation of where a segment of our population is heading - he predicted trump long before most ppl did and unlike scott adams he's not a complete moron.)

(nb after i first wrote this last paragraph half an hour ago i went back to the dark enlightenment piece and i want to modify this last bit at least bc i do think Land does identify to a large extent w/ this kind of neo-libertarianism but at the same time he's careful there to create space between what ppl want and what he believes which is left off the page - i think he considers a lot of the nrx project quixotic at best tho clearly he engages w/ it bc there's some kind of empathy/association there)

yr misreading Mordy Frederik - the idea was omnipresent = everybody knew what it was and understood it (whether they wanted it/consented to it is immaterial)

even during the french revolution it takes some time to go from constitutional monarchy to no monarchy (and even then they couldn't help but get back in bed w/ an authoritarian almost immediately, and then following him straight back to the monarchy)

This is a pretty inaccurate precis of the French Revolution tbh.

tbph probably most ppl didn't even consider that it was something you could want or not want or consent to etc since most ppl just lived within it like a fish in water. and like i mentioned the ppl who began to roll the boulder of emancipation down the hill took their time to get onboard w/ eliminating authoritarianism altogether. look sometime at all the democracy-skeptic quotes from the US founding fathers.

xp which part do you take exception to? it for sure started as a constitutional monarchy and from what i've read v few ppl in 1789 were thinking that they were going to abolish the monarchy altogether. or do u take exception to calling the rise of napoleon jumping back into bed w/ an authoritarian?

like obv this stuff was much more in the air in 1789 bc this is what the revolution radicalizes into (even if it can't sustain it for v long), but for a more dramatic example look at the english revolution where even the break in monarchy ends up being a pseudo-authoritarian regime (complete w/ hereditary rule!) and ppl like the levelers and diggers are def marginalized compared to the ideologies on the minds of most ppl involved in the revolution.

I wasn't sure which authoritarian you were referring to tbh, I thought that might have been Robespierre, but, in any case it's pretty broad brush stuff to say 'they couldn't help but get back in bed w/ an authoritarian almost immediately'. Of course NOT ending up with Cromwell was what French revolutionaries were obsessed with up until they got shot of Robespierre.

right i didn't men robespierre i meant napoleon and then of course immediately following him they bring the bourbons back!

Well, that's France for you, never a dull moment!

But the thing is, the members of parliament in Britain weren't exactly serfs either, they were quite depended on the societal system as well. Go ask the peasants being squeezed by everyone above them whether or not they liked the system. There were republics and democracies in antiquity, who knows what on earth happened in Italy and Germany in the middle ages up through the renaissance. I don't buy the idea of democracy as a 'switch' - and it works both ways: the founding fathers were slaveowners, the French who wrote of the Rights of Man still wanted to keep Haiti as a slave system, and nobody thought women should be included. Distribution of power has been a gradual process, and it does go back and forth.

And I don't get why I'd need to read neo-reactionaries to read something different and provocative. I could read the historical classics for that. Rousseau rubs me the wrong way, as does Nietschze. Celine, d'Annunzio, de Sade. But what little I've read of moldbug has been so riddled with historical mistakes as to be useless.

who knows what on earth happened in Italy and Germany in the middle ages up through the renaissance.

yes who indeed wtf

"we may simply register strong agreement with the Marxist thesis that a vigorous and independent class of town dwellers has been an indespensable element in the growth of parliamentary democracy. No bourgeois, no democracy"

xp. yes, quite, lol

I seriously doubt even the most knowledgeable scholar can keep that shit straight ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

as usual, whatever point you are trying to make seems both incoherent and irrelevant

Perhaps it might help if you didn't pull one sentence out from the middle of it?

But the thing is, the members of parliament in Britain weren't exactly serfs either, they were quite depended on the societal system as well.

why is this relevant

Go ask the peasants being squeezed by everyone above them whether or not they liked the system

We can't, they're all dead and generally didn't leave behind twitter feeds.

There were republics and democracies in antiquity,

all of them involved strong heads of state and severely limited the franchise, and even then they tended to be the exception, not the rule, as forms of government. The French and American Revolutions built on these examples, but were also radical departures. This is fairly conventional wisdom.

who knows what on earth happened in Italy and Germany in the middle ages up through the renaissance

there are p clear (if complex) historical records of what forms of gov't existed in these places during this time. They did not have republics or democracies in any real functional sense.

I don't buy the idea of democracy as a 'switch' - and it works both ways: the founding fathers were slaveowners, the French who wrote of the Rights of Man still wanted to keep Haiti as a slave system, and nobody thought women should be included.

OK sure, in this respect they were v much like the republics/democracies of antiquity that they looked to for inspiration. But they *were* broader in terms of the voting franchise and various other enumerated rights. This is what Mordy was getting at by specifically tying the ideas of the french revolution to the (yes, revolutionary) idea of universal emancipation. Which was definitely not "mainstream" before then.

Distribution of power has been a gradual process, and it does go back and forth.

No one's really arguing this point. But you seem to want to jump on Mordy for positing the French Revolution as a significant turning point, even though it's undeniable that it was just based on how it affected other subsequent developments, how it impacted the US, etc. This stuff is v well documented, it isn't controversial.

Frederik will tear us apart, again ;_;

I seriously doubt even the most knowledgeable scholar can keep that shit straight ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

― Frederik B, Friday, February 10, 2017 10:54 PM (forty-one minutes ago)

lol at this

who even knows what quantum mechanics is, i seriously doubt even the most knowledgeable physicist can keep that stuff straight

Shakey, I think you're simplifying history. Massively. What Mordy was talking about wasn't just political history, but history of mentalities - and I have studied that, for years, the Annales shit, Roger Chartier, Carlo Ginzburg, etc. While the Revolutions are massive turning points, it's not as if they just all of a sudden made people think differently. But the people who drove them were, as you say, the ones who left twitter feeds. But what were the thoughts of the people in the many, many peasant revolts, or the millennial movements, or the religious 'fanatics' like the cathars?

When I've read the testimonies of medieval peasants - and is it really mostly 'testimonies', because they've mostly left written records from when they were dragged into court - it's so often surprising the open mindset they had. Which, of course, was why they got in trouble with the law to begin with.

I also kinda think most scholars of quantum mechanics would agree they still don't understand what it 'is' as much as what it 'does', btw ;)

Go ask the peasants being squeezed by everyone above them whether or not they liked the system

We can't, they're all dead and generally didn't leave behind twitter feeds.

― Οὖτις

thank christ for small favors