1.26.2014

Anissimov on Monarchy; Why Wait?

Clarifications on Monarchy
Do I advocate turning the United States into a single monarchy? No; as I described in an earlier post, I’d rather see it break up into five or six parts, and for some or all of these parts to transition to monarchy.
Do I think that monarchy could be taken seriously again as a form of government in the near future? I absolutely do. Neoreactionary arguments in favor of monarchy have already struck a chord among the libertarian and conservative right, and the chatter—and web traffic—is quickly growing every day. People realize that the current system isn’t working.
Only five percent of Americans think that the American system of government works well enough to need no changes, and 51% think it needs either “significant or total change”. Based on my understanding of history, populist movements towards “total change” tend to end in Communism or Fascism, and I’d much rather it end in monarchy. This may mean importing a prince from elsewhere to rule over a part of the United States. It sounds crazy to the democratic American mind, but this system of government was perfectly normal for over 100 million Europeans just a century ago. The Republic is the ephemeral phenomena, not monarchy. We can break apart the United States and have a monarchy tomorrow if enough people want it. A few articulate people arguing in its favor from a position of sincerity can have a tremendous impact.
We can have a King today if we want one.

In May I posted:  Have you heard of Aga Khan?


Forbes describes the Aga Khan as one of the world's ten richest royals with an estimated net worth of $800 million USD (2010). Additionally he is unique among the richest royals as he does not preside over a geographic territory.[1] He owns hundreds of racehorses, valuable stud farms, an exclusive yacht club on Sardinia,[19] a private island in the Bahamas, two Bombardier jets, a 12-seat helicopter,[20] a £100 million high speed yacht named after his prize racehorse,[21] and several estates around the world, including an estate called Aiglemont in the town of Gouvieux, France, north of Paris. His philanthropic institutions, funded by his followers, spend more than $600 million per year – primarily in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.[22] In 2007, after an interview with the Aga Khan, G. Pascal Zachary, of the The New York Times, wrote, "Part of the Aga Khan's personal wealth [used by him and his family], which his advisers say exceeds $1 billion [USD], comes from a dizzyingly complex system of tithes[23] that some of the world's 15 million Ismaili Muslims pay him each year [one of which is called dasond,[23][24] which is at least 12.5% of each Nizari Ismaili's gross[23] annual income] – an amount that he will not disclose but which may reach hundreds of millions of dollars annually."[6]
A king is not needed today. But there are lots of organizations that take on quasi-governmental roles, particularly in the modern age when government has taken over so much of society.

Recently Anissimov also posted:
1) Group of ~100 wealthy, well-connected people to be founders of a new country, like the Constitutional Congress.

2) Group of 10,000+ people who actually want to form a new country or will at least go along with it happily. Ideally more like twenty million.

Different strategies are needed to establish each group. Group 1 needs detailed arguments, practical plans, deep ideological agreement, and a huge stack of papers that set out the basic legal and administrative order of the country. High IQ, well-educated territory. Not for mass consumption. A list of officials for the new country would also need to be drawn up.

Group 2 needs enthusiasm and friendship more than anything intellectual. Personal, social solidarity. A general vague idea of the point behind the country. Detailed legal or administrative arguments will not be needed. The less theoretical detail they need to know, the better. Their role is not to participate in the government, but just live their lives in a new society that functions relatively normally.

To people who are not comfortable being exposed to Group 1 content, the theoretical discussions may look like a “literary circle jerk” that is “ideological LARPing”. This is fine. The philosophy behind the legal and administrative content may need to look fantasy-based, or frivolous, because a deep and broad worldview is needed to produce the inspiration to come up with these details.

Group 2 will need to see action. They won’t be interested, or capable of closely understanding, the mess of details and worldview which generates Group 1 content. Superficial elements and slogans are fine; ideally the face of a charismatic leader who is yet to be found. This group is not about theory, it is about practice. They will not understand the point of Group 1 activity very well, and will be impatient about it.

Group 1 theorists will need to remain separate from Group 2 enthusiasts in order to do theory. For Group 1, I am not necessarily referring to actually wealthy or well-connected people, just those who can do theory and eventually hand it over to such people in complete form. The separation is needed otherwise the Group 1 theorists will get too distracted. Hence the deliberate obscurantism of many reactionary writers.

Since it will probably take at least a few years, and more like ten, for Group 1 to finish its work, Group 2 types will have to be patient for that long. Can Group 2 grow in the absence of Group 1′s completed theory? Perhaps, but I’m not sure. The final necessary form of Group 2 may depend on details spelled out carefully by Group 1. Or perhaps it won’t make a difference.

Group 2 will consist more of people who come and go, use aliases, can’t pin down exactly what they believe, are reluctant to make ideological or social commitments, etc. Group 1 will consist more of people who are totally sucked in, whose names are publicly known, whose reputations are closely connected to the reaction, who do writing, and so on.
One of the ways to damage the Cathedral is through non-action (无为). Instead of fighting the Cathedral, do nothing either for or against it. A parent who homeschools is practicing non-action with respect to the public school system. A saver who keeps savings in precious metals is practicing non-action with respect to the Cathedral's monetary system. There is a form of organization called a Health care sharing ministry. New organizations are not allowed since 1999, but the concept is useful.

It is not the job of Group 1 to figure out what Group 2 needs. That is the system in place today, if you like it you can keep it. Group 2 should be thinking about what a post-Cathedral society looks like and what it can do today to build it. It may mean running into oppression by the Cathedral, but carving out a space is a positive step in the right direction. It is inaction by action, akin to moving abroad and building a new business.

The area I'd really love to be able to do something with is healthcare. It is screaming for a fix and it is not a complicated one in the sense that the market already knows how to do this; Arnold Kling laid out a system in Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care. The Surgery Center of Oklahoma already built a working healthcare delivery system. Insurance companies know how to price insurance if they're allowed to do it according to all the information available and only offer real insurance, not prepaid medical services. The issue is connecting the insurance system to the delivery system without having USG destroy it in the process. The health care sharing ministry appear able to do that, but new groups are not allowed.

In conclusion, group 1 does need time, but group 1 may never complete the job or may even cease to exist. Group 2 can get to work in the meantime, and the more work group 2 accomplishes, the more likely group 1 will stick together and complete their task because group 2 will create the demand for it.

Vox on the Dark Enlightenment Again

This is a good thing, and ironically, although Vox hadn't heard of Land before, he did predict this would be a year of defining what the dark enlightenment/neoreaction is exactly. The phony Dark Enlightenment
The so-called Dark Enlightenment is just another fantasy media "trend", about as credible as the New York Times annual stories on junior high school sex rings.

1.22.2014

Vox on Christianity and the Dark Enlightenment

Dark Enlightenment: the second stage
The fact that young men are leaving the Church is not an indictment of the Dark Enlightenment. Indeed, we Christians who acknowledge its truths are the only ones who will be able to reach this young ex-Catholic and other young men who have left the Church because we are the only ones they will trust. We are the only ones who have not lied to them. Their leaving is an indictment of the deceitful Churchianism that has betrayed the young sheep who were in the fold, and who have fled it in reaction due to the non-stop lies they have observed, deceit of the sort that Shea is still perpetrating.
Jesus Christ is the Truth. And one cannot defend the truth with lies. John 15:4 states: "No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me." It is not hard to observe that every church, including the Roman Catholic Church, that has embraced equalitarianism, feminism, and anti-racism has almost immediately begun to die. But it appears the idea that anti-racism and desegregation is unbiblical and consequentially antithetical to Christianity may be as hard for some to bear as the idea that homosexuality and usury and fornication are for others.
This is a conflict that often appears with Game: people conflate the morals of PUAs with the truth of their observations. It is the same as conflating the splitting of the atom with morality. One man splits the atom to power a million homes, the other uses it to destroy a million homes. Most Christians who have a serious problem with the Dark Enlightenment are probably conflating men and their ideas, or as Vox states, they aren't following the Bible very closely.

Looking at it from the opposite end, the Enlightenment started the long-term decline in the Church and religion. The first real revolution under the Enlightenment was the French Revolution, which turned churches into brothels and murdered priests and nuns. In the comments, Vox also criticizes the Dark Enlightenment as a movement:
Would this thread be the right place to ask you to elaborate on that?
Sure. The concept implies some kind of movement or at least central influence. But that simply doesn't exist. Look at Charlton's take on it, for example. Or look at how some of the people put forth as the leaders are people that a named figure like me has never even HEARD of.
There is no movement, there is simply the Internet and the decline of the gatekeepers. I was shut out, intentionally, by the St. Paul Pioneer Press, when they were looking for a "conservative" columnist for the op/ed page. It was fine for me to write video game reviews, and they turned to me when no one else could make heads or tails of the Unabomber's manifesto, but let a smart, young, popular right-winger have a spot on the op/ed page? No way.
Now the gatekeepers can't keep people away from us anymore. The only thing we all have in common is that we are all iconoclasts. And that is hardly the basis for common cause, let alone a movement. It's just not credible.

1.17.2014

Keep An Eye on China

Being authoritarian, China has a lot of tools it can use to hide bad debts. That said, the credit bubble is quite spectacular and this story is very much like late 2007 and early 2008 when problems starting showing up in Western credit markets.

Chinese Stocks Tumble On Contagion Concerns From First Shadow-Banking Default


1.15.2014

White Democrats Are Not Long For This World

The Democratic coalition was 58-42 white-minority in 2012. Democrats self-identified as 60% white in 2013. Republicans were 92-8. The politically endangered species is not the white Republicans, or even the minority Republicans despite what the media likes to hype, but the white Democrat.

The battle is beginning in the extreme parts of the Cathedral with the feminists. Here's a story from 2013 which got some coverage in the greater reactosphere: Feminists on Twitter say #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen
Whose voices are most heard when it comes to feminism? On Monday, the hashtag #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen trended worldwide as Twitter users criticised what they call the exclusion of nonwhite women from mainstream feminism.
The hashtag was originally coined by blogger Mikki Kendall during a Twitter debate about Hugo Schwyzer, an American academic and self-described "male feminist". Schwyzer has been accused of harassing non-white female bloggers and recently wrote that his critics drove him offline. 
The debate quickly went global as netizens from South Africa to Japan started using the hashtag. Many said they felt excluded from mainstream feminism and shared examples from media outlets and pop culture.
Now it is coming to America, ironically amidst one of the Whitopias: Seattle.

White Feminism Nearing Endpoint
This inclusion of women-owned firms under affirmative action has been a great boon to a number of white men who happen to have good wives. Just keep the company in your wife’s name, and it qualifies as a “disadvantaged” business. Affirmative action for white women has not done much for singlemoms, but it’s made a lot of rich white folks’ lives easier (their daughters could take advantage of affirmative action), and it has raised some others into the middle class or above. Those who can keep their marriages together despite having working wives have probably fared best. Overall, due to the negative effects on family formation, it’s probably a wash, but possibly somewhat better for whites than if they were entirely denied affirmative action.
But now the jig is up. It had to end eventually. This grand coalition has too many takers today, and something must give. Apparently, that will be white women’s privileges under affirmative action.
Great opportunity to black knight (be anti-racist) and defend minority interests. Make sure the greedy white women are kicked out. The marginal white woman excluded from the affirmative action party will move to the right. This will weaken both affirmative action and feminism. Anti-racist means protecting minorities from white female privilege!

Was Marx Born Marxist?

A lot of Marxists emulate Marx, down to the not bathing, stealing from others, elevating intelligence above all and acting morally superior.

1.12.2014

In Case You Missed It

From Jan 1, 2010: The Misandry Bubble
Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.

1.09.2014

Crime Thinkers of the Highest Order

Kindle Führer: “Mein Kampf” Tops Amazon Charts
People might not have wanted to buy Mein Kampf at Borders or have it delivered to their home or displayed on their living room bookshelf, let alone get spotted reading it on a subway, but judging by hundreds of customer comments online, readers like that digital copies can be quietly perused then dropped into a folder or deleted. “I think I waited 45 years to read Hitler’s words,” writes one reviewer. Another sums it up thusly: “Curiosity killed me to get this book.”
It has been asked of neoreaction: Why now?

A big reason is the availability of old texts online. In the old days someone might mention an obscure writer and he'd stay that way because only the most determined of people would hunt down a copy of the book. Even 10 years ago, if someone found a book online, they probably didn't read it unless they printed it out. Now, some commenter on a blog mentions Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in a comment and you can find his books and download them to a tablet or smartphone and read at your leisure.

Neoreactionaries aren't mining Mein Kampf for insight, but to the Cathedral it's all Mein Kampf. People who live in forest or jungle environments can distinguish many shades of green, but city dwellers see it all as green. The Cathedral sees anything to the right of modern conservatism (progressivism from 1950?) as Hitler and most people are mental city dwellers who are given the progressive view early on. Most people today are city dwellers unable to distinguish between the enemies of progressivism, let alone the fact that enemy #1 was in fact quite progressive himself. The surge in Mein Kampf is an interesting anecdote, but it is an example of technological change that is a positive for free thought. And the fact that the Cathedral screams "Hitler" when it comes across the dark enlightment......one can engage in a little bit of horrorism if when accused of being a Nazi for holding anti-Cathedral views, instead of explaining that is not the case, point out that Mein Kampf is selling really well these days. Agree and amplify.

1.03.2014

Are You A Feminist?

PIV is always rape, ok?
First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not – which is the definition of rape: that he will to do it anyway and that he uses her and treats her as a receptacle, in all circumstances – it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act. It is an act of violence.
...The term “fuck you” is not an insult for nothing, men know why – it’s the worst thing you can do to a human being. It is in itself an extremely physically invasive act, very often painful, generally at the beginning before the pain may be cut off by the genital arousal; causes all sorts of tears, bruises, swelling, discomfort, STDs, vaginal infections, urinary infections, genital warts, HIV and death.
I wonder if she is for the anti-gay propaganda laws in Russia and the anti-sodomy laws in many African nations such as Uganda. Certainly everything she says against PIV is absolutely 100% true for sodomy.
The fact intercourse causes so many infections and tears and warts attests to the unnaturalness of intercourse, that it’s not meant to be. The vagina’s primary function isn’t to be penetrated by a penis but to eject a baby for birth. They are two muscle tissues / sphincters pressed against each other to help the baby be pushed out. Penetration of the penis into the vagina is completely unnecessary for conception.
So, like an anus. A friend was once riffing on lefty talking points and he was doing a hilarious job of it, and since he has a lot of comedic talent, I praised him for the great job. Except he wasn't making it up, he was just repeating what he heard on NPR on the way over.

The Left must not be completely destroyed, if only to save the comedy.

 Originally seen at: ‏@heartiste

1.02.2014

Rise of the Right: Asia's Princelings

Princelings are ruling not just China
The Chinese word "Taizidang," usually translated as "princelings," means the offspring of prominent senior officials of China's Communist Party. China's current paramount leader, Xi Jinping, is a classic example of this powerful and privileged class. 
If this term is used in a broader sense to mean influential politicians with a strong political pedigree, such as the sons and daughters of former presidents and prime ministers, it can be said that princelings dominate the ranks of political leaders in East Asia.
 Besides Chinese President Xi, the list also includes Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, South Korean President Park Geun-hye, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Philippine President Benigno Aquino III, Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and Singapore's prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong.
 Seven East Asian countries, or more than 40% of the 17 countries and areas in the region, are led by a "princeling." In Northeast Asia, in particular, two-thirds of the six countries and areas in the sub-region are under the leadership of a scion of the political nobility. Four princelings - Abe, Xi, Park and Kim - define the landscape of political leadership in Northeast Asia.

1.01.2014

Why Does the RNC Support Hate Holidays?

RNC On Kwanzaa: "God Help Us"
“I want to extend my best wishes to all who are celebrating Kwanzaa,” said Chairman Priebus. “For families coming together to mark the occasion, I hope it is a joyous time of celebration with loved ones–and a time of meaningful reflection ahead of the New Year.”
 
“From December 26 through January 1, many families will take time to celebrate African culture and history. Kwanzaa is a wonderful opportunity for all of us to honor the importance of family and community, and it reminds us of the great diversity in America. Happy Kwanzaa!” said Co-Chairman Day.
And:
"When Karenga was asked to distinguish Kawaida, the philosophy underlying Kwanzaa, from "classical Marxism," he essentially said that, under Kawaida, we also hate whites.  

Synthesis

Political

Potpourri

Blog Archive