Socialism is Cancer
Moldbug wrote progressivism a fitting epitaph:
There are certainly some ways in which the average American of 2013 is a better person than his grandfather. He is probably a better feminist, for instance. He is much less likely to be an anti-Semite, homophobe, etc. These factors don’t really affect his economic value, but perhaps they’re worth mentioning anyway.
Shafarevich wrote in the introduction to his non-mathematical book, The Socialist Phenomenon,
Nor is it at all incongruous that within that country this book should not have been produced by a humanist, for scholars in the humanities have been the most methodically crushed of all social strata in the Soviet Union ever since the October Revolution. It was written by a mathematician of world renown: in the Communist world, practitioners of the exact sciences must stand in for their annihilated brethren…
Working on this book without official permission, under the conditions prevailing in our country, I encountered constant difficulties in obtaining the necessary literature. Given this situation, I am aware of the likelihood (and perhaps even the inevitability) of error in certain specific questions and of the shortcomings of my arguments, which may have been presented earlier and more effectively by others. My only justification is the urgency of the theme and the special historical experience of our country.
He had to write because no one else could. Similarly, Moldbug had to write, because by Moldbug’s time, Revilo Oliver was dead, and no one with a hint of honesty was allowed near history or the classics.
Moldbug’s best red pill, from his 2013 article Technology, Communism, and the Brown Scare, is that America is a communist country. Moldbug says this to call attention to the communist conspiracy that ran the United States in the 20th century.
The question, what is socialism, occupies Shafarevich in his book. He concludes that it is some civilizational death-wish. The Christians, and probably Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, say that it is envy run amok. And Jim argues the Donald Singularity Theory: that socialism is what it is called when society is falling into a holiness singularity. These are the ears, trunk, and tail; the elephant is named cancer.
As Shafarevich and Jim both document, socialisms have a bunch of traits in common. What Oliver thinks is more important is
A mattoid is a person possessed of a mentality that is, in the strict sense of the word, unbalanced. He is a Shelley or Einstein tilted just a few more degrees. He exhibits an extremely high talent, often amounting to genius, in one kind of mental activity, such as poetry or mathematics, while the other parts of his mind are depressed to the level of imbecility or insanity. Nordau, who was an acutely observant physician, noted that such unbalanced beings are usually, if not invariably, “full of organic feelings of dislike” and tend to generalize their subjective state of resentment against the civilized world into some cleverly devised pseudo-philosophic or pseudo-aesthetic system that will erode the very foundations of civilized society. Since civilized people necessarily set a high value on intellect, but are apt to venerate “genius” uncritically and without discrimination, the mattoid’s influence can be simply deadly. Nordau, indeed, saw in the activity of mattoids the principal reason why “people [as a whole] lose the power of moral indignation, and accustom themselves to despise it as something banal, unadvanced, and unintelligent.”
This description, of course, matches a number of neoreactionaries. The way for the disaffected to be disruptive in 2015 is not to promote socialism, but to promote red pills, the unlicensed New Rx.
Disaffected people think a variety of things. Then, how do socialisms end up promoting free love, the abolition of the family, the abolition of private property, sodomy for everyone, and so forth? Revilo Oliver explains:
Since the only moral acts are those which an individual performs voluntarily, Christianity could not advocate social reform by legislation or violence. It is an historical fact that Christians had no political influence whatsoever until long after the Roman Empire was doomed by an incurable cancer – by the socialism which, engendered by the greed and malice of reformers, multiplies its bureaucratic cells until the society in which it has rooted itself expires in anguish.
America’s Decline, page 151; Superstitious Materialism, National Review, 15 March 1958
There you have it. There are finitely many red pills and only so many times an individual can shock himself by saying the word ‘nigger‘. The Antiversity has completed its purpose. We can all go home now.
To be sure, there are mattoids like myself who are so attracted to the ideology – I was a Stalinist and an Occutard, Jim was a Trotskyite – and support socialism. But without a Schelling point, viz. building a socialism, we are harmless cranks. Which is what Moldbug would prefer to be referred to as.
Of course, Oliver will be largely forgotten, and so will Donald Day, and so will all of us, but Moldbug will some day be called on to abridge his works, which will become part of the literary canon, as a warning to any mattoids who get ideals.
Anyway. The relationship of the Jews to socialism is the same as the relationship of HIV to Karposi’s sarcoma. And it is not unknown in history for a nation to contract Jews through sodomy.
This is why the frightful Jewish conspiracy Oliver talks about has not managed to suppress neoreaction or even neonaziizm. HIV can only kill CD4 cells. The actual death of the patient needs to be from other causes; the United States has AIDS and many parts have been colonized by various fungi, but with the general collapse of social organization comes the inability of anyone to do much of anything.
Carlyle wished, in pamphlet 4 of The Latter-Day Pamphlets, that his country would learn to breathe again. Instead, it has been smothered:
We may say that this is the “inevitable result of the increasing complexity of human knowledge” just as Medieval serfs could have told themselves that feudalism was the inevitable result of an increasing complexity of human society, but such explanations are mere euphemisms that thinly disguise the loss of a common allegiance and the triumph of the barbarians.
One by one all of the basic propositions that were once self-evident and obvious in the light of common sense are being converted into dark and confused “problems” reserved for debate by “specialists” in a jargon that seemed to be modeled on the thieves’ cant used by the “experts” who are looting the public schools
Revilo Oliver, America’s Decline, page 152, Linguistic Bolsheviks, National Review, 1958
But then something unforseen happened. Conservative forces stalled and stalled, and as the people in charge got stupider and stupider – just look at the lady in the State Department who said the retarded thing the other day, or the other lady who ran the State Department who did the retarded thing the other year – the educators also got careless enough to instill respect for the truth and the scientific method in their charges. And then there was the Internet, and then there was a Moldbug.
So that’s the end of it. I am satisfied with socialism being cancer; Oliver didn’t pursue the analogy either because it was obvious to him or because he didn’t have words like Schelling point or doctrines like game theory, or because he didn’t have copies of the complete works of Igor Shafarevich, Mencius Moldbug, and James Donald on his desk.
Moldbug’s a computer programmer; I’m a cupcake. The job of writing history should be left to historians and classicists, but they’re all dead, but there’s no point in me trying to replace them. Some day someone will write the definitive book on what exactly it is about the Jews genetically and culturally that makes them so subversive, and teases apart the Jewish subversion from the Aryan weakness, but it will have to be a highly trained and intelligent historian and classicist, which means he will need to start school after the schools are cleaned up, which means it is unlikely to happen in my lifetime.
Thus concludes my contributions to neoreaction. This article, the preceding article providing it with context, and maybe my first article, are the only interesting things I’ve said. To everyone who I have argued with and insulted in their comment sections, it has been an exhilarating four years (I got on the neoreactibus pretty late, lol).
The diversity of conservatives’ principles is, indeed, the very first datum that we must consider. You and I (who are, of course, real conservatives) can easily assemble in any city thousands of persons who are conservatives in the sense that they are on our side against the motley horde, made up of Communist conspirators, socialists, greedy proletarians, and superannuated children yelling for a warless world with free ice cream, which has promoted and imposed the continuous “New Deals” of the past three decades.
As George Orwell put it, every sixteen year old is a socialist, because at that age one can see the bait, but not the hook.
But if you and I seek to convey that audience to our perfect orthodoxy, expounding candidly the full implications of our views on every subject from taxes to transubstantiation, we shall be operating a suburban train outward bound at five o’ clock. Passengers will get off at every station in our argument, and we shall be lucky if we reach the end of the line with enough real conservatives to man two or three bridge tables.
Though the fact may be distressing to some of us, conservatives today are as hopelessly divided by divergent principles, discordant faiths, and conflicting interests as were the British colonists whose united efforts created the United States. If a conservative doctrine is to be formulated, it must be in terms of essentials on which a reasonable consensus is possible. And if it should be impossible intellectually to seek such a consensus by a dispassionate and objective determination of what is essential, or emotionally impossible to attain a mutual forbearance as great as that of our forefathers in 1776, we may as well go home and leave our future to the arbitrament of Spengler’s Schicksalsmenschen and Amaury de Riencourt’s Coming Caesars.
If conservative thought is to be politically effective, it must rely on human experience, logic, and common sense; it needs Edmund Burkes and Irving Babbitts, not young Shelleys possessed by a Demon of the Absolute. A proposition, whatever its justification in faith or theory, is for political purposes excluded if it does not fall within the range of present possibility.
Perhaps the most seductive absolutism of our time on the conservative side is the illusively simple equation of politics to religion. It may have its origin in a personal and intuitive faith, or in theological demonstration, or in the consideration that history provides no example of an ethical system that could long survive divorce from supernatural sanctions, or in the observation that our political collapse is the result of a moral nihilism produced by contemporary scientism (in violation of the scientific method), skepticism (when accompanied by infinite credulity), relativism (when a cover for concealed absolutes), and pragmatism (with its conclusions pragmatically dissembled). From one or more of these perceptions it is easy to infer that the only correct – or the only feasible – political conservatism must be based on an affirmation of Christianity. This is, in fact, one of the propositions most generally accepted by conservatives; certainly, of all persons covered by the very wide and inclusive definition we suggested above, more than ninety per cent, including (nota belle) some agnostics and atheists, would give it unqualified assent.
See Jim’s constant hankering for the old days of Restoration Anglicanism, and Moldbug’s comments somewhere or other that men should pretend a religion, because in particular children need to be raised with a religion and will grow up to believe in it.
But affirmation obviously implies something more than the ostentatious neutrality of the modern state, which legally equates Christianity with voodoo, exhibiting a lofty and impartial disdain for both. The public schools, in particular, encourage and, in some instances, virtually enforce repudiation of Christian ethics and morality, and certainly undermine Christian faith by at least the tacit negation of excluding it from consideration in questions that are religious by Christian definition. Unless the public schools are either suppressed or very rigorously restricted to grammar, arithmetic, and other subjects without religious implication, they will be extremely powerful anti-religious forces until they affirm and inculcate the values of Christianity. And similar arguments apply in some degree to other organs of the state, which by their nature must either express or implicitly deny the Christian faith. It follows therefore, in this view, that American governments must be officially Christian and must actively promote the faith.
At this point, of course, it becomes necessary to say specifically what the governments are to promote. From its very origins, Christianity has required doctrinal definition. As everyone knows, early Christianity included innumerable heretical sects that espoused everything from nudism to snake-worship,
Oliver lists on page 150 in Superstitious Materialism
Among the innumerable sects that have called themselves Christian one can find a precedent for almost any doctrine. Even in the earliest centuries of Christianity there were sects which discovered, for example, that God had ordained nudism (Adarnites), prostitution (Simonians), homosexuality (Cainites). communism (Carpocratians), and even snakeworship (Ophites). And one of the most common heresies in all ages has been the doctrine of “progressive revelation” by which an Amalric of Bena or a John of Leyden or an Oxnam of Washington claims authority to pick out of Scripture whatever passages please him and to cancel or rewrite the rest.
and today doctrine has in many quarters become so nebulous that members of the Communist conspiracy are spouting from their pulpits Communist propaganda only slightly flavored with a pseudo-religious vocabulary. Contemporary “modernists” can usually evade issues with amphigoric double-talk, but before schools, for example, can teach Christianity, they must know whether Christ was the Son of God or a young neurotic who managed to make some remarks of which a “modernist” bishop approves. An official Christianity must be a clearly defined body of doctrine, and if it is to be effective, an active faith in that doctrine must be imparted to at least the controlling majority of
our population. Therefore, in effect, the United States must have an Established Church, although it may be well to avoid that term. The conclusion is entirely natural; during the greater part of its history since Constantine, indeed, Christianity has regarded the state as obliged to suppress heresy, and the comparatively recent and milder concept of a state church established by various legal prerogatives is still accepted in both Protestant and Catholic countries of Europe. Our federal constitution does not forbid states to establish churches, and if a sufficient number establish the same church, a constitutional amendment permitting a national establishment would be a mere formality. So far as I know, there are three conceptions of what the “Established Church” must be, viz. Catholicism, a selected group of Protestant churches, or a compromise by which the two would be regarded as formally equal. Here, of course, the proponents of an established church are most sharply divided.
Even if we ignore this division, however, by the time that we have reached this stage in the argument, our majority of over ninety per cent has dwindled to a comparatively small minority. The argument, however, is entirely logical, and those who follow it are to be commended for having avoided the slough of currently fashionable pseudo-religious nonsense which achieves a sickly semblance of toleration by urging that all cults unite in combating skepticism, because the important thing is to have “a faith” chosen from the contemporary flowerbed that provides nosegays to match any complexion.
Compare Heinlein’s Starship Troopers
That, of course, is the equivalent of saying that it docs not matter what you believe, provided you believe it hard enough – and is probably the most drastic and contemptuous repudiation of religion known to the modern world. Just as the antithesis of love is not indifference but hate, so the opposite of a true religion is not doubt, but a false religion.
Compare with Carlyle’s eighth Latter-day Pamphlet
But the path that avoids the morass leads to some very solid conclusions, and one can only admire the hardihood and candor of the few who admit having followed it to its very end. For if true conservatism is identified with true faith, logic forces them to proceed – in some cases, I know, reluctantly – to the final conclusion that political conservatives who do not share their faith must be regarded either as tools to be used in opening the way to power or as “albatrosses hung about the neck of True Conservatism”, who must be dumped into the sea before conservatism can become morally pure.
Now although I believe, that this chain of reasoning contains errors (including an initial misunderstanding of Christian doctrine), I see no need either to argue its validity or to comment on the curious transformation of conservatism into a movement subversive of the American Constitution, and one to be forwarded by methods that at least smack of the conspiratorial. For political purposes, I think, it suffices to note that the end proposed is one that simply cannot be attained.
An obvious calculation should suffice to show that, whatever ought to be true, no existing church in the United States possesses the numerical strength, internal discipline, and intellectual and financial resources needed to found a new state in North America. And even if, per impossibile, a way were found to transcend the real and vital theological differences and the inveterate suspicions that divide Catholics from Protestants and separate from one another the Protestant churches that still take Christianity seriously, the aggregate of forces would remain insufficient to produce the desired transformation, except in the improbable event of either (a) the miraculous conversion of the many people who can discern no evidence of intervention in the affairs of this world by a praeterhuman being, or (b) a national catastrophe involving such loss of life and material destruction as effectively to destroy social and political organization while leaving the territory free of occupation by non-Christian troops and leaving the organization of the church or churches concerned relatively intact.
In other circumstances, to be sure, the proponents of an established church, if sufficiently energetic and adroit, can exert some influence on our future by allying themselves with, and striving to deflect to their own ends, other forces in our political complex. But in such a manoeuvre they risk the error of the Victorian Englishmen who – incredible as it now seems – did imagine that Fabian Socialism was a means of restoring power to the landed aristocracy. In politics as in physics, the path of a moving body is determined by the sum of all the vectors of forces acting upon it. I strongly suspect that if the theocrats were to calculate the vectors of the various forces to which their own efforts could be added, they would discover that these efforts could promote only a fundamentally secular authoritarianism, and might do no more than contribute a few Christian terms to the vocabulary of an American Hitler. And it is possible that, with an irony endlessly repeated in history, their efforts might add precisely the moment of force needed for the triumph of the very antithesis of the terrestrial civitas Dei they have so carefully planned.
The argument that I have adumbrated above and tried to criticize objectively was chosen merely as a convenient and specific illustration of the facility with which, in political thought, Ia logique mène aux abimes. It would be easy to multiply examples, including theories that most emphatically forbid the state to show the slightest religious inclination. My point is simply that our thinking must be Aristotelian and Thucydidean rather than Platonic.
In urging conservative political thinkers to turn from metaphysical formulations to the arduous task of measuring and understanding historically the forces now operating in American society, I do not pretend to predict what such an investigation would finally disclose (assuming that it can be made with sufficient objectivity to permit a reasonable consensus as to what is actually observed), and – obviously! – I can do no more than indicate by illustration the kind of question that we need to answer.
There does exist in American society a distinct force which is best termed centripetal to avoid the common mistake of identifying it with the ends which it is currently used to promote. Its origins are undoubtedly complex, ranging, perhaps, from a Pelagian concept of man to a residue of faith in tribal magic, but it is manifest in the apparently simple concept uf a highly centralized and unlimited government as a means of legislating universal virtue. Politically this force is inevitably authoritarian, and in this sense R Aron and A Dandieu were right when, in their Decadence de la Nation française
(1931), they described Fascism as a demonstration de l’esprit américain, basing that judgment on the Eighteenth Amendment and similar phenomena. Economically and socially, however, as the single example of Prohibition suffices to remind us, the centripetal force does not necessarily operate on behalf of objectives which are generally recognized as those of the Left.
It is true that in recent years the centripetal force has been used almost exclusively by the Left, and so effectively that it is now a valid generalization that every centralization or increase of governmental power on any political level automatically advances the purposes of the Communist Conspiracy. But it is clear that centralized power, if somehow captured by anti-Communists, could be used against the conspiracy; it could be argued that only such power would be adequate to suppress the criminals; and there are some observers who are convinced that the centripetal force is per se irresistible. At all events, the force is one with which we must reckon.
If the centripetal tendency is ambivalent, there are two interrelated forces which the Left has consistently alienated and desperately fears. it will, I think, be generally conceded that under all the layers of sentimentality and frowsty sophistry with which our schools bedaub the minds of their victims there persists a latent but strong sentiment of American nationalism, which, as an awareness that the United States is at least potentially a great, powerful, and superior nation, may be distinguished from commitment to particular political forms. This is the sentiment that is offended and perhaps sharpened almost daily, ie, whenever the American government with morbid self-abasement cringes before a handful of rabble in a comic-opera country smaller than Baltimore that impudently demands our canal, or degrades itself to formal equality with the savage survivals of the Stone Age that are currently trooping into the “United Nations”. This sentiment, I believe, is being intensified by present efforts to repress it, and will certainly persist as a force of very considerable magnitude until the territory of the United States is actually occupied by the armies of a “world government.”
A second force is less obvious and may have escaped the notice of observers who protect themselves from contact with ordinary people, but unless I am much mistaken, there is to be discerned among a large mass of Americans, whose complacency conservatives so often deplore, a yet generalized and inarticulate mood of frustration and resentment. The mass of which I speak is composed of persons who are not conservatives in the sense that they read conservative publications, have thought deeply about political principles, or have even examined the insane platitudes dispensed by our newspapers; they could be described as uninformed, but they are numerous and may even be a majority of the ill-defined group called the middle class. For years they have been bamboozled by do-gooders, hectored by sob-sisters and shysters, insulted by snobbish vulgarians, bled by tax-sucking parasites, and betrayed by traitors; it has seemed, indeed, that their patience or apathy was infinite. As a whole they areas yet only vaguely aware that something untoward has happened to them, but they have been disturbed – most of all, perhaps, by what may have been a fatal error in the strategy of the Left, which, for the first time in its entire campaign, has committed itself to an advanced position from which it cannot retreat without losing the war. The racial bigotry of “liberal intellectuals” the racial agitation organized by the Communists, and the open pandering of political parties to racial blocs have produced a shock greater than the total effect of all the economic and international folly and fraud of our time. In other areas the resentment of which I have spoken is even less vocal and less definite, but slight manifestations of it may perhaps be seen in the regularity with which new issues of school-bonds, once a mere formality, are now defeated even in communities in which there is no organized opposition, and in the tedium and disgust with which many ordinary voters reacted to the recent presidential campaign. Though yet inchoate and unvoiced, the growing resentment of the “middle class” is potentially a force of great – and in some circumstances explosive – power.
Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, White countries for everybody, anti-racist is a code word for anti-White, “diversity” is code for White genocide, etc. etc., this was published in the fall of 1961.
In all probability, the three forces that we have named will coalesce as a single force, possibly blind but irresistible, if the present inflation ends in a simple economic collapse; they will certainly so act, in the event of a war in which the United States is not decisively defeated or surrendered by treason within the first month of hostilities. And it is entirely possible that they could even now be set in motion by a concerted effort on the part of American conservatives. The point should be stressed, for conservatives, who are sometimes inclined to think of themselves as a helpless (as well as disorganized) minority, should realize that they are making a moral abstention – that they have the power to call up the whirlwind, if they choose.
Nixon called on the Silent Majority, but no one ever called for neo-nazi marches.
But storms, apart from the morality of raising them and the violence with which they move, have distinct disadvantages. The forces thus released in American life would necessarily result in a high concentration of power in the hands of an individual who, whatever his intentions and however his power might be disguised under conventional formulae, would be in fact a tyrannus, and this concentration would automatically involve the sacrifice of part, if not all, of the economic and personal liberty that conservatives so highly prize. The very best that could be hoped for would be an Augustus, and while many of us would, perhaps, be willing to settle for that, we must remember that when the Romans accepted Augustus, they also accepted, unwittingly but predictably, Tiberius and Caligula. One should have no illusions about the inevitable declension of personal power – and of the society that has accepted it.
If conservatives are unwilling to resign themselves to a nationalist dictatorship as the only escape from the horrors of international Communism, they must find a feasible alternative, and while there is a wide variety of theoretical models for which one could express a theoretical preference, I confess that I can see no available force or combination of forces of sufficient magnitude other than that represented by the American Constitution…
Constitutionalism. That’s Oliver’s answer, and truth be told, I can’t contradict him, because I’m not a classicist and I don’t intend to become one just to argue with the dead.
…It is a curious fact that while many can recite the substance of the Constitution and are, of course, aware that it creates a federal government, very few know anything at all about the thirteen state constitutions which were, of course, the necessary complement of the federal in forming the United States, and which provided the context within which the latter was written. RC Collingwood in his Autobiography remarks that we really do not understand a statement until we have formulated precisely the question that it was intended to answer, for a part of the meaning is contained in what the question excludes or takes for granted.
The authors of the Constitution, for example, thought it necessary to provide that no state should ever become a monarchy, but thought it unnecessary to stipulate that the “republican form of government” guaranteed to the states should never degenerate to a rule of the mob. They took it for granted that no state would ever be formed of Indians or have a population of Chinese. They took it for granted that the culture of the nation would always remain Christian and Humanistic, assuming that the classical tradition would be esteemed for its own sake, and that Buddhists and Moslems (who, by the way, are now our most rapidly growing sect) would be no more common than elephants. And it did not occur to them that the people of the states would ever permit property to be endangered by a mass of irresponsible voters.
We also need to understand clearly why the Constitution was,
in a certain sense, a failure.
Oh well. That was from pages 174 to 183.
Regarding the classics, “This tradition, though earlier attacked, was first effectively breached in the years following 1884 by the establishment and gradual extension of the “elective system” in Harvard College. The result has been the conversion of colleges into collections of rival shops engaged in furious competition among themselves (p.163)”.
This education included mathematics and natural sciences, but its principal emphasis was literary and historical, and the greatest amount of time was devoted to the attainment of proficiency in reading and writing Latin and Greek. This concentration on the learned languages was believed to be justified by many considerations, including (1) the most important competence that any man can acquire – must acquire, if he is to be an intelligent member of a free society – is mastery of all the processes of language, including all the devices of logic, rhetoric, and poetry; (2) the history of the ancient world, particularly of the Athenian democracy and the Roman republic, including their final failures, are the world’s most impressive lessons in the problems of society and hence most likely to impart to young men, so far as that can be done by education at all, a certain wisdom and maturity; and (3) the classical literature, free from both the grotesque eccentricities of the Baroque (eg Rabelais, Cervantes, Shakespeare) and the wild irrationality of Romanticism, combines a restrained beauty with sober consideration of all the fundamental ethical problems of mankind. It was further believed that the very severity of the discipline thus imposed on the pupil would develop both intellectual and moral powers that would make the educated man superior to the uneducated in all the walks of life.
Pages 162 to 163.
Anyway, thus ends my sentimental interest in Christianity. I will, of course, keep Lent, because a man without standards is not a man.
These are the things I found in the articles and reviews part of Oliver’s book. Sections 1, 3, 5, and 6, the historical narrative part, are the things Oliver doesn’t think are obvious. Sections 2 and 4, articles and reviews, include things Oliver considers obvious and not worth talking about, which is precisely what has been lost. I haven’t even read all of Oliver’s reviews and articles, so who knows what other gems are casually left in there.
Besides reading Oliver’s book, in order – Sections 1, 3, 5, 6, 2, and 4, people should read Carlyle’s Latter-day Pamphlets, pamphlets 1, 2, 8, and, time permitting, the rest, after having scoured Radish Magazine for everything cool. Should probably start with the Moldbug articles I linked to in my previous post if needed, and end with Oliver’s excellent The Jewish Strategy. But then, go flipping through Liberty Bell and Instauration, and tell me what they find. Here’s what I found flipping through Liberty Bell:
1944, September: The Red Cross visits Auschwitz but says it’s unable to prove Nazis are gassing Jews.” (Information from USA Today, May, 2/97)
That’s interesting. It means the Holohoax was being formulated in 1944, and people knew that Auschwitz existed. From Liberty Bell, October 1998. It would be a mitzvah if someone could get a copy of the USA Today article referenced, and find out where the fact came from.
Also, I’m unlikely to ever visit Alabama, but somewhere in Alabama, there’s a library with a microfilm copy of the Birmingham Independent’s September 15, 1965 issue that Revilo Oliver claims contains a photograph of a paycheck proving that the Selma protesters were paid $100 in 1965 money to protest.
I wouldn’t have protested for money, I did it for the ideology, lol. Anyway. The things one finds if one looks at sources who deny the Holocaust. Did you know that Lincoln tried to send 5000 of his newly freed slaves to Haiti? Then he was assassinated, by a conspiracy that appears to have been marshalled by his Secretary of War. Is it true? I don’t know, nor do I particularly care to do the research to find out, but Oliver says it.
Shout out to Jim, who came up with this wonderful koan:
A creationist, an secularist, and a Darwinist were walking in the woods
They saw patch of flowers.
“Why are these flowers beautiful?” asked the creationist rhetorically.
“OK” said the secularist, “Why?”
“For the joy of God and man,” said the creationist.
“No” said the secularist, “Beauty is subjective, in the observer, not in the flower, and nothing in nature has any purpose. It just is.”
“No,” said the Darwinist. “These flowers must be pollinated by a creature that drinks nectar by daylight, probably a bee, and the flowers are beautiful to please the bee, as a woman is beautiful to please her husband.”
“That is sexist,” said the secularist, “and why should bees care about beauty?”
Revilo Oliver does not appear to have presaged this. I don’t know if he fully appreciated the fact that, whatever human consciousness is, we know what it means for an animal to be rendered unconscious, and bees are as likely to have a sense of beauty as Jews. Jim does have an incredible way of saying things that should be obvious. Oliver may have said things and other things that could be read as implying this or that.
The reason it’s so hard to equate animal consciousness to human consciousness is a left over spiritualism from Christianity, or a left over sense of human dignity. No one talks about gerbil dignity in denouncing the gay men who stuff gerbils up their butts, and no one talks about cow dignity in demanding that cows be killed quickly and painlessly instead of slowly tortured to death as is the Kosher method. But people still implicitly think that dispensing with the idea that humans have souls would lead me to do bad stuff.
Of course, they could also mean that dispensing with spirituality leads to Oliver’s “Pragmatism”, in which “thou shalt not steal” becomes, well,
“Thou shalt not steal” may be the command of a deity or, at least for a certain fraction of the population, the dictate of personal honor, but so long as the injunction represents the common faith of a society, a cohesive association of free men is possible. The Pragmatist’s revision of this dictum, “thou shalt not steal when there is a chance of being caught”, can produce only a horde of brutalized slaves terrorized by master criminals.
America’s Decline, page 171. So maybe human dignity is “the common faith of society”, c.f. Carlyle’s eighth Latter-day Pamphlet. But I’m a mattoid, and human dignity is bullshit.
Shout out to Handle, with the excellent Review of “The Collapse of American Criminal Justice” by William J. Stuntz. We find context in The Great Deceit: Social Pseudo-Sciences, pages 271 to 275:
Supreme Court frees a rapist
In 1957, a self-confessed rapist was freed by the United States Supreme Court. He had made a complete confession voluntarily and there was no hint of any third-degree methods. As a result; he was duly sentenced after an admittedly fair trial. In this instance, the Supreme Court made an entirely new rule. “It said the police had no right to question a suspect before arraignment’- Today, this rapist walks the streets a free man.
The head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division complained: “The place where the impact of this decision will be the greatest is in the gangster crimes. It is the real hardened professional criminals who will take advantage of this.”
Although this decision greatly helps the criminal underworld, the chief beneficiaries are the subversionists. Communists, socialists and fascists can now carry on without fear of questioning before arraignment. Those engaged in mass violence must be first arraigned on a definite charge, and arraignment requires specific evidence. This new rule makes it almost impossible to organize such evidence before trial.
Obviously, this decision hurts civil liberties, besides fostering crime and strengthening subversion.
The Mallory case directly involved only the interpretation of Federal law. But six years later, Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, indicated that the new rule was a requirement of the Constitution, and hence could not be changed by either Congress or State legislatures.
“Red Monday” clears a path for leftism
On June 17, 1957, the Supreme Court came out with a series of decisions which have tagged. that date as ”Red Monday”. The Court in effect deprived Congressional committees of the right to cite subversives for contempt if they refuse to answer questions. It held that no one could be held in contempt of Congress “if the committee failed to spell out for him the ‘pertinence’ of its questions and the purpose of the inquiry.” “… But according to Chief Justice Warren who read the decision, they now have to know what they are going to do and how to do it – and explain it all explicitly to witnesses-before they can get the information they need to decide how they are going to act. That may sound ridiculous to a normal mind, but that’s what the Court said.” Krushchev and his Kremlin comrades must have had many a chuckle over that one.
On the same “Red Monday”, the Supreme Court decided that authorities of the various States have no right to question the beliefs and associations of those teaching in State universities and other state educational institutions.
Again, on “Red Monday”, the Supreme Court emasculated practically all the anti-subversive laws of the Federal government by taking the position in Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, that you cannot prosecute conspirators against America until they physically start overthrowing the government. This borders on the ridiculous, since even a child can figure out that if we allowed the subversives to carry on unmolested up to the moment of revolution, then it is already too late to save the nation. Earlier in the same year, the Supreme Court had decided that communists cannot be tried unless the secret government dossiers are made available to the Reds during the course of their trial. A month later, it was decided on the basis of that decision, by a lower Federal Court, that even the Communist Party cannot be forced to register as a subversive organization unless it is shown the secret FBI reports on its activities.
The impact of these and other decisions not only gives subversives carte blanche for their nefarious activities but in effect gives special privileges to both the Reds and the criminal underworld. Something is very wrong with socialized law.
The Supreme Court decision of 1954 in the school segregation cases was a landmark in the change from decisions based upon law and precedent to a sociological basis. As we have noted in the
previous chapter, the court there chiefly relied on dubious material compiled in Myrdal’s An American Dilemma – a massive communist-socialist effort. These decisions were purely ‘sociological’. Similarly, the entire maze of decisions that had issued out of the new “liberal” Supreme Court to protect communists, other subversives and criminals may be similarly characterized. All these decisions also shared the doubtful distinction of violating long-established precedents and principles of American constitutional law.
Court creates a red sanctuary
The suspicion at once arises that socialized law is of left-wing origin, since as a result of its influence the nation has been deafened by a chorus of Fifth Amendment pleaders both from subversives and the criminal underworld. We have become the laughing stock of the free world because of our apparent inability to cope with this double threat against society. This is particularly the case since the Fifth Amendment has been fashioned into a kind of sanctuary reminiscent of the dark ages for all sorts of communist, socialist and fascist miscreants. Pleading the Fifth Amendment, which was formerly regarded as a badge of infamy, now rates as a mark of distinction.
Previously criminals were dealt with firmly and expeditiously under a system of justice developed through centuries of experience. However, when the socialized decisions in favor of communists began
to be churned out by the Supreme Court the criminals soon claimed, and were granted, the same privileges.
Things lead to other things which lead to the obviously guilty being freed because reasons. Well anyway.
Shout out to Spandrell, who brought up the triad: tradition, blood, and progress. Or, as the conservatives from Oliver to the aughts had it, Christian conservatism, paleoconservatism, and libertarianism. Three is a magic number, isn’t it.
I came to Moldbug with three questions: why hasn’t socialism been implemented and why did Occupy fail? knowing that politicans and professors are liars, what actually happened in the lifetime of my parents and grandparents? what is a Jew and what is their significance? I have satisfactory answers: socialism is cancer, yids and aids, and Revilo Oliver knows. So I’m done.
There are three reasons to write about history and politics. You can write authoritatively, based on your surpassing intellect and encyclopaedic knowledge; in Oliver’s case, of 17 languages, in Moldbug’s case, he was merely using reasoning and some old books to rediscover what had been forgotten; by now, everything has been rediscovered.
You can also write as an activist, to urge some apes to go smash up some other apes and thus claim some resources. This is what Hitler and Anissimov do, except that Anissimov pretends to be an authority, and Hitler actually accomplished something. This is also why it was so retarded of Anissimov to serialize Evola, an activist who did not accomplish anything. An authority could some day annotate Mein Kampf with enough information about its context to make it interesting, but only to people who really care about that particular context.
You can also whine idly. I come here all the time to whine about how everything sucks and blame it on Jews and faggots.
So come on guys. Read books, then either write authoritative things, or write activist things for e.g. Radix, Theden, DailyStormer, etc.
Shout to Anissimov, I will not read your book. The chapters I have skimmed are middle school tier bullshit, and I am very confident in the ability of several of my xgfs to do better. Go fuck yourself with an AIDS-encrusted garden tool. You are the stupidest man the Antiversity has ever given a doctoral fellowship. I hope a rabid earthworm bites you and you get tetanus. Other people: please avoid Anissimovism, the saying of false, contradictory, and retarded things.
Shout to Henry Dampier, you say that the only thing I have said is ‘look at me’. What have you said other than inane articles and meaningless book reviews? I do homework as well. I turn it in to my professor and I do not post it on the Internet as if the world cares. Only your mom cares about the things that you write, and even then, only if you’re below the age of 25, after which your parents will care more about results than promises. Other people: please avoid Dampierism, the saying of half-thought-through and meaningless things. As Carlyle says, “The history of human things… needs above all to abridge itself (The Latter-day Pamphlets, VIII Jesuitism)”. That means you, Dampier. Well anyway, when us bloggers get replaced with history and classics professors, no one will ever think about reading any of us.
It’s been fun. Here, take this song with you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUQsqBqxoR4