Links for Future Posts

Conquest’s Second Law (More Right Archive) (reposted: Silensky Future Primaeval, May 2015) Offers four explanations: (a) institutions tend to entropy and Leftism is a function of entropy (I assume meaning, just like indecision and inconsistency; but what he says could also be interpreted as “particular cases are meaningless”); (b) institutions precess around social means and Cthulhu is swimming left; (c) active entryism by small groups that hijack large groups (citing Jim); (d) holiness spirals (Jim again, now on pharisaism) {{My additions: psychic entryism of sinners (=latent leftists); “institutional justice”, redistribution of fruits of passivism; connection to C1 via the need to mimic “good guys” ——— wrt}} —— Earliest citation is by Derb in NR, 6.23.2003? —— Related: Online Movements  – Spandrell’s Status Points / Psychopath Status Maximizing (plus possible additions from Dividual:


institutions: reverence vs. realism …


What is NRx?



For “Overdetermination”:



Short reference: <<< Walter Devereux makes good points but I wonder if he’s conflating three senses of Gesamtkunstwerk: life as art (the whole life, stitched harmoniously together), the culture as art (the whole discourse/genre/whatever, each part seen organically in context), and the crowd as art (like ballet or Busby Berkeley, coordination as a form of aesthetic perfection)

Citadel has a good point, and worth mentioning in particular mariolatry as a way for women to connect to God (the resolution of the riddle of Antigone). —— BUT consider (a) the role of sainthood as a stimulus to pride, and (b) the inflation of sainthood by the modern cult.



In particular, the horrific 2013 collapse of a factory in Bangladesh, an event which Yglesias responded to in characteristic robotic fashion:

But we should be praising people for not virtue signaling, geebus.

Leaving aside the amusing assertion that working class professions like logging and long distance truck driving somehow pay bountiful premiums for hazardous work, what’s notable about the piece is its total lack of empathy.

They do! Learn to heterogeneous labor supply, my man.

Here we can observe Yglesias’s full cocktail of wry arrogance and malicious contempt on display in an almost translucent fashion.

The reaction to Breitbart is quite telling (whether or not we should approve failure-to-virtue-signal). The old liberal ideal was that every additional voice in the debate brought the conclusion closer to the truth by shaving off rough edges of error; the new self-styled progressives believe in the megaphone, not the seminar.

Valuable for lead, and generally being committed to non-error. Late to the Trump-bashing party, long-time Steve Sailer fan, etc. etc. etc.

In the early modernist formulation, this follows Machiavelli’s definition of fearand love being the primary emotions on which the authority of the Prince hangs.

This is wrong, that was an ancient trope.

In all three cases, ultimately, human motivation can be brought down to a single thing: desire, embodied in the positive desire (in the case of Machiavelli, love; for Freud, sex; for Nietzsche, order) and the negative desire to avoid or escapesomething (in Machiavelli, fear avoids harm or deprivation; in Freud, the death-drive achieves consummation and relieves the burden of creation; in Nietzsche, the Dionysian rebels against limitations of order).

The claim you want to make is about reduction to power, not about desire per se. The distinction is between the drive to exercise one’s own power and the drive to escape or diminish another’s power. (And to the extent that this fits Freud and Nietzsche far better than it fits Nietzsche, it reveals that indeed, Freud and Nietzsche are modern and Machiavelli is still in many ways pre-modern.)

Reclaiming honor, duty, and obligation, therefore, requires a great deal more than merely using those words again: they cannot exist in a child-like, egalitarian setting.

This is indeed Machiavelli’s point, in many ways; that love of X is not simply childlike enthusiasm for X, joy and indulgence over X, but a responsibility requiring deliberation and resolve. Children occasionally lash out at their parents in a fit of spite, but they never punish them out of love for them; parents, on the other hand, have a love for the child which transcends the child’s current emotional states and even his ability to interpret the act of love as an act of love, towards the permanent interests of the child. Further: children are unable to understand love excepts as a sign and thus as relative to the signs of love, enmity, or indifference offered to others, and so see all love as zero-sum. The father is capable of loving all of his children (and his wife) equally, giving them all their due, and raising a happy family (a community) in addition to raising the individual children. — When Machiavelli belittles the childlike love of some princes for their subjects (that is to say, their favorite subjects, or simply the most salient subjects) and dismisses charges of princely cruelty as whining,


Dirdle >wire-heading, etc. Political emotions <<< draw connection to my articles