Connections

The better the mind, the more connections it makes between seemingly unrelated facts, items, threads, impressions; and the less obvious and more fertile these connections are.

The site Black Gnosis sent a bit of traffic my way. A cursory look might lead one to think it’s an occult/esoterica/magick sort of publishing house. Curiously, its very short links list contains, of the NRx type, only me and Land. How did Land get there? How did I?

A deeper perusal of “Black Gnosis” led to this: “An Experiment in Relativity.” Powerful fiction in the Lovecraftian tradition. Actually, when I read it through I hadn’t realized it was fiction at all. I thought it was autobiographical.

Radish has just published a piercing look at the ideas. rather than the fiction, of Lovecraft. He, Lovecraft, seems so curiously…sane. Dedicated to the discovery of truth and reality. But really, there’s no contradiction between a superbly imaginative author of speculative/fantasy fiction and that author’s rationality in his “real life.” There might even be a positive correlation.

My thoroughly subjective and unscientific observation is that it is the academic who is so often deficient in imagination and grasp of reality. Not having to earn his living producing material the consumer desires, he is free to produce studies and books that will be little read, in his lifetime or ever. Commercial authors are closer to the World and the people in it, however vivid their imaginations.

Then, the use of the handy mouse wheel led to an earlier entry at Black Gnosis: The End of the Present World Conference, London 2013. Oh my, what’s this? The featured speakers are: Alain de Benoist, Alexander Dugin and Laurent James? How might that be connected?

I recommend the intelligent reader not look deeper into that site, or Lovecraft’s work and letters, or anything that is, or might be, related to mystery. The connections that might be made are dangerous, indeed.

If determined to stride straight into the danger, some purification first is highly recommended.

Advertisements

Maybe We Don’t Need to Win, Just Have Our Own Vine and Fig Tree

A few days ago I made some future references, quick comments and excerpts on others’ posts and ideas that needed fleshing out. The problem is that in the meantime more ideas and posts come down the pike from the many fine bloggers and commenters around the NRx. It’s like drinking from a fire hose, eating an elephant, among other tired cliches.

Then one swallow/bite at a time. Free Northerner gave us a Winning Conservative Strategy and as a former “political professional” I very much enjoyed his ideas, and especially visualizing what they would look like in practice. The picture of a bunch of sign-waving agitators in front of some Prog CEO’s home, yelling at him every time he takes out the garbage, is rather delicious, indeed. A certain portion of the ideas in Free Northerner’s piece were put into practice by the late St. Breitbart, though sadly none of his heirs seem to have stirred up near the trouble for the Left that he did, personally.

The incisive Henry Dampier then did his own spin on what he calls FN’s “laudable goals.” Bottom line: It would probably cost a lot more than a mere $142 million to merely make the effort as outlined, and:

  • Facing an enemy with far greater material resources, it is necessary instead to use unorthodox methods rather than direct confrontation to disrupt and destroy the systempunkts within their economic machinery.
  • Direct confrontation can be easily contained by the left: it is like a frontal assault on a fixed position with a predictable result.
  • The left can trivially contain any direct attack, because it is politically well-fortified against such attacks. It is like trying to attack Rommel’s tank divisions with a bunch of drunk amateurs driving golf carts. They will break at the first sight of the Panzers, and it is not responsible to tell them that they have a chance to win against him.

Agreed. To restate it in a slightly different direction, I don’t believe it’s possible to change society (including the whole of “The West” within that) through some kind of educational, political or propaganda action, given current conditions. As long as Real Housewives, NFL football and internet porn are available for the masses, as long as the grocery stores have some reasonable levels of foodstuffs, as long as the stations have gasoline, and, especially, as long as the welfare, food stamp and unemployment EBT cards still work, there will not be the levels of general desperation in the big democracies for the kind of mass scale upheaval that would result in regime change and a reorganization on nationwide levels to some kind of fiscally conservative, soundly moral society.

Having gotten this aired, it’s actually the earlier part of Free Northerner’s post that I’d like to talk about here:

Escalation dominance essentially means the actor controlling the highest level of violence (in the book’s case, nuclear weapons) can control all lower levels of violence by threatening to escalate the conflict to a higher level of violence. By controlling the tempo and threat of escalation, this actor can steer a conflict in such ways as to win lower level conflicts even in areas where he may be weaker.

(…)

Controlling the highest level of violence in American politics means that Conservative can control the tempo of lower-violence political conflicts (voting, law-making, regulation enforcement, etc.) and control the escalation of political violence (ie: voting to voter fraud; debate to ideological firings) through the implied threat of further escalation (you witch hunt me and take my job, I witch hunt you and take your job and reputation; you escalate to assault, I escalate to shooting).

I repeat: I am not advocating shooting liberals or doing anything illegal. My strategy does not include physical violence or criminality. I am simply explaining a concept that will under-gird the strategy.

While I haven’t read the book To Win a Nuclear War that he references, Game Theory is something that I do understand, and either the authors or FN have gone wrong, somewhere. Deterrence of this type works on the principle that the stronger side is actually prepared to use its weapons, even were it to result in the destruction of both sides. So all of Free Northerner’s caveats at the end of the quote essentially invalidate the beginning. The strategy only works if you are actually ready to shoot someone, as many someones as it takes to get your point across and cow the opposition into submission. Thus, his conservative’s campaign to cow the left is built on quicksand.

I don’t want to shoot anybody either. I mean I really, really don’t want it to come to that. Exit, partition, groups of like-minded people going their own way; that’s what I’m hoping for and expecting in the coming years, rather than some actual civil war. However, the basics of deterrence and of “escalation dominance” are already in place, at least in the U.S. and to a lesser extent, Canada.

Isn’t it intriguing that gun laws are practically the only thing that hasn’t been subject to the leftward “ratchet” over the 20 years? Outside of the sinkholes of New York, California and a few other crowded East Coast states, legal concealed carry has come to most of the U.S. On the federal level, after reaching its high water mark in 1993 with the ban on scary “assault weapon” pistol grips and large-capacity mags, so-called gun control is essentially a dead issue. Obama and his minions had their chances, and they didn’t even make a real effort outside of speechifying.

Why not? Escalation dominance.

The United States is in a unique position in world history in that it has a massively armed general population (yeah, Switzerland, big deal). The reason that there has never been a real confiscation effort, no matter how much Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Barack Obama want one, is that there is near-certainty that too many people would shoot back. In addition, no one knows how many police would actually carry out the orders. In Connecticut this year, tens of thousands of firearms owners apparently refused to comply with new laws, and the State Police were forced to reassure everyone that there would be no door-to-door gun confiscations.

The Left is pretty confident that they can drain the productive economy, reward their allies in business, finance and entertainment, heap scorn on Christians and decency, and get away with it. But they piss their pants at actually going out and prying real firearms out of real people’s hands.

I believe this is why there really will be a fairly amicable parting of the ways between the Left and the Reaction. American leftoids mostly don’t have the balls to shoot and/or imprison enough people who want to separate and live in a different way. They can keep their pesthole big cities and most of the tax-consuming population. Hell, they can keep everything but a few productive, healthy city-states.

Because mostly, from the President on down, they’re keyboard warriors who can’t hit what they’re aiming at.

Future References

It’s a bit disconcerting, but also enjoyable and encouraging, when I have a post idea in mind and before I find the time to execute it…someone else does it, or something similar.

Examples:

I haven’t seen a lot of material in the NRx blogs about guns, and how they’re going to be the difference-maker down the road, when the (hopefully Velvet) Great Divorce happens, in the U.S. The disarmed states, like the U.K., will have to work out their problems a different way. But in America, hundreds of millions of private firearms are a backstop, as it were. There’s a point where even the most modest middle-of-the-roader who owns a rifle will say, “This far, and no farther.” Unfortunately, when it’s rather late and the smoke from the burning cities is wafting over his suburban roof; but still.

Free Northerner gets into this in the first part of his A Winning Conservative Strategy. It’s a fun ride, considering how the Republican Party could “hit back just as hard.” The question is, do they actually want to “win”? Echo answers hollowly…but for now we focus on this:

The most interesting fact about American politics is how the Republicans totally dominate all levels of violence, yet are always in a perpetual state of losing. The military is primarily Republican, the police are more split but, at least in terms of front-line workers, are generally Republican, and the NRA, while officially non-partisan, is primarily composed of Republicans. The vast majority of people who own and can use a gun are conservative, yet, in the long run, conservatives always lose to their weaker, unarmed brethren.

It is baffling until you realize it is because conservatives refuse to play by the rules the progressives have set. Democrats can steal bags of votes, implement gang-run politicsdestroy crimethinker’s careers, and stage shit-ins (among many other things) with impunity and the Republicans refuse to respond with anything worse than requiring ID to vote (and then getting called evil when doing so).

****

First, some theory. In “To Win a Nuclear War” Michio Kaku outlined the concept of ‘escalation dominance’.

Escalation dominance essentially means the actor controlling the highest level of violence (in the book’s case, nuclear weapons) can control all lower levels of violence by threatening to escalate the conflict to a higher level of violence. By controlling the tempo and threat of escalation, this actor can steer a conflict in such ways as to win lower level conflicts even in areas where he may be weaker.

As I stated above, the military, the police, and the NRA are conservative institutions. Conservatives, and thereby the Republican party, control the highest level of violence in American political disputes.

Using this, the Republicans should be able to control the escalation and tempo of lower-violence political conflicts.

This topic is worth exploring further, and will be explored here in future.


 

Speaking of the future, I’ve had in mind a post on my predictions for the future for a few days, but before I actually began hitting the keys, here’s Outside in on Expected Unknowns. While he doesn’t make predictions, thus does not completely usurp my contemplated scrabblings, he does say something well worth remembering:

The most reliable heuristic: plan for the unknown as such. (More on that to come.)

Good; from me, also.


 

This guy: Wimminz – celebrating skank whores everywhere is the official title – adopts a persona as a 50-something mildly ex-con misogynist U.K. truck driver (and he may well be just that!). Then, when you least expect it, deep no-bullshit pure clarity gobsmacking intelligent sanity leaps out, and you realize you’re dealing with someone:

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”

Sadly we have also come to a place where the person in place W can all in their defence the fact that none of the decisions A1 to V1 inclusive, when taken individually, which is they way they took them, were perfectly rational and normal and legal and it’s really not my fault so help me out here.

And in truth, it’s hard not to have some sympathy for that argument, or the person who finds themselves in place W, but there is a difference between feeling sympathy, and excusing.

You and you alone must carry the responsibility for being in place W, and all those decisions A1 to V1 inclusive.

———————————————————————-

If “place W” is the cell you spend your last night in before heading out to see madam guillotine in the morning, that text in purple will be applied to you.

If “place W” is a senior position in government or finance or service industry, it won’t.

I have long maintained that if you are hit by a bullet, it makes not the slightest difference to you, or the wound, or anything else practical, if it was a deliberate enemy act or an accidental blue on blue chance in a million.

But there comes a point when it comes to mitigating risk a, so Nukinnd consequences  where you go from “I guess it is *possible* that could happen” to “It’s only a question of time“, and that fact is if you make decisions in succession as described above, A1 to V1 inclusive, then it is only a question of time.

It only becomes I guess it is possible if each subsequent decisions factors in ALL the previous positions and places, and the additional overall command choice is made, is this going to move me nearer to A or to z, if things go wrong?

We are essentially describing the difference between men, and wimminz and niggerz, I’ve talked before about decision trees.

Even if you have NO other information, simply choosing the option that maximises the future possible choices is always the best option, so nuking Milford Haven in September is better than nuking it tomorrow, something may arise in June that makes me want to go there, I can’t imagine what right now, but that’s the whole fucking point innit.

The options in case of course have to be real, not illusory, so giving me the option of passing up on a fuck with the local village bike, and passing up on a fuck with some gorgeous billionairess Ukrainian sex bomb are not the same thing.

Similarly the offer of a fuck now, and a fuck tomorrow, are not the same thing.

Invariably, when hindsight says that, for example, decision H1 was a bad choice, what it really means is that neither were all the options actually considered, nor were all of the options that were considered unweighted, and considered only on their own merits, and not on a perceived end goal.

Ummm-just read the guy’s archives, there is too much half-crazy gold there to summarize.


 

Finally, for now, Septivium begins.

Sebastian Pritchard lays down a program. I imagine that if we can individually hit it at the 50 percent level we’ll be ready to take on The Troubles Ahead, as best we can. I haven’t written much about self-improvement here, but one more Future Reference for the road. (Hat tip Jack Donovan for the link to Pritchard.)

Neoreactionary Rock

The NRxsphere (awkward!) could use some lightness of touch occasionally, even…humor?

Due to my encyclopedic knowledge of rock I can usually come up with lyrics that are appropriate to describe some occurrence or news item. But a real challenge would be coming up with Neoreactionary rock. Considering the total prog immersion of most of these folks, it seemed unlikely. However, a couple came to mind:

A Nomination in the General NRx – Modern Culture Critique Category:

The Eagles, “Get Over It”

I turn on the tube and what do I see?
A whole lotta people cryin, Dont blame me
They point their crooked little fingers at everybody else
Spend all their time feelin sorry for themselves
Victim of this, victim of that
Your mamas too thin and your daddys too fat

Get over it!
Get over it!
All this whinin and cryin and pitchin a fit
Get over it! Get over it!

You say you havent been the same since you had your little crash
But you might feel better if they gave you some cash
The more I think about it old Billy was right
Lets kill all the lawyers, kill em tonight
You dont wanna work, you wanna live like a king
But the big, bad world doesnt owe you a thing

Get over it!
Get over it!
If you dont wanna play then you might as well split
Get over it! Get over it!

Its like goin’ to confession every time I hear you speak
Youre makin the most of your losin streak
Some call it sick but I call it weak, yeah yeah yeah

Yeah you drag it around like a ball and chain
You wallow in the guilt, you wallow in the pain
You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown
Got your mind in the gutter, bringin everybody down
You bitch about the present and blame it on the past
I’d like to find your inner child and kick its little ass!

Get over it!
Get over it!
All this bitchin and moanin and pitchin a fit
Get over it! Get over it!

And a Nomination in the Red Pill/ Sex Reality Category:

Steppenwolf, “Everybody’s Next One”

She’s all alone, she’s lost another one
Met him yesterday, now he’s already gone

And though tonight she’ll swear it was the last time
A smilin’ face will come that knows the right line

And then she’ll do all the right things with the wrong guy
And when he’s gone, next day she’ll sit and wonder why

She doesn’t know why she’s everybody’s next one
‘Cause she’s afraid that the truth is gonna hurt some
All the pity in the world, ain’t gonna help none
She has to realize that to keep one, her ways have to change some

She tries too hard, and she comes on too strong
Digs herself too much, and thinks she can’t be wrong

She’s too impressed by things that do not matter
To be the queen of hearts is what she’s after

And then she’ll do all the right things with the wrong guy
And when he’s gone, next day she’ll sit and wonder why

She doesn’t know why she’s everybody’s next one
‘Cause she’s afraid that the truth is gonna hurt some
All the pity in the world ain’t gonna help none
She has to realize that to keep one, her ways have to change some


Please leave further nominations in the comments!

Next, I’m working on NRx in the Rap/Hip Hop category. Okay, I know you have your doubts, but wait and see.

Dark Matter Journal, Nick Land and Space Colonization

As noted yesterday, there are a number of important sources and resources yet unlinked here.

We continue to rectify this today with Dark Matter Journal. Bookmark it, link it, contribute to it.

About:

Dark Matter collects the best essays from the “neoreactionary” sphere and publishes them in an edited form. Original articles are also published. Content in the journal ranges widely, but its primary focus is on the intersection of politics, history, and human biological diversity.

The neoreaction, or the Dark Enlightenment, is not a unified social movement. The authors published here will agree as often as they disagree, and many operate with different priors or within different intellectual frameworks. The journal therefore values and promotes intellectual diversity.

The journal is published quarterly (more or less), with special issues convened for special purposes.

The one issue so far includes articles by several NRx luminaries, but given my own interests I was particularly struck by this from Nick Land (Outside in):

Lure of the Void

It follows clearly that the status quo politics of space colonization are almost fully expressed by space colonization not happening. When understood in relation to the eclipsed undercurrent of the frontier analogy social fission through revolutionary colonialism or wars of independence—the ‘failure’ of  large-scale space colonization projects to emerge begins to look like something else entirely: an eminently rational determination on the part of the world’s most powerful territorial states to inhibit the development of socio-technological potentials characterized by an ‘American’ (revolutionary colonial) tendency.

Please read the whole thing. Space as the “Final Frontier” offers enormous potential for social experimentation and evolution. I knew this from a very young age as I devoured everything ever written by Robert A. Heinlein; I wonder if our young now are aware, or if their expectations are so lowered by Cathedral propaganda that they discount doing much in space themselves?

If so, it is our duty as opinion leaders to change this.