Fighting

The Dark Enlightenment is Dark. That's the whole thing about it. The more you know the truth the darker it gets. The very term was coined by Nick Land who is pretty much a Skynet apologist. He doesn't seem humans have it in them to get out of this shit. Now most people don't agree with that, but the term Dark Enlightenment has stuck, and there's a reason for that. Many understand that truth is dark, and that we're heading to dark times.

I also get called very gloomy and pessimistic myself. I think that's a bit unfair; I write more about history, which is plenty dark, and more abstract points on how human society works. There's always some room for uncertainty when you write in the abstract. You wanna see real dark? Real, concrete, visceral dark? Take a look at this guy.

Now I don't know who this David Hines guy is. But he knows his stuff. He knows it really well. Some snippets:

https://twitter.com/hradzka/status/820107066933202944

https://twitter.com/hradzka/status/820107288459546624

https://twitter.com/hradzka/status/820107345695035393

https://twitter.com/hradzka/status/820107423683899392

https://twitter.com/hradzka/status/820107598234087425

Of course they are. The Left is about Power. The Left is where psychopathic status maximizers go in order to attain power, i.e. maximize their status. It follows that the Left will always have the upper hand in any political conflict (i.e. war), because they're more committed to gaining power. That's the whole point on being on the left. All the stuff they believe in, all that "progressiveness", that's just means to an end. The ideas change; the goal does not. The goal is to have crush your enemies having them driven to you and hear the lamentations of their women. The left is good at that.

https://twitter.com/hradzka/status/820110007572320256

https://twitter.com/hradzka/status/820110298237587460

https://twitter.com/hradzka/status/820110368353779714

https://twitter.com/hradzka/status/820110508577656833

Yes, yes. The Left knows how to fight. The left is an army. What we call the left is the descendants of the dissenting mobs which destroyed the old state order in Europe. They destroyed the English monarchy, the French monarchy. That's no joke. Nobody ever managed to destroy the traditional order in China or the Islamic world. It's some pretty virulent virus that managed to destroy European states. Of course they had inside help; but that's besides the point. Once the tactics were created, once it was shown how effective political agitation can be, it could never die again. Every time a psychopatic status maximizers was born, all he had to do was to look back, see how it's done, and do it.

I could paste the whole series of Tweets; but go read the whole thing. His point is very insightful. The Left knows how to do violence; it has been doing it for centuries. They invented this shit. As I say, a better argument would be that the tactics come first; the ideas are accessory. They come up with whatever ideas are best in order to raise a bigger army, have it funded, and keep agitating. If the Right wants to survive, if it wants to fight back, it's not going to be easy. Having balls is important. Donald Trump has balls. Many of his people have balls. But balls is not enough. You need organization. You need logistics. And you need the will to power. You need the psychopathic status-maximizing drive to keep you from giving up. Remember Leftists died all the time for the cause. The Right doesn't want to die. That's the whole point of being on the Right! If the Left is about maximizing status whatever the costs; the Right is about being left alone and allowed to survive.

Well, in a fight, the guy without scruples always has an advantage over the guy with scruples. When the Jihadists in Europe go bust Rightist demonstrations, they shout "you will lose, you love life, we love death". It's hard to argue against that. The Samurais also said their edge was that they loved death. It's hard to fight against an army who doesn't mind being sacrificed. It's not impossible; especially if they're dumb Muslims who are a bit too eager to die. But Communists aren't suicidal, the get that point. They're just ruthless. They are willing to kill, and ostracize, and starve their enemies.

As David Hines point out; the Left is not a set of ideas; it's a set of optimized tactics for agitation. And the only way to win a fight against an optimized set of battle tactics is to adopt them yourself. That was Fascism was about. To use Communist tactics against them. Some retarded conservatives use this point to argue that "fascism was leftist". No, that's really dumb. That's like saying that a Republican army is monarchist because it has a chain of command. The words "left" and "right" are not about their proclaimed ideas. They're just fighting teams, you got two of them, and you gotta give them opposite names so that the idea gets across. If the Left is winning because it's doing something right, well the Right is going to do the same. So Mussolini and Hitler ran party armies harassing the populace, it run massive rallies, it assassinated political enemies. And yes, it adopted some ideas that made it easier to raise and fund an army. He had to if he wanted to get anywhere.

The thing is that to raise an army you gotta motivate it. The Left pays it people, but more than anything it has a very solid memeplex to sell. It sells equality. If you're below average, "equality" to you sounds like "raise in status", so by definition half the population is always on board for that. And if you're running the army you get to be pretty high in status, which is very attractive for greedy status-maximizers. The problem with the Left of course is that to deliver equality you have to destroy society. The whole thing. But society has this habit of reconstructing itself, because that's what social species do; so you need to become increasingly crazy and destroy everything that can support human life if you want to deliver equality. So you get a signaling spiral. Now they're denying that biological sex is real.

The Right really just wants to survive. The Right is by definition the reaction against the Left, whatever the Left is in a particular time and space. AlfaNL says that the Dutch Right are Left Libertarians. He means they are what Americans would call Left Libertarians. But in Holland they are the Right alright, because the Left comes first, and the Right is whatever army can be raised to oppose the Left. If the Left becomes crazier and murderous, the Right will morph into whatever can effectively oppose the Left. When the Left was Jimmy Carter, the Right was Ronald Reagan. When the Left is Hillary Clinton, the Right becomes Donald Trump. If the Left is going to go back to the 1930s, the Right might as well have to do so too.

Nationalism used to be a Leftist movement against the traditional monarchies of Europe. Once they won, and Nationalist democracies became the establishment, the Left became Socialist internationalism. That was a winning strategy. It spread like wildfire. It destroyed 3100 years of Chinese monarchy, which was no mean feat. But as 20th century history showed, there was a way to counter act that. Doubling down on nationalism. Equality is effective. But tribalism is pretty effective too. Especially for men. If anything, this time it should be even more attractive for men, as the Left has gone much further on feminism this time around. Now of course tribalism is harder because every Western country has hordes of enemy tribes in their midst; so going racist is basically declaring a will to engage in ethnic cleansing war. Those are harsh. Being racist in 1933 Germany was pretty much harmless LARPing. Yeepee, Aryans are awesome. Trying saying that in Berlin right now. It takes balls.

But the Right by definition doesn't have balls. It just wants to live. Nobody wants Civil War. The Left doesn't mind it, if that's what it takes for them to gain more power. So they might force it. Somebody else said that the USA today sounds like Spain before the Civil War. That was a textbook example of the Left forcing the Right into rebellion. I recall reading that the Army generals that rebelled said on the day of the uprising: Half Spain does not resign itself to die. The Right half. I think that really says it all.

"Of course they had inside help; but that’s besides the point. ” Only if you want to maintain the fraud of an anarchistic ontology, which you and Land do. De Jouvenel and Moldbug made the precise point that this “inside” help IS the game. Leftism is is high-low against the middle. The low sure as hell isn’t the primary actor in this.

I don't think Louis XVI agrees.

[…] Fighting […]

[…] Spandrell with another terrific article: […]

The low is not the primary actor, but it is an actor. In democracy moreso than other political systems, due to the nanoslice of formal power each voter commands. Also, in the high-low alliance the high is just as subject to leftist memetic virii as the low. Which is as Spandrell notes: the low may be dreaming foolishly about achieving equality with the high, but the high are high on the the actual leadership of the army of the low. (Note that generals tend to be on the right -- they are already leading an actual army, so they have plenty of status, and thus no need for an ersatz army.) In both cases, absent leftism, the group would be frustrated and have to accept their current lot.

That comment means two things 1) You clearly haven’t read “On Power” and 2) You have clearly not read Moldbug

Well why are you commenting here then? Either make a proper argument or go back to your blog.

Should a pessimist be sensitive about being called pessimist?

I actually look forward to be persuaded of the likelihood of a bright future.

" They destroyed the English monarchy, the French monarchy. That’s no joke. Nobody ever managed to destroy the traditional order in China or the Islamic world. It’s some pretty virulent virus that managed to destroy European states." Well, the difference is in the brain type (remember about 95% of cultural achievements have been attained by Whites: this means having a type of restless brain that constantly overturns governments and seeks change. You invent things, things of all kinds. The alphabet (a system infinitely smarter than ideogrammatic scripts. No wonder the East Asians copied the alphabetic way of writing: this idea's author died a couple days ago at 111), the symphony (while the rest of the world beats drums or plays monophonic music only) as well as the atom bomb, bacteriological weapons, Christianity, Communism (and Facebook, and digital money, ...). "You need the psychopathic status-maximizing drive to keep you from giving up. Remember Leftists died all the time for the cause. The Right doesn’t want to die. That’s the whole point of being on the Right! If the Left is about maximizing status whatever the costs; t" As if those who died were the power-mad ones. That was rare. It was their useful peasantry to die, mostly. As for these psychopaths, they did a fantastic job of self-description with the famous The Authoritarian Personality. Whenever they throw allegations at their enemies you can appreciate how good they are at self-description. " It sells equality. If you’re above average, “equality” to you sounds like “raise in status”, so by definition half the population is always on board for that." You mean "BELOW". This apart, that's the briefest clearest picture of the concept of equality you can have, and yes it's an ingenious way to appropriate for your purposes vast energies (what energizes people more than envy and hurt pride?) You get the support of all who FEEL below. Doesn't overlap with all who ARE below average, but more or less we are there. These people will do everything in return for the feeling that they aren't "inferior" (their biggest dread). "Psychopathic status-maximizer" is a great definition. What I encourage you to do is to think over whether it's perfectly OK to keep using "status" and "power" interchangeably. I don't think they are exactly the same thing. One could desire status to avoid being harassed while not desiring to harass.) "Left" and "right" are a little misleading flag terms maybe? It's globalism vs. nationalism. Actually, it's powerful, determined, capital-backed (includes media-backed) globalism vs. flabby clueless nationalism, lest for a fringe that has a space only on the Internet (as long as it is left free). There's going to be globalism, because the "same people" who made nationalism when they so wanted want it now; the same forces (technology, economy) that led to nationalism will naturally lead to globalism now. Inequality will increase. The talk of equality, which is needed by the high to keep themselves high with the approval of the low, will increase. I mean, spandrell, you seem to have awakened to a lot of things you were oblivious to as late as 1 year ago. When you squarely state there's no agency, "nobody is free", you accept something an infinitesimally little share of people can stand accepting. Your post on deception and self-deception is a delicacy, really. While reading it I kept thinking "yes! yes!", glad that someone who can write better than I was there who said things as they are, in the face of the sciences of deception & self-deception, aka social sciences. But don't you contradict yourself when you are back to thinking of conflict in terms of armies, guns, ...? Conflict has become a matter of neurons in the First World, and more refined technology will keep it this way from now on. The ultimate trench of this war is drawn along the definition of "love" and "hate": channel owners can now "Love" comments on YouTube (lol), and "I love it" is one of the SIX codified emotional responses allowed on Facebook. The opposite is not "hate" or even "dislike": the opposite is "sad": it's sad not to love, the happy and cool Love! :)))) It's not just that you can't say Aryans are awesome in Berlin. It's that you can't say Whites or Han Chinese are, perhaps, a little more intelligent than Samoans and Sudanese in every forum/comments section/class/social setting where people with a bit of "status" are gathered. You can't say that there are races or that they mean something more than different hair type and skin color. Look at Wikipedia or any social sciences (toilet) paper: the lexical boundary is "ethnicity". What's different between the Samoans and the Han is "ethnicity" :)))) So the battlefields are culture (school media) and international government bodies (starting from all what's connected with issuing money and banking), not the streets as your posts seem to suggest. And banks and capital are the main force that's pushing for the dismantling of nations, not the no-self-esteem leftist mobs (as your posts seem to suggest). It's Capital, not the Mob and the generals of its army, what's trying to establish complete rule. Capital so smart as to brand itself as Leftist merchandise to gain the support and favor or the ingenuous left, sure. When the left seems dangerously smart (Sanders and his supporters) you'll see them slandered by those very mainstream media and journalists you (ingenuously?) see as left-wing. Weren't Bernie Bros. slammed on the NYT, Huffington Post and the likes? Sure, they had to be slammed GENTLY on the surface: the Fake Left can't show hatred of the Real Left as it does of the Real Right. Politically, we have no enemies to the right, you said; we also have no enemies from Sanders to the left of Sanders, say I: not because if they become powerful they wouldn't be a problem, but because they are far from being powerful and a problem. "A problem", I say, to people of views like yours. Personally, I am beginning to like globalism and no-borders. Globalist tyranny should be fought, not globalism in itself. Not of this variety (https://gumshoenews.com/2014/12/27/everything-is-in-place-and-nobody-can-stop-us-now-dr-day-1969-lecture/) though, if possible.

If he's brave enough to accept that agency is an illusion, and to bear with that awareness consistently, there's no more things like optimism and pessimism left for him, just as there is no more good and bad, virtue and wrong. Things are as they are, and will be as they will be. One can only tell his dislike or like, keep watching or try to avert his look.

Perhaps he sees hope in you?

The whole point is that the monarchs themselves were engaged in promoting equality and building up the very actors who took over. These actors did not rise from nowhere. They were promoted by the very sovereign they superseded. Authority begets authority. The continuation between the leveling of the monarchs, and the leveling of the subsequent "democratic" states is not a coincidence. Moldbug worked from precisely this. This ontology is fundamentally a rejection of anarchistic ontologies. All revolutions overthrowing sovereigns are then products of the very same sovereigns that are overthrown, unless they are sponsored from abroad, in which case the sovereign is negligent and/or incompetent. This plays out well with both the Russian Revolution, and the French Revolution.

Look, dude. The king playing the commoners against the nobility is as old as Confucius. Indeed that was his own schtick. Nothing new about that. But you might have noticed that Confucian benevolence didn't result in the kings getting their heads cut by the Jacobins. Or the Mohists or whatever. Which is emphatically not what happened in modern Europe. So you can either explain that pretty humongous difference, or you can go back to your blog and thinking that a 4-word phrase explains the whole of human history.

You mean “BELOW”.

Thanks, fixed.

Well, the difference is in the brain type (remember about 95% of cultural achievements have been attained by Whites: this means having a type of restless brain that constantly overturns governments and seeks change. You invent things, things of all kinds. The alphabet (a system infinitely smarter than ideogrammatic scripts. No wonder the East Asians copied the alphabetic way of writing: this idea’s author died a couple days ago at 111)

Come on, let's not overdo this. First of all East Asians didn't copy phonetic writing. Japan invented his own. China doesn't really use pinyin, and they only adopted to make it easy for Soviet advisors to learn the language. By your argument us stupid whites learned phonetic writing from the sagely Egyptians. Good things spread. Whites got inventive after 1400, we weren't for quite a long time. I wrote a post years ago about why Asians don't like innovation; it takes power away from the old patriarchs. They have a point.

“Psychopathic status-maximizer” is a great definition. What I encourage you to do is to think over whether it’s perfectly OK to keep using “status” and “power” interchangeably. I don’t think they are exactly the same thing. One could desire status to avoid being harassed while not desiring to harass.)

As Jim says, the foremost duty of the King is to prevent others from being the King. One could desire power to avoid being harassed while not desiring to harass. As the old Chinese annals say, the sagely king set things right so he can cross his arms and do nothing.

“Left” and “right” are a little misleading flag terms maybe? It’s globalism vs. nationalism. Actually, it’s powerful, determined, capital-backed (includes media-backed) globalism vs. flabby clueless nationalism, lest for a fringe that has a space only on the Internet (as long as it is left free).

"Left" and "right" is what we call the psychopathic status-maximizers and their current-year enemies. Words get used because they're useful; they are only inaccurate if you essentialize the definition, which you should never do. In China the "left" are the Maoists while the "right" are the pro-cathedral globalists.

But don’t you contradict yourself when you are back to thinking of conflict in terms of armies, guns, …? Conflict has become a matter of neurons in the First World, and more refined technology will keep it this way from now on.

Tell that to the Trump supporters being physically beaten up, and the cops being killed by BLM. Every conflict ultimately resorts to violence, if only hypothetically. As Hines says, the Left has being carrying out quite real physical violence for decades, and they get away with it. Because that's the way you show who's boss. The Cathedral does its work through capital and the universities and Twitter and Facebook because they can resort to their goons and actually kill people when they want to. If Trump supporters could beat up SJWs and get away with it, the Twitter trannies would go back to being men in a nanosecond.

I read the twitter storm earlier. My initial thought was the following: The left has all the organizational know-how. That's beyond dispute. The right doesn't have the means to build its own know-how on a time scale short enough to be competitive in civil conflict. However, the left really, really looks like it can be broken on racial/ethnic lines. Here's a relevant example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/us/womens-march-on-washington-opens-contentious-dialogues-about-race.html So the topic of discussion for now I think is how best to fracture the left coalition. If we can change the conflict from left vs right to white (probably plus east Asian) vs. everybody else, then "our" side will inherit all the good white agitation generals from the fractured left. David Hines was very adamant that "you do not want white people rioting." I can really see where he's coming from, but I'm at a loss to conceive of a better strategy for actually winning.

[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]

The thing is the white leftists get paid. Soros et al. have a very good apparatus for funding rioting. They like the status but you still have to pay them every day. We're not getting an army unless we pay the soldiers.

Then he has to be nice about it.

Again just my immediate thought: Need more diversity agitation in silicon valley. Thiel broke, maybe any of them can. If silicon valley is driven to revolt at approximately the same time the left coalition breaks on racial lines, money and army could materialize at once. I admit I probably sound desperate.