|
DarklyDreaming posted:Human Biodiversity. Basically a fancy pseudosciency term for "No Racial Mixing" Uhh excuse me, I think you mean to say that, Narciss posted:I'm not even going to touch this one. Tell me more about what, exactly, you find you intellectually rigorous about these clowns? I get that their racism jives with the many failings and inadequacies that are the sum of your being, but is there more to it than that?
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 03:00 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 10:05 |
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I'm reminded of an essay from the early 1940s in which Dorothy Thompson, a regular writer for Harper's Monthly, speculated on just what was the appeal that drew people to Nazism (I'd link it but it's paywalled these days). It's not a perfect essay by any means, and gets way too sentimental at times, but I find much of her analysis interesting and insightful. In particular, there's one figure that sort of fits the neo-reactionaries we're talking about : I managed to find an unpaywalled copy, but it is very poorly formatted, it looks like they just scanned the hardcopy to .txt and didn't do any cleanup. I did my best but I couldn't quite sort the last bit quote:WHO GOES NAZI? Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Jul 2, 2015 |
# ? Jul 2, 2015 03:09 |
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:This article pegs storfront at 30% female, for what that's worth. so heavily male-dominated?
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 03:25 |
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Human Biodiversity. Basically a fancy pseudosciency term for "No Racial Mixing" Mm. Because if anything is good for biodiversity, it's insisting on keeping populations totally isolated. I guess miscegenation has never been my pet issue. As far as I'm concerned, pure breeding is for livestock.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 03:32 |
|
David Corbett posted:Mm. Because if anything is good for biodiversity, it's insisting on keeping populations totally isolated. A lot of these morons realize that eugenics is a thing we could do with humans - there's no reason we couldn't, scientifically speaking - they just don't put two and two together to figure out why doing it would be a really loving terrible idea. As a self-professed Huge loving Nerd who fetishises technology, I hate these goddamn idiots. If you're going to be a technophile or an outright transhumanist or something, then you should aim to become The Culture, not the loving ReMastered.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 04:21 |
|
Fried Chicken posted:I managed to find an unpaywalled copy, but it is very poorly formatted, it looks like they just scanned the hardcopy to .txt and didn't do any cleanup. I did my best but I couldn't quite sort the last bit Here's the full thing. Google found a copy at some conspiracy theory website. quote:It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one's acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times - in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 04:33 |
|
Fried Chicken posted:I managed to find an unpaywalled copy, but it is very poorly formatted, it looks like they just scanned the hardcopy to .txt and didn't do any cleanup. I did my best but I couldn't quite sort the last bit Hahaha, of course the dweeb likes Chestertonian distributism.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 04:57 |
|
Mister Adequate posted:A lot of these morons realize that eugenics is a thing we could do with humans - there's no reason we couldn't, scientifically speaking - they just don't put two and two together to figure out why doing it would be a really loving terrible idea. The thing with eugenics is that the idea was to use selective breeding or genetic manipulation or whatever on ourselves to improve our gene pool. It would benefit the human race for sure if certain genetic diseases would vanish from our gene pool. Whether we like it or not our collective genetic code has some lovely stuff in it and it would improve us overall as a race if we could do things like give incentives to people with desirable traits to have more children. The reason eugenics becomes a massive problem is that you get people arguing crap like "my race has all of the desirable traits and everybody else sucks." When you start combining eugenics and racism (which was really where almost all of the theories of eugenics ended up being applied) you get awful, awful poo poo like arguing that certain types of people should be forcefully sterilized against their will, certain races should be discouraged from breeding/exterminated outright, and people of my race should be paid to make as many babies as possible to outnumber all the other people because they suck and we don't. Yes, in theory it would be useful to try to improve our gene pool. In practice it leads to nasty, nasty things.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 05:29 |
|
Tetracube posted:oh poo poo, this thread caught a live one Check his rap sheet. That sad motherfucker has spent a minimum of $150 to post here. TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:http://www.splcenter.org/home/2013/spring/the-year-in-hate-and-extremism I wasn't talking about hate groups in general, I was talking specifically about the so called "Dark Enlightenment", which, despite some overlap, seems qualitatively different than more traditional white supremacist groups like Stormfront or the KKK. Actual hate groups like that are genuinely dangerous and, given sufficiently bad economic conditions for a long enough period of time, they could grow large enough to be an actual threat. The people tweeting about Moldburg and Nick Land, on the other hand, strike me as much less likely to catch on as a mass movement or even as a widespread ideology. ronya posted:serious talk: I'd guess that these people don't stem from Obama as much as Clinton's first term, when Republican efforts introduced paleoconservative ideas to a lot of then 16-25yo young men It seems like the Dark Enlightenment or NRx or whatever you want to call them are distinct from the paleoconservatives you're describing, even if they have some overlapping ideas and sympathies. If you read this description of the neo-reactionary movement you'll get a sense for how it's distinct from traditional forms of American conservatism. It totally dispenses with any mythologizing about the government belonging to the people or about the 'corruption' of democracy because to a neo-reactionary it is democracy itself that is corrupt. A monarch would be preferable to an elected king, which is something that pretty much no traditional American conservative would say. Basically it's a call for libertarians to accept what their critics have always said about them - that their beliefs are incompatible with democracy. Now, again, my question here is what evidence we have that this is catching on. I guess it's a bit disturbing that a guy like Peter Thiel and presumably some other Silicon Valley 1 percenters buy into this stuff but as it currently exists the Dark Enlightenment doesn't seem like it's likely to catch on. At most I imagine that some young conservatives will be influenced by it in the same way that some young liberals are influenced by a youthful dalliance with Marxism. But as far as a real political movement I'm not really sure how the Dark Enlightenment sees itself moving forward. Their plan seems to be to catch the ear of an influential billionaire who could put some fiscal muscle behind their beliefs, but I fail to see why such a billionaire would want to use weird ideas like the Dark Enlightenment when they can just turn to more marketable ideologies like libertarianism or evangelical Christianity.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 05:56 |
I thought all of that was what genetic counselling and so forth is about. So basically we've kept that without having to sacrifice anything else. The people who are acting like we need to have scything sweeps of medically-preventable deaths to "improve the stock" are idiots anyway. If a trait isn't being selected FOR, it won't increase save in a minor random way, is my understanding. Also, if they're calling themselves Numenorians, that's a real good joke if you read what happened to those guys.
|
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 05:56 |
|
Nessus posted:
That's the more dignified and secret term, apparently. To the public they're "Dark Lords of the Sith". Here's a description from somebody who apparently flirted with the movement before pulling back in disgust: quote:The Dark Enlightenment Exposed
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 06:04 |
|
Helsing posted:That's the more dignified and secret term, apparently. To the public they're "Dark Lords of the Sith". Here's a description from somebody who apparently flirted with the movement before pulling back in disgust: that article was a big troll iirc
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 06:34 |
|
Everything you nerds have posted in this thread applies equally to internet marxists except also pedo poo poo and sexual deviancy lmfao
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 06:37 |
|
anchoress posted:that article was a big troll iirc How disappointing. I can't believe patheos.com would lead me astray like that.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 06:39 |
|
i buy the part where it's cosplaying weirdos who mask their general racism with like cloaks and latin and poo poo. racists with half a brain love mythology
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 06:43 |
|
Helsing posted:It seems like the Dark Enlightenment or NRx or whatever you want to call them are distinct from the paleoconservatives you're describing, even if they have some overlapping ideas and sympathies... I think it's analagous to a center-left party playing up radical leftist theories when it is sitting in opposition; as soon as it regains power, it would disavow any unpalatable radicalism. Nonetheless those ideas would have had a brief moment in the sun, and radicals would dispense with remaining ties to the center (likely acrimoniously). The question was why there is such thematic unity amongst these people. Wingnuts would spread out a little. You could argue that sexism and racism are fundamental impulses, but the emphasis on scientific racism/sexism backed up by invocations of pseudoeconomics clearly smells of Charles Murray, and even if one explains this away, there's still the bizarre penumbra of unrelated beliefs e.g. support for Austrian economics (shades of Lew Rockwell). These are pretty common amongst these lot! But atheism, monarchism, libertarianism/anarchism/monarchism is not universal. Vox Day is pretty darned theoconservative. Steve Sailor really loves America and picks different bases for his anti-immigration writing. The main "moment" they share seems to be the early 1990s, when American politics was highly interested in scientific sexism and racism, dominated by claims to authoritative consensus economic policy in the triumphal post-Cold-War, post-monetarism/Keynesianism context, and prone toward conspiracism as trust in Congress fell dramatically.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 07:49 |
croc suit posted:Everything you nerds have posted in this thread applies equally to internet marxists except also pedo poo poo and sexual deviancy lmfao
|
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 08:04 |
|
There are tons of very smart people working in academia if you want to feel smart (you wont feel smart you will feel dumb but that's good) and talk to smart people just go into grad school. I'm sure everyone can point out how academia is far from perfect, it's full of professors who can't communicate the ideas that they're researching, terrible supervisors, incompetent departments, obvious corporate interests, but the one upside to there now being a zillion Master's and PhD students is there are a lot of people running around, engaged in relevant scholarship in a desperate bid to stand out from the crowd in order to get one of the few tenure track jobs left to a bloated pool of candidates.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 08:11 |
|
Nessus posted:gotta move in on your kino after you neg, bro
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 08:27 |
|
croc suit posted:Everything you nerds have posted in this thread applies equally to internet marxists except also pedo poo poo and sexual deviancy lmfao It's amazing how much internet reactionaries and internet radicals have in common, at the end of the day. Like going off the deep end ideologically is a normal response to being unhappy with your place in the world but feeling powerless to change it.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 13:18 |
|
wateroverfire posted:It's amazing how much internet reactionaries and internet radicals have in common, at the end of the day. Like going off the deep end ideologically is a normal response to being unhappy with your place in the world but feeling powerless to change it. Wait hold on you're blowing my mind here; so if the extreme right is wrong*, and the extreme left is wrong, then where is the truth exactly? Help me out here man. *you don't actually believe this one but we'll play along for the moment.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 13:28 |
The key to understanding many of the crimes of revolutionary regimes is the existence of people like croc suit. Behind his sneering facade lies the institutionalization of dissenters in the USSR, the violence of the Terror, the Cultural Revolution. Rooting his predecessors out prompted the Cultural Revolution, the purges, the Terror itself, ultimately. Because he is incapable of behaving justly, only following blindly whatever ideology he latched on to, he is inherently counter-revolutionary when the goal is a just society. The eternal challenge is how to remove him from any kind of power without bloodshed and without hurting innocents.
|
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 14:25 |
|
Effectronica posted:The eternal challenge is how to remove him from any kind of power without bloodshed Why, are you worried about the carpet? We can get new carpets.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 15:04 |
|
wateroverfire posted:It's amazing how much internet reactionaries and internet radicals have in common, at the end of the day. Like going off the deep end ideologically is a normal response to being unhappy with your place in the world but feeling powerless to change it. You mean they both notice the same flaws in liberalism?
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 15:38 |
|
Helsing posted:Watch this clip and replace "anti-semite" with "SJW" or "Cultural Marxist" and you've pretty much summed up the movement. Not wanting to run away or be considered unconstructive, I'll answer to the best of my ability 1: http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/05/30/3443037/europe-far-right-groups/ http://www.vocativ.com/culture/uncategorized/dark-enlightenment-creepy-internet-movement-youd-better-take-seriously/ https://solidarity-us.org/node/2637 I could go on, but you get the point. 2: google hbdchick. Theres plenty more but im not going to sit here and list every single one dude. As far as 3 goes. Dont you think it's mighty peculiar how Dark Enlightenment became a thing RIGHT around a time where the UK and Europe are going in a insanely far right direction? but i guess its just me then
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 15:39 |
|
Miltank posted:You mean they both notice the same flaws in liberalism? While at the same time not being capable enough to succeed in a liberal world. Or their ideal world were it realized, because the source of their discontent is ultimately internal.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 16:01 |
wateroverfire posted:While at the same time not being capable enough to succeed in a liberal world. Or their ideal world were it realized, because the source of their discontent is ultimately internal. LOL
|
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 16:20 |
|
I think it makes sense to say that dork enlightenment is a symptom of an increasing reaction presence, but I don't think this particular reaction has much of a chance of getting off the ground. In a time of uncertainty, it can be comforting to fall back on 'old' ideas, and it is from this impulse that reaction springs. The problem is that the past it falls back on is retroactively white-washed. There's no critical analysis of crisis, nor an acceptance of the basic truth of human history - There is no 'evil' that can be measured and purged, which will place everything in a righteous order. Life, politics and justice are just part of a process, but one without foundation in natural reality. So race is made up, power corrupts and the universe is indifferent (the 20th century sends its regards), but these facts are inconvenient if you base confidence in your own beliefs on mystical narratives of a fall from grace - hence the conspiratorial/pseudo-scientific turns. Don't let the occasional techno-fetishism fool you. These guys are morons too arrogant to admit error, and too insecure to suffer anything less than the title of 'serious intellectual'. wateroverfire posted:It's amazing how much internet reactionaries and internet radicals have in common, at the end of the day. Like going off the deep end ideologically is a normal response to being unhappy with your place in the world but feeling powerless to change it. At least until the robot is made that runs on perfect bayesian thinking, then we're pretty screwed.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 16:28 |
|
wateroverfire posted:While at the same time not being capable enough to succeed in a liberal world. Or their ideal world were it realized, because the source of their discontent is ultimately internal. So a certain percent of the population will always be a dissident regardless of material circumstances because of inherent behavioral flaws?
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 16:49 |
wateroverfire posted:While at the same time not being capable enough to succeed in a liberal world. Or their ideal world were it realized, because the source of their discontent is ultimately internal. What if you're content with your life but you feel bad for the working poor that you have to interact with on a daily basis?
|
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 16:53 |
|
rudatron posted:Don't let the occasional techno-fetishism fool you. These guys are morons too arrogant to admit error, and too insecure to suffer anything less than the title of 'serious intellectual'. rudatron posted:At least until the robot is made that runs on perfect bayesian thinking, then we're pretty screwed.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 16:55 |
|
wateroverfire posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fOpLDc2RF0 Post some actual good christian metal, like Theocracy. wateroverfire posted:It's amazing how much internet reactionaries and internet radicals have in common, at the end of the day. Like going off the deep end ideologically is a normal response to being unhappy with your place in the world but feeling powerless to change it.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 17:31 |
|
Basically op, some people are just stupid. They may think they aren't because they are educated in a discipline or have run a business, but some of those people have just mastered one aspect of intelligence and may lack general intelligence. Part of the human population is very stupid. I say this not as an insult. The ability to think critically and form your own values may have evolved last and not spread thru the entire population. These people can't form thier own ideas and thus absorb whatever ideas appeal to them emotionally, which is to say ideas and values where they get more power and whatever they were already doing is right. I feel this explains dark enlightenment, conservatives, Nazis, as well as some Marxists and liberals. Thanks to this modern age of specialization these people can gain enough skill in one area to become successful and powerful, which makes others and themselves think they are smart. Thus the social landscape changes .
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 20:09 |
|
Miltank posted:You mean they both notice the same flaws in liberalism? I noticed this too. Especially the "But liberalism is an ideology too!" stuff. DE people tend to miss the similarities because they tend to assume that the difference between mainstream US liberals and, say, Stalinists is more quantitative than qualitative. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Jul 2, 2015 |
# ? Jul 2, 2015 20:42 |
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:Basically op, some people are just stupid. They may think they aren't because they are educated in a discipline or have run a business, but some of those people have just mastered one aspect of intelligence and may lack general intelligence. What a brilliant and smart thesis E: in what way are they stupid? Series DD Funding fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jul 2, 2015 |
# ? Jul 2, 2015 21:04 |
|
Series DD Funding posted:What a brilliant and smart thesis
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 21:07 |
|
Supporting policies where you get more power isn't "stupid." In fact d&d posters regularly love talking about how "stupid" voters are for allegedly doing the opposite
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 21:09 |
Series DD Funding posted:Supporting policies where you get more power isn't "stupid." In fact d&d posters regularly love talking about how "stupid" voters are for allegedly doing the opposite N-noo.... not "D&D posters"... your blatant hypocrisy is my kryptoniteeeeeee....
|
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 21:12 |
|
Series DD Funding posted:What a brilliant and smart thesis Jesus dude it's in my post. The inability to think critically or form thier own ideas.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 21:34 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 10:05 |
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:Jesus dude it's in my post. The inability to think critically or form thier own ideas. They as a group obviously have formed their own ideas, since it's distinctly different from what's arrived before. But in general, that's a useless response because to the extent it's a stupidity, it's a universal human one. I know you mentioned it extends to "some liberals" as well, but a political group by definition must involve lots of people copying ideas. It's why they're a group instead of random individual thinkers. You can see it in action all the time. Ideas are created by a small group of liberals/progressives/conservatives/whoever, and it becomes a meme among that group.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2015 21:42 |