|
InediblePenguin posted:"but it was big in Victorian times and WWI" is in no way any kind of a counter to the argument about the Germanic Sturm und Drang movement. The Sorrows of Young Werther was published in 1774 and therefore predates your examples quite neatly I wasn't trying to counter your argument. I just remember thats where i heard about that mentality first. sorry.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2016 01:34 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 23:51 |
|
Woolie Wool posted:Is reinventing old ideas from principles, giving them stupid names, and passing them off as his own work Moldbug's schtick or something? The Vosgian Beast posted:There's a reason he caught on in the Less Wrong sphere. He didn't get his bad habits - neologism, self-references to self-references to self-references that never actually resolve to a falsifiable claim, delusions of competence, pontification ex culo - from LessWrong, he started about the same time as Yudkowsky started writing the Sequences (and commented on them in the early days). However, they do indeed seem to be why he (a) fit right in (b) succeeded in recruiting neoreactionaries from amongst them. I will credit Moldbug with less blatant nerdsniping and I couldn't find as many anime references and allusions. (Though I now sorta hope someone will point them all out to me. In general, the answer to "wtf LW?" is always "anime". Yes, even Roko's basilisk.)
|
# ? Jan 6, 2016 13:48 |
|
I guess this is more about 'Neoreaction': It's an Anglosphere response to the evolution of the political zeitgeist from a homogeneously white and male Labor/democratic socialist project to it's current form as a patchwork of minority interest groups glued together by public sector unions (with a strong female presence) and spoils-dividing; basically identity politics for white males. I guess it runs the gamut from complete craziness to valid criticism of the tensions and dogmas inherent in contemporary progressive politics - gender theory wackiness, the schizophrenic attempt to reconcile Islam and Feminism, the ever-shifting grievance hierarchy and the absence of any grand collective vision or indeed, inspiring personalities.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2016 14:21 |
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:I guess it runs the gamut from complete craziness to valid criticism of the tensions and dogmas inherent in contemporary progressive politics - gender theory wackiness, the schizophrenic attempt to reconcile Islam and Feminism, the ever-shifting grievance hierarchy and the absence of any grand collective vision or indeed, inspiring personalities. It might be those things if it wasn't the purview of incompetents who can't write. Sadly, in this regard, this is not in fact the best of all possible worlds. (seriously, these people are the worst loving writers)
|
# ? Jan 6, 2016 15:01 |
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I wasn't trying to counter your argument. I just remember thats where i heard about that mentality first. sorry. Yeah, an awful lot of that mentality can trace its roots back to Sturm und Drang. A line is commonly drawn through S&D to National Romanticism and then ultimately to movements like Blut und Boden (Blood and Soil). The other thing to note is that the unification of Germany is is where a lot of the concepts of modern nationalism first took concrete form. This then also helped inspire other nationalistic movements which also took up many of their motifs and some of their cultural inspirations. As an aside, it's kind of interesting to contemplate a large and diverse set of territories uniting into a common nation and cause now that we're in a time where secessionist sentiments predominate. Munin fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Jan 6, 2016 |
# ? Jan 6, 2016 16:30 |
|
divabot posted:He didn't get his bad habits - neologism, self-references to self-references to self-references that never actually resolve to a falsifiable claim, delusions of competence, pontification ex culo - from LessWrong, he started about the same time as Yudkowsky started writing the Sequences (and commented on them in the early days). However, they do indeed seem to be why he (a) fit right in (b) succeeded in recruiting neoreactionaries from amongst them. I wasn't implying he got it from Yud, I was just saying he appeals to the same mindset.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2016 17:26 |
|
https://twitter.com/Thug_Violence PoesLaw.jpg
|
# ? Jan 6, 2016 22:46 |
|
What's the term for the behaviour - I call it the 'dark god' for some reason - where someone supports a system and fantasises about its proper function and how it's all supposed to ideally work, but since actually-existing versions of that idea come along and inevitably have drawbacks or fell apart, they then have to supplement it with a simultaneous second fantasy of some dumb reason why it didn't work? You see it everywhere, but especially with fascists (the jewish KGB faked the holocaust, things were fine) and libertarians (we've never actually had capitalism so all the sins of currently-existing capitalist countries don't really count and if we had no restraints whatsoever this would improve things, that drat big government!!!), and I'm sure there's a real term for that specific kind of fantasy.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 00:18 |
|
Hbomberguy posted:What's the term for the behaviour - I call it the 'dark god' for some reason - where someone supports a system and fantasises about its proper function and how it's all supposed to ideally work, but since actually-existing versions of that idea come along and inevitably have drawbacks or fell apart, they then have to supplement it with a simultaneous second fantasy of some dumb reason why it didn't work? Communism. Though I suppose it would be something like a no true scotsman fallacy, whereby every example that falls short of the imagined ideal automatically gets excluded from the list of examples as to retain the idea of the perfect record. Doing that accurately is one thing but when you do it just automatically and without justification, it's probably a no true scotsman. Though as it's applied to state ideologies I guess it would be No True Scotland?
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 00:22 |
|
Unlike Communism, of course, Fascism actually has a functioning historical example that is not based on Germanic death-metal album covers. I'll give you a hint:
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 00:30 |
|
Maoist Pussy posted:Unlike Communism, of course, Fascism actually has a functioning historical example that is not based on Germanic death-metal album covers. I'll give you a hint:
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 00:35 |
|
Hbomberguy posted:What's the term for the behaviour - I call it the 'dark god' for some reason - where someone supports a system and fantasises about its proper function and how it's all supposed to ideally work, but since actually-existing versions of that idea come along and inevitably have drawbacks or fell apart, they then have to supplement it with a simultaneous second fantasy of some dumb reason why it didn't work? The phrase "X cannot fail, it can only be failed" is the only pithy encapsulation of this I know of. In fairness, it can happen that people will falsely assume some policy or program is a failure based on a half-assed version of it (this is the basis of "starve the beast"), but you kinda have to "show your work" to prove that's happening. These guys don't do that.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 00:48 |
|
Of course, the idea of unifying disparate people around the goal of a nation can be found in most polities
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 00:52 |
|
Hbomberguy posted:What's the term for the behaviour - I call it the 'dark god' for some reason - where someone supports a system and fantasises about its proper function and how it's all supposed to ideally work, but since actually-existing versions of that idea come along and inevitably have drawbacks or fell apart, they then have to supplement it with a simultaneous second fantasy of some dumb reason why it didn't work? Frankly it's just a collection of fallacies but I suppose it's closer to moving the goalposts or the No True Scotsman fallacy that OwlFancier mentioned. Think of it like a pure white goalpost fleeing from a black goalpost that's just trying to give them their dropped fiver back.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 01:06 |
|
A valid counterexample is approaching, better cross the street.Hbomberguy posted:What's the term for the behaviour - I call it the 'dark god' for some reason - where someone supports a system and fantasises about its proper function and how it's all supposed to ideally work, but since actually-existing versions of that idea come along and inevitably have drawbacks or fell apart, they then have to supplement it with a simultaneous second fantasy of some dumb reason why it didn't work?
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 01:24 |
|
Hbomberguy posted:What's the term for the behaviour - I call it the 'dark god' for some reason - where someone supports a system and fantasises about its proper function and how it's all supposed to ideally work, but since actually-existing versions of that idea come along and inevitably have drawbacks or fell apart, they then have to supplement it with a simultaneous second fantasy of some dumb reason why it didn't work? There's a lot of different names for the logical leaps that people might make, but the behaviour itself is probably best called as rationalizing/rationalization. Make an excuse to defend the idea, because as terrible as the excuse might be, the feeling that the idea is wrong is even worse. E.g. an elderly priest who says that children who were abused by priests were sent by the devil to tempt the priests, because that view is more comfortable than the thought that the priests (and maybe therefore God, for allowing these people to be priests in the first place) are wrong. Not linking because I'm a lazy bastard, google the interview yourself.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 02:14 |
|
rudatron posted:. The idea of a 'fall from grace' is kind of a romantic theme, common from light conservatism (Jeffersonian america as this ideal of rural liberty/goodness as a US example) all the way to our very own Roman LARPer here in Maoist Pussy. I mean people just believe simple stories, even if they have no reason to. Of course, the disintegration of the Roman empire (and its sacking by a Germanic blood-and-skulls circus) is an actual thing that happened, so you may want to figure that into your narrative. Maoist Pussy fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Jan 7, 2016 |
# ? Jan 7, 2016 03:06 |
|
I would struggle to call the roman empire "graceful" however.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 03:21 |
|
OwlFancier posted:I would struggle to call the roman empire "graceful" however. it was a slow burn depending on when you want to date the death of it.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 03:43 |
|
The unsteady tumble down a very long flight of stairs with a landing in the middle of the roman empire.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 03:52 |
|
Not just that, it's fall wasn't a 'fall' as you may understand, ie- a sudden, unexpected event. Germans hadn't been a problem before, and the romans hadn't had trouble with nomads before, rather it was a culmination of a series of dysfunctions that lead to its collapse. Which is true of most any other entities like that, there are no 'golden ages' or whatever, only periods were they were less dysfunctional/that dysfunction hadn't yet mattered. I mean in at least one sense, it's good the roman empire ended - in its entire history, it did not produce a single mathematicianr or scientist of note. Compare that record with the diverse greek city states. I mean the same is kind of true of the US post-war prosperity, right, everyone wants it to come back (and is generally seen as an era in which Capitalism Works) but, I mean, the post war era lead directly into the civil rights era and the reagan/neoliberal/stagnation era. What's to say that that period isn't the 'exception' and the growing inequality we see today is the 'norm'? It's why you've got to be careful when it comes to historiography, and it probably helps to be a little less sweeping in terms of Grand Historical Narratives, because they're often wrong (and wrong for politically convenient reasons).
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 03:53 |
|
Don't worry, guys, my White Male card allows me to infiltrate their identity circle and I'm enough of a misanthrope to brutally murder a large number of them with little to no remorse.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 03:53 |
|
Oh hey, this thread is alive again. Oh hey, now I know Maoist Pussy isn't just being a terrible person in GBS for the laffs, they're genuinely a terrible person. Thanks thread. So all their posts are of arrests or convictions it seems... so the system works and is taking care of the people they consider dangerous? Good for... them?
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 03:57 |
|
rudatron posted:Not just that, it's fall wasn't a 'fall' as you may understand, ie- Yes, yes, we've all read the latest historical interpretations.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 04:09 |
|
Also, it's a mistake to tie fascism to Imperial Rome too much. It's a modern industrial-age ideology with about as much of a relationship to the Roman political system as Wicca has to pre-Roman Celtic druids. Mussolini using the trappings of his country's semi-mythical golden age for his philosophy of dictatorship didn't mean he had a direct line to the ancient wisdom of millennia-dead consuls and senators, and while it hearkens back to the good old days, breaking with tradition is a core element of fascist philosophy. See, again, the Futurist Manifesto:quote:MANIFESTO OF FUTURISM
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 04:10 |
|
Darth Walrus posted:Futurist Manifesto: Never has speedracer.gif been more appropriate.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 04:13 |
|
So it's like Steal This Book for fedoras. Got it.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 04:23 |
|
You're correct, but wrong in another way - it is conceived by it's participants of having that historical legitimacy, even if it does not in reality. Hence the emphasis on decay or similar metaphors. You joke, but while the people in question can't pull it off themselves, if fascism comes to America, they'll be first in line for the Freikorps equivalent. So either you throw them into a mass grave, or they throw you in one.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 04:25 |
I love the Futurist Manifesto as a piece of poetry, and I usually whip it out at any oppurtunity - first heard it in an Art History class and I just think the rhetoric is very stirring. I'm to the Left of your average... anybody on most things, but I love the appeal to technology and speed as opposed to so much poetry I hear that's about nature and such. I dunno what speedracer.gif is, but that is one of my favorite movies.
|
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 04:27 |
|
Count Chocula posted:I love the Futurist Manifesto as a piece of poetry, and I usually whip it out at any oppurtunity - first heard it in an Art History class and I just think the rhetoric is very stirring. I'm to the Left of your average... anybody on most things, but I love the appeal to technology and speed as opposed to so much poetry I hear that's about nature and such. I dunno what speedracer.gif is, but that is one of my favorite movies.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 04:29 |
|
Reading a bit too much into the 'psychology' in the thread title here but maybe there's a link between beliefs like Dark Enlightenment and some sorts of personality disorders. People toss around terms like narcissist or sociopath to describe them but they act quite differently in the formal sense than those sorts of people. Schizoids and schizotypal people come to mind because they've got a lot in common with the stereotypical DE nerd. Extremely introverted, no close friends, never in a relationship, sometimes lost in an internal fantasy world, have some strange and/or idiosyncratic beliefs, don't fit societal expectations, very aloof, often mistaken for Asperger's , don't react much to other peoples' emotions, don't show many emotions themselves, perceive themselves as "different", tend towards anxiety disorders and depression, and so forth. Everyone is going to fit a few of those at times but the people who fit all of them even when it's disruptive to their lives are the ones with serious problems. And they're devilishly hard to cure since the person with the disorder doesn't perceive anything wrong with those thoughts and behaviors even if they recognize that their lives are a loving train wreck. So these political beliefs sort of give a way to explain and understand those problems. It doesn't fix anything but it at least gives a sense that they've got a grip on the problem and that there's a solution. So it may not start with the racism, sexism and so forth but people end up more receptive to such ideas in order to feel less desperately unhappy.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 15:23 |
|
The Roman empire fell for the following reasons 1. Abolition of gods 2. Abolition of rights 3. Absence of character 4. Absolutism 5. Agrarian question 6. Agrarian slavery 7. Anarchy 8. Anti-Germanism 9. Apathy 10. Aristocracy 11. Asceticism 12. Attack of the Germans 13. Attack of the Huns 14. Attack of riding nomads 15. Backwardness in science 16. Bankruptcy 17. Barbarization 18. Bastardization 19. Blockage of land by large landholders 20. Blood poisoning 21. Bolshevization 22. Bread and circuses 23. Bureaucracy 24. Byzantinism 25. Capillarite sociale 26. Capitals, change of 27. Caste system 28. Celibacy 29. Centralization 30. Childlessness 31. Christianity 32. Citizenship, granting of 33. Civil war 34. Climatic deterioration 35. Communism 36. Complacency 37. Concatenation of misfortunes 38. Conservatism 39. Capitalism 40. Corruption 41. Cosmopolitanism 42. Crisis of legitimacy 43. Culinary excess 44. Cultural neurosis 45. Decentralization 46. Decline of Nordic character 47. Decline of the cities 48. Decline of the Italian population 49. Deforestation 50. Degeneration 51. Degeneration of the intellect 52. Demoralization 53. Depletion of mineral resources 54. Despotism 55. Destruction of environment 56. Destruction of peasantry 57. Destruction of political process 58. Destruction of Roman influence 59. Devastation 60. Differences in wealth 61. Disarmament 62. Disillusion with stated goals of empire 63. Division of empire 64. Division of labor 65. Earthquakes 66. Egoism 67. Egoism of the state 68. Emancipation of slaves 69. Enervation 70. Epidemics 71. Equal rights, granting of 72. Eradication of the best 73. Escapism 74. Ethnic dissolution 75. Excessive aging of population 76. Excessive civilization 77. Excessive culture 78. Excessive foreign infiltration 79. Excessive freedom 80. Excessive urbanization 81. Expansion 82. Exploitation 83. Fear of life 84. Female emancipation 85. Feudalization 86. Fiscalism 87. Gladiatorial system 88. Gluttony 89. Gout 90. Hedonism 91. Hellenization 92. Heresy 93. Homosexuality 94. Hothouse culture 95. Hubris 96. Hypothermia 97. Immoderate greatness 98. Imperialism 99. Impotence 100. Impoverishment 101. Imprudent policy toward buffer states 102. Inadequate educational system 103. Indifference 104. Individualism 105. Indoctrination 106. Inertia 107. Inflation 108. Intellectualism 109. Integration, weakness of 110. Irrationality 111. Jewish influence 112. Lack of leadership 113. Lack of male dignity 114. Lack of military recruits 115. Lack of orderly imperial succession 116. Lack of qualified workers 117. Lack of rainfall 118. Lack of religiousness 119. Lack of seriousness 120. Large landed properties 121. Lead poisoning 122. Lethargy 123. Leveling, cultural 124. Leveling, social 125. Loss of army discipline 126. Loss of authority 127. Loss of energy 128. Loss of instincts 129. Loss of population 130. Luxury 131. Malaria 132. Marriages of convenience 133. Mercenary system 134. Mercury damage 135. Militarism 136. Monetary economy 137. Monetary greed 138. Money, shortage of 139. Moral decline 140. Moral idealism 141. Moral materialism 142. Mystery religions 143. Nationalism of Rome's subjects 144. Negative selection 145. Orientalization 146. Outflow of gold 147. Over refinement 148. Pacifism 149. Paralysis of will 150. Paralysization 151. Parasitism 152. Particularism 153. Pauperism 154. Plagues 155. Pleasure seeking 156. Plutocracy 157. Polytheism 158. Population pressure 159. Precociousness 160. Professional army 161. Proletarianization 162. Prosperity 163. Prostitution 164. Psychoses 165. Public baths 166. Racial degeneration 167. Racial discrimination 168. Racial suicide 169. Rationalism 170. Refusal of military service 171. Religious struggles and schisms 172. Rentier mentality 173. Resignation 174. Restriction to profession 175. Restriction to the land 176. Rhetoric 177. Rise of uneducated masses 178. Romantic attitudes to peace 179. Ruin of middle class 180. Rule of the world 181. Semieducation 182. Sensuality 183. Servility 184. Sexuality 185. Shamelessness 186. Shifting of trade routes 187. Slavery 188. Slavic attacks 189. Socialism (of the state) 190. Soil erosion 191. Soil exhaustion 192. Spiritual barbarism 193. Stagnation 194. Stoicism 195. Stress 196. Structural weakness 197. Superstition 198. Taxation, pressure of 199. Terrorism 200. Tiredness of life 201. Totalitarianism 202. Treason 203. Tristesse 204. Two-front war 205. Underdevelopment 206. Useless eaters 207. Usurpation of all powers by state 208. Vain gloriousness 209. Villa economy 210. Vulgarization
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 15:59 |
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:Reading a bit too much into the 'psychology' in the thread title here but maybe there's a link between beliefs like Dark Enlightenment and some sorts of personality disorders. People toss around terms like narcissist or sociopath to describe them but they act quite differently in the formal sense than those sorts of people. That seems like an enormous stretch, especially considering how hierarchical DE thinking is. Authoritarianism is not just about giving orders, it's about taking them from the ideology's designated authorities, and you'd be better off trying to herd cats across the Great Plains than trying to discipline a bunch of schizoids. I would expect them to be more drawn to vulgar anarchism, or anarcho-syndicalism if they're a bit more sophisticated. The Vosgian Beast posted:The Roman empire fell for the following reasons At this point, from looking at empires throughout history, my answer is "it was an empire, and empires just kind of fall apart after a while". We're next.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 16:00 |
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:The Roman empire fell for the following reasons Incomplete, it's missing entries beginning with K, Q, W, X, Y, and Z. I can think of one for Z but it might be a duplicate of the J entry.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 16:10 |
|
Woolie Wool posted:That seems like an enormous stretch, especially considering how hierarchical DE thinking is. Authoritarianism is not just about giving orders, it's about taking them from the ideology's designated authorities, and you'd be better off trying to herd cats across the Great Plains than trying to discipline a bunch of schizoids. I would expect them to be more drawn to vulgar anarchism, or anarcho-syndicalism if they're a bit more sophisticated. If they think that they'll be those authorities based on their "logical" (read: doesn't respond to others' emotions) nature, they might be willing to accept a hierarchical system in theory. People with PDs aren't exactly known for thinking the consequences of their beliefs to their logical conclusions here. Otherwise my money'd be on objectivism.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 16:12 |
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:If they think that they'll be those authorities based on their "logical" (read: doesn't respond to others' emotions) nature, they might be willing to accept a hierarchical system in theory. People with PDs aren't exactly known for thinking the consequences of their beliefs to their logical conclusions here. Otherwise my money'd be on objectivism. You don't have to go back that far to find documents on the mental illness that is communism.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 16:16 |
|
I dunno, what pathology causes you to believe that Lovecraft gods are real, and instead of them being scary tentacle monsters or metaphors for the cold indifference of the cosmos, they represent social trends or forces that don't benefit you, personally? Other than
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 16:44 |
|
Can we just institute a fascist one-world government based on my personal opinions of what society should focus on, already?
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 17:07 |
|
Guavanaut posted:I'm always wary of trying to fit members of a political movement into any type of pathology, even when they're as out there as NRx, simply because there's a long history of doing that to any political movement that isn't the dominant one at the time. I don't mean to imply that everyone (or even many people) with those beliefs has some sort of mental issue or that any problem with a political movement is due to those people. These movements have problems regardless of who supports them. However personality disorders have profound effects on people's lives at all levels and it's unrealistic to imagine that it doesn't affect how they think about politics. How is someone who grew up in a well-off but dysfunctional family going to feel about the idea that they had a privileged upbringing? How would the defensive belief "my parents couldn't be neglectful, they're rich" play into that?
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 19:18 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 23:51 |
|
Darth Walrus posted:Also, it's a mistake to tie fascism to Imperial Rome too much. It's a modern industrial-age ideology with about as much of a relationship to the Roman political system as Wicca has to pre-Roman Celtic druids. Mussolini using the trappings of his country's semi-mythical golden age for his philosophy of dictatorship didn't mean he had a direct line to the ancient wisdom of millennia-dead consuls and senators, and while it hearkens back to the good old days, breaking with tradition is a core element of fascist philosophy. See, again, the Futurist Manifesto: It is a mistake tie fascism to Mussolini, just as it is a mistake to tie collectivism to Stalin. Fascism and collectivism and liberalism behave like the archaic humoral system of medicine- elements are present in every polity, and disease results from an excess or deficit of any one of them. In the West, we currently suffer from an excess of liberalism.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 22:24 |