Ddraig posted:

Glad to see that you too believe that culture doesn't exist and that man is a self-contained entity entirely dependant on themselves. Where did you learn this? College?

Crowsbeak posted:

Drow besides being rather racist, also never made sense to me. If the had spent millennia underground shouldn't they be pale as gently caress? Know sunlight would mean they would probably not have melanin wouldn't it? So they would look like Elric. (Interestingly I would argue the first Dark Elves in literature are the Melniboneans from Elric, and Elric would fit the description to a tee).

Deified Data posted:

The drow are ripped off from the melniboneans wholesale. The entire law/chaos spectrum is also from Moorcock.

Cingulate posted:

Was that seriously your best attempt at an insight view into "HBD" etc people?

Because if yes, you're really loving terrible at empathy. (Or at least with empathy with racists on the internet I guess.)

Polybius91 posted:

This is from a few pages back but:

I'm kind of curious about this, because in many ways it seems the opposite to me. Fascism as I understand it tends to be all about doing away with democracy; relegating women to children, kitchen, and church; holding men to traditional notions of masculinity; and opposition to any sort of cultural evolution (just ask any of them what they think about multiculturalism, or look at the way the Nazis branded new art forms as "degenerate").

I'm not saying you're completely wrong, just that fascism's attitude toward tradition seems rather complicated.

quote:

REJECTION OF PACIFISM

First of all, as regards the future development of mankind, and quite apart from all present political considerations. Fascism does not, generally speaking, believe in the possibility or utility of perpetual peace. It therefore discards pacifism as a cloak for cowardly supine renunciation in contradistinction to self-sacrifice. War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it. All other tests are substitutes which never place a man face to face with himself before the alternative of life or death. Therefore all doctrines which postulate peace at all costs are incompatible with Fascism. Equally foreign to the spirit of Fascism, even if accepted as useful in meeting special political situations -- are all internationalistic or League superstructures which, as history shows, crumble to the ground whenever the heart of nations is deeply stirred by sentimental, idealistic or practical considerations. Fascism carries this anti-pacifistic attitude into the life of the individual. " I don't care a drat „ (me ne frego) - the proud motto of the fighting squads scrawled by a wounded man on his bandages, is not only an act of philosophic stoicism, it sums up a doctrine which is not merely political: it is evidence of a fighting spirit which accepts all risks. It signifies new style of Italian life. The Fascist accepts and loves life; he rejects and despises suicide as cowardly. Life as he understands it means duty, elevation, conquest; life must be lofty and full, it must be lived for oneself but above all for others, both near bye and far off, present and future.

The population policy of the regime is the consequence of these premises. The Fascist loves his neighbor, but the word neighbor does not stand for some vague and unseizable conception. Love of one's neighbor does not exclude necessary educational severity; still less does it exclude differentiation and rank. Fascism will have nothing to do with universal embraces; as a member of the community of nations it looks other peoples straight in the eyes; it is vigilant and on its guard; it follows others in all their manifestations and notes any changes in their interests; and it does not allow itself to be deceived by mutable and fallacious appearances.

quote:

THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADITION

In the Fascist conception of history, man is man only by virtue of the spiritual process to which he contributes as a member of the family, the social group, the nation, and in function of history to which all nations bring their contribution. Hence the great value of tradition in records, in language, in customs, in the rules of social life (8). Outside history man is a nonentity.

quote:

THE FASCIST TOTALITARIAN VISION OF THE FUTURE

The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century. History does not travel backwards. The Fascist doctrine has not taken De Maistre as its prophet. Monarchical absolutism is of the past, and so is ecclesiolatry. Dead and done for are feudal privileges and the division of society into closed, uncommunicating castes. Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State.

A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century. If the XIXth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State. It is quite logical for a new doctrine to make use of the still vital elements of other doctrines. No doctrine was ever born quite new and bright and unheard of. No doctrine can boast absolute originality. It is always connected, it only historically, with those which preceded it and those which will follow it. Thus the scientific socialism of Marx links up to the utopian socialism of the Fouriers, the Owens, the Saint-Simons ; thus the liberalism of the XIXth century traces its origin back to the illuministic movement of the XVIIIth, and the doctrines of democracy to those of the Encyclopaedists. All doctrines aim at directing the activities of men towards a given objective; but these activities in their turn react on the doctrine, modifying and adjusting it to new needs, or outstripping it. A doctrine must therefore be a vital act and not a verbal display. Hence the pragmatic strain in Fascism, it’s will to power, its will to live, its attitude toward violence, and its value.

Darth Walrus posted:

quote:

It’s tempting to wonder what Campbell would make of the mytho-techno-libertarianism currently suffusing the atmosphere around Silicon Valley, given that “the conditions of contemporary life” seems to be just what its proponents would very much like to disrupt—and “turning back,” on a political and social level, is what some Valley thinkers like to do best. Elon Musk, a co-founder of PayPal with Thiel (and, apparently, an inspiration for Marvel Studio’s filmic conceptualisation of their superhero Iron Man/Tony Stark, to whom he is routinely compared), is known for advocating a colonisation of Mars, while blithely suggesting that the cost in human life will be comparable to the colonisation of the New World. Thiel’s views have been linked with the so-called neo-reactionists, some of whom diagnose the cause of American and western political problems as “chronic kinglessness.” Consistent with the oppositional affect of this “Dark Enlightenment” movement, its followers sometimes label valued thinkers “Sith Lords.” The movement’s image seems to vacillate between Empire and Rebellion, which might suggest something about the political confusion the emotional allure of Star Wars has wrought.

Count Chocula posted:

Do we have a general Silicon Valley Lunacy thread?

http://www.theawl.com/2015/12/star-lords

Race Realists posted:

I can only go by what I see online, and for the most part it seems to me a great majority of them fear what I just said (usually they fear their children in that particular situation), their jobs being "stolen" from certain types of individuals who didn't "work hard enough", and the country descending into chaos and disarray (which some of them believe has already occurred)

Smudgie Buggler posted:

That's some gift you have, getting all that from a sarcastic jab. Impressive. Or, it would be, if it wasn't total bullshit.

Count Chocula posted:

Do we have a general Silicon Valley Lunacy thread?

GottaPayDaTrollToll posted:

Not that I know of, but maybe we should. Paul Graham has been on a tear lately, too.

Crowsbeak posted:

I thought Moorcock himself admitted that Law/chaos was largely from Poul Andersson?

Count Chocula posted:

Do we have a general Silicon Valley Lunacy thread?

http://www.theawl.com/2015/12/star-lords

Polybius91 posted:

This is fascinating. Thanks for the effortpost!

EDIT: It's honestly a little uncomfortable. I mean, I myself was never a very big fan of tradition even as a concept. The thought that I have something in common with fascists, regardless of motivation, makes my skin crawl

Polybius91 posted:

This is from a few pages back but:

I'm kind of curious about this, because in many ways it seems the opposite to me. Fascism as I understand it tends to be all about doing away with democracy; relegating women to children, kitchen, and church; holding men to traditional notions of masculinity; and opposition to any sort of cultural evolution (just ask any of them what they think about multiculturalism, or look at the way the Nazis branded new art forms as "degenerate").

I'm not saying you're completely wrong, just that fascism's attitude toward tradition seems rather complicated.

Cingulate posted:

Okay now I'm halfway willing to believe your problem isn't primarily that you're utterly unwilling to empathize, but that you're just bad at it.

But make it explicit, please. Is the above, beyond "seems to me", truly your best, or at least an honest, attempt to try and understand these people (where these -> whatever subgroup you feel like making that statement about now)?

Dapper_Swindler posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN74bOubUug

anyone post this yet. its pretty well done.

rudatron posted:

Your total contribution so far has been to simply spout 'No YOU'RE wrong!' without any justification or, indeed, insight. You don't get to demand explicitness from others when you yet to provide any yourself, especially since it was you who made the attack in the first place.

blackguy32 posted:

So does this group have significant overlap with gamergaters? Or are they in conflict with one anothee? One thing I learned is that a lot of these fringe groups hate each other for various reasons.

fspades posted:

Darth Walrus answered this quite well, but I'd like to stress the distinction here between "tradition-as-imagined" and "tradition-as-it-exists." Fascists are big proponents of the former, but the tradition they glorify goes back to a distant and irretrievable past. In a sense, all conservatism necessarily has elements of this, but genuine conservatives usually have no problems in pointing out to living practices and institutions as a rallying point to defend and extend further. But fascists feel alienated from the modern society and believe they are robbed of their glorious past by it. "The tradition" they defend is already a dead one that must be revived by modern means. As such, even elements of living tradition become suspect of corruption, simply because they managed to survive in a culture of decadence that must be destroyed completely.

There are many examples you can give for this, like from Nazi Germany and their complicated relationship with traditionally conservative elements such as the Catholic Church. But as a recent one, take a look at Daesh, the most infamous fascist organization in the world right now: If you ask them they are all about tradition. The Sunna of the Prophet inform everything they do. Everything is for returning to the pure community of Salafs after a thousand and 300 hundred years of hiatus. Meanwhile, they are destroying the existing fabric of Islamic culture and society wherever they go. They blow up Sufi shrines, eschew tribal allegiances, and ignore quite a lot of modern Islamic jurisprudence as well as the dominant ethical outlook of Iraqi and Syrian society. Because for them these things are irredeemably corrupt anyway. The Islamic State is not for condoning existing society; it's there to transform it by the might of the state and arms. And until that's done, spectacular acts of violence are the order of the day.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

The thing about fascism overall, and totalitarianism in general, is that they play up fantasy versions of Our Glorious Past. You see this in right wing political thought basically everywhere and what they're after is the power. Nothing more, nothing less. "We were powerful once; let's be powerful again" is the overall battle cry. So they find somebody and something to blame. That is The Great Enemy and we must fight it. This is what inspires people to fight and kill; without that brutal totalitarianism of any stripe can't exist.

You see the pattern over and over again in fascist, fundamentalist, and totalitarian movements and it's always the same.

Cingulate posted:

I don't think this really captures Nazism. And if you leave fascism and move to other totalitarianisms, even less so (Stalinism etc).

ToxicSlurpee posted:

In the case of the Nazis a lot of it was "things were great before the Jews ruined everything." I get that it's more complex than that in reality but reading about it that's one of the most common things I've seen. "We were awesome; now let's be awesome again." Granted at the time in Europe Futurism was taking place as well which wanted to discard the past for a better future but nationalism in general was where a lot of it came from. "We are good; you are bad. You must be destroyed."

BaurusJA posted:

I'm pretty sure the "lets be awesome again" and recovery of past stuff is why Heidegger intitially bought into the movement. A lot of Heidegger's writing, even during the second formulation of Sein und Zeit, had a lot of the "recovery, return" narrative going on in it. So the seeds of these thoughts were there in Heidegger's mind even in the 20s. I mean, I think he eventually figured out that the social control and totalitarian approach wasn't what he wanted and became disillusioned with the movement, but I don't think he ever quite got over hoping Germany could return to a slower time, a more thoughtful time... without the Jews.

I think this is why Heidegger's philosophy got further appropriated than even he wished by the Nazi's because it told the "return to the past" narrative in a convincing way. Problem is the "slower, more thoughtful time" never really existed as either Heidegger or the Nazi's imagined it.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

A lot of that goes back to their theories on race too and how the Aryan race got ruined in the first place. They argued that, as people went further north, their skin got lighter and they got more clever to deal with the harsher climate. They viewed Germanic and Nordic people as the best poo poo ever because they were the lightest and thus the most clever. There was a time when they didn't mix with other races, didn't get influenced by outside ideas, and were huge, awesome badasses that could tame any terrain you threw at them. Once again it was pining for this lost past where Aryans didn't have influence from outsiders in any way, shape, or form. This is where the idea of fighting for "Liebensraum" came from and why extermination started happening; anybody that wasn't pure Aryan was wrong and bad. They were subhuman filth that had to be removed.

The idea was to not only return to a past where Aryans had no outside influences ruining them but to create a future where only that past existed but once again it was an inaccurate past they were going after. Yes the light-skinned people of that region of the world were tough by necessity but they weren't some incredible supermen that could accomplish literally anything. They just adapted their ways to their surroundings because that's just what humans do.

BaurusJA posted:

And, more specifically, they were only adapted and hardy in comparison to their direct ecological environment. Drop them in tropical Africa and the disease gradient change would have wiped them out right quick. In fact, the farther a society moves from tropical regions and the more a group of people move to the edge of temperate climates the higher survival rates go. So actually, they have the argument backwards slightly. But regardless whether people can survive harsh winters or vicious tropical areas doesn't mean anything about how virtuous and powerful said group of people are, like you said, it just says that they were good at surviving their immediate ecological conditions and nothing more.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

In the case of the Nazis a lot of it was "things were great before the Jews ruined everything." I get that it's more complex than that in reality but reading about it that's one of the most common things I've seen. "We were awesome; now let's be awesome again." Granted at the time in Europe Futurism was taking place as well which wanted to discard the past for a better future but nationalism in general was where a lot of it came from. "We are good; you are bad. You must be destroyed."

ToxicSlurpee posted:

Plus a lot of that happens through gradual migration and adapting survival techniques slowly. The world isn't some place where the terrain has magical lines where one side is X and the other is Y. It transitions so once one area had too many people they just moved a bit over, changed their ways a little, and then repeated the cycle later. So these forest-dwelling folks overpopulate their forest, some of them move to a slightly colder one, change their habits a bit, and so forth. Next thing you know you have people living in the arctic circle eating whales.

Cingulate posted:

I think this is trying to explain too much with just one story.

Sure, Nazism was deeply reactionary. But it was not, from anything I can tell, primarily a (faux-)restorative movement. It was not "Let's make Germany great again". It was explicitly radical, new, pro-future. Hitler wanted to beat America. He wanted to surpass what Germany had been so far.

The dominant past-looking element was revanchism, which is not a desire to restore a Golden Age, but to avenge a past injustice.

Reaction has fascist elements and fascism is strongly reactionary, but they're not the same.

BaurusJA posted:

Also, after looking up some DE stuff doesn't it seem like most of these people just took a Marxist account of history ran it backwards and said KINGSHIP IS BEST SHIP!?

BaurusJA posted:

Oh for sure I was just saying what I said in refutation of the "The Inherent Hardiness-Superiority of the Aryans" which Nazis widely claimed. I was more saying Aryans or people who live in northern Europe aren't superior or have it any harder or easier than any other human group just based on where they live. Of course, I'm rough sketching though.

Also, after looking up some DE stuff doesn't it seem like most of these people just took a Marxist account of history ran it backwards and said KINGSHIP IS BEST SHIP!?

ToxicSlurpee posted:

They argued that, as people went further north, their skin got lighter and they got more clever to deal with the harsher climate.

Silver2195 posted:

More Whig than Marxist, but basically yes.

BaurusJA posted:

Sigh, I suppose I should have known that DE people aren't very smart, clever, or original.

Wheeee posted:

Their hero and most brilliant and talented and important man on the planet is a dot-com billionaire who runs an unprofitable car company propped up by the government and an aerospace company which acts as a government contractor for poo poo that's too small-time for NASA's purview.