In the Footsteps of Zheng He

One link in Nick Land’s weekly “Chaos Patch” roundup: A dustup in Kenya involving a Chinese restauranteur accused of excluding natives.

“There’s a whole lore in China, where Africa has attained this image of this El Dorado: a place [that] with very little experience and little capital, you can start up your own companies, you can attain land, you can engage very profitably in trade, you can strike it rich quickly.”

El Dorado: Exactly what pops up in my cortex when someone says “Africa”!

Now I knew Africa is fantastically rich in mineral wealth. Close your eyes and pick a random element of the periodic table; it’s right likely mined in the Dark Continent. Vanadium? Check. Ruthenium? Yep. Platinum? Sure thing. Carbon? We have that in liquid and crystallized form, sir.

But the idea that an immigrant can make bank engaging in trade and service … Kenya’s nominal GDP per capita is $1100. And Kenya, Wikipedia tells us, “has a well-developed social and physical infrastructure [and] is considered the main alternative location to South Africa for major corporations seeking entry into the African continent.” Got to be some Chinese emigrating to poorer African nations.

For those of you who think all human races have uniform neurological traits:

Chinese people with “little experience” and “little capital”, who are immigrants, who probably don’t even know the language: They can “strike it rich” in Africa, while native Africans so obviously cannot.

How does that work?

Advertisements

Cape Fear

Last week I implied that Googlers who did not agree with the progressive consensus were “afraid all the time.” To which a commenter, Balthazar, responded

How afraid are you, really?

I gave a short straightforward answer. But that “comma really” rankled. More than a touch of disbelief there. A better response is required.

What started the whole shebang (sorry): Ex-Google employee Kelly Ellis accusing a coworker of “sexual harassment.” Does the furore around sexual harassment make Googlers afraid?

Working a white collar job as a white male in the 21st century is like living in a bad neighborhood. You can live in a bad neighborhood. You just need to be careful. Take precautions. Be alert, all the time. Park where the lighting is good. Create a protocol of locking your home and car, and always follow it. Avoid people who — well, you know which people to avoid.

This will keep you safe and your possessions whole. Until it doesn’t. Until you get distracted or careless or impatient. Or just really damn unlucky despite your best efforts.

(But no matter what, you’ll blame yourself. That’s what you do when commanded to treat aggression by co-primates as a freakish natural disaster, like being struck by lightning. What were James Stuhlman’s last thoughts before being offed by three of Philadelphia’s finest “youths”? Probably something like, “58th Street. I had to walk the dog down 58th Street. If I had just taken 57th I would have been fine.”)

So. As I said to Balthazar:

… I’ve already worried that a female coworker might take some conversation the wrong way (“was that offensive? She couldn’t possibly think that’s offensive? She’s cool, right?”).

And I was scheduled for a meeting with a woman that I didn’t know very well … and I seriously considered what would happen if she claimed I harassed her, and what steps I could take to prove my innocence.

Precautions. Alert all the time. Fear? Yes, but sublimated into wariness.

* * * * * * * * * *

There are phonomena, and there are epiphonomena. L’affaire de la Kelly Ellis is a phenomenon. What to think about L’affaire de la Kelly Ellis is an epiphenomenon.

Whenever anyone at Ellis’ former employer has emailed, posted, memed, or otherwise expressed their epiphenomenal thoughts in a discoverable medium, they amount to the same thing: Ellis is a victim. The conduct was outrageous. Her alleged harasser was reprehensible. Google needs to do something about the treatment of female engineers.

Note that I do not label this the majority opinion. I label it the unanimous opinion. Isn’t that surprising? Google has 50,000 employees, give or take a few. If you had 50,000 Facebook friends, would they all post the same opinions?

I have my own opinions on the matter. Which: are a little out there. Googlers are from Earth and I’m from Yuggoth. More on that after a few more asterisk breaks.

The following are alternate opinions that are both reasonable and completely in line with classic progressive philosophy.

(I have no interest in naming Kelly Ellis’ alleged harasser, and I have no intention of writing “Kelly Ellis’ alleged harasser” a bunch of times, so let’s invent a pseudonym for the poor man. How about: Tom Robinson.)

  • We have only Ellis’ word for what happened.
  • We should wait to hear Tom Robinson’s side of the story.
  • We should not smear Tom Robinson’s reputation until all the facts have been ascertained.
  • Discussing Tom Robinson as if he were proven guilty puts Google at legal risk.

Which of these arguments were made in the past few weeks on Google’s extensive social networks? The answer appears to be “none.” There was one person who objected (very mildly) that false accusations of rape were found harmful to European men. A few posts later, that person grovelled (very mildly) and apologized.

(Kids, if you’re curious about Tom Robinson: believing that accused rapists should receive due process is not a thing and never has been. Very soon an encyclopedia update will arrive with important information about Toki city in Gifu Prefecture. Please paste it over that other article, about some book.)

If you, as a Googler, expressed one of the arguments listed above, you would get a lot of pushback. You would be called out on Google+, or have a meme made about you. You might have to debate as many as a dozen people. You have a job. You were hoping to spend the evening watching the best team in college basketball double up its opponent. Not arguing with a bunch of fanatics. Who needs this? Y’all have fun now.

And on the subject of “have a job” … the intimidation really hits you when a progressive’s comment or meme gets 30, 40, 50 upvotes. 30, 40, 50 is a lot of people. Compared to little you. And you wonder … will I work with any of these people in the future? Are they on promotion committees? Might I need their help in an emergency?

Much better to say nothing. Thus: Silence. Thus: Unanimity. Fear? Yes, but sublimated into a resigned feeling that it’s best to keep silent.

* * * * * * * * * *

Google, like any large organization, has a culture. Because Google is large, the culture is not uniform. Variance in corporate culture is especially notable when an executive talks about it; the experience of the leader is so often different from that of the grunts.

Some years back, a very senior product manager (whose initials shall be gently encrypted as WE — no relation) sent a mass email to propose how Google could preserve its culture. WE’s method was called “pecking.” When birds discover that one of their nestmates is not quite right, they peck. Each individual peck is not very forceful, but the sum of all of them drives the outlier from the nest.

That Googlers who don’t fit in should be “pecked” by their coworkers went over like a lead balloon. Every geek, myself included, is sensitive to being a misfit. We aren’t the most attractive. Or well dressed. We’re not into sports or celebrities or extreme outdoor sports or whatever the happy shiny people are doing.

In an earlier post I said that progressive methods for enforcing consensus are “indistinguishable from bullying.” That’s a good description. “Pecking” is a better one. Peck away little progressive. Peck peck peck.

* * * * * * * * * *

An interruption for a commercial break. Was Enlightened cannot exist indefinitely on Lovecraft pastiches, futile attempts to instill a sense of shame in progressives, and snarky swipes at dim-witted athletes. Was Enlightened needs to branch out. To monetize! Today’s special: Apparel. Please do try a sample.

It being the early 21st century, we cannot deliver actual clothing over your internet connection. The metaphorical variety will have to do. You will say a sentence — more than once, if you please. You don’t button up a shirt and then immediately take it off. Say these words monotonically, then with inflection, loudly, then softly. Strut in front of a mirror. See how you like it.

“The unanimous opposition to Kelly Ellis’ harassment is a result of Google’s commitment to diversity.”

So what do you think? It comes in red and black, though I can tell you that the unsophisticated onlooker has a difficult time telling the two shades apart.

If you were able to wear this metaphorical tunic without activating your gag reflex — even better, if “commitment to diversity” activated a pleasurable sensation deep in your limbic system — you are well on your way to power. To be sure: an existence as a small avian who pecks one’s nestmates is power of the most limited sort. But even a tiny slice of power is so hot and juicy.

And now back to our program.

* * * * * * * * * *

“If the past is a foreign country, a reactionary is a patriot of that country.” I am a patriot of the past. Progressives hate the past. (They also hate patriots.)

Were I to make my political views known at my workplace — “given the facts are as presented, Tom Robinson did nothing wrong and Ellis is a deranged attention whore”, or, in response to another woman who left: “do you call that a legitimate list of concerns? I call it documentary evidence that women like to complain, and if you take the complaints too seriously you just get more complaints” — it would be impossible for me to continue working there. Not that I would be summarily fired. Tom Robinson was not summarily fired when Kelly Ellis decided to ruin his life. But it was not possible for him to continue working at Google. He was like the soldier in the war movie who gets shot, and continues to fight until realizing he is dead. Dead man walking.

I have no intention of being dead man walking. So I am anonymous. Use proxies. Carefully avoid any information that would identify me.

I am a sound sleeper. I am not a worrier. But sometimes, the night after publishing one of these posts, I wake up with the sweats. Did I just dox myself? Did I let enough personal detail slip that I could be identified? Eventually I decide that, no, I couldn’t possibly have done anything so dumb. Eventually I return to sleep.

Thus: Fear. Not sublimated into anything.

Balthazar, I trust that this detailed reply was helpful.

The View from Yuggoth

Welcome, students, welcome! Please find a place to rest your legs, claws, other appendages. Today’s lecture: “Memetic Metrology of Religions of the Homeworld of R’yleh”, a planet sometimes known as Earth.

All of you should be operating your learning devices … good. In a moment I shall project charts. These charts show four attributes of Earth systems for organizing human behaviors — usually known, of course, as religions.

islam_gr

Our first chart is for a system — religion — called “Islam.” Note the extremely high “Zeal” metric. Islam is a simple religion, perfectly crafted to assume control of a planet. The only remarkable feature of the religion is its maniacal insistence on universal expansion by any means necessary, physical or memetic; the other moderately low scores represent the minimum superstructure needed for the long-term transmission of beliefs. Islam has one purpose: to conquer. Yes, from a distance of three billion miles it is quite fascinating to contemplate.

jud_gr

The second chart provides a nice contrast. “Judaism” is a very low-zeal, high-piety and ritual religion. Therefore, it does not spread promiscuously, but it does survive, even under the most extreme selection pressures.

budd_gr

This next chart is for a religion known as “Buddhism”, in this case the variety practiced in the largest grouping of humans. Yes, I see an appendage has been raised?

All features of this religion are scored low, instructor. Is this religion competitive? Why has it not been replaced by another religion such Islam?

Ah, a good question. I will cite two reasons why Buddhism is stable and indeed optimal for Chinese humans. Millenia of peasant servitude shaped the Chinese into docile, compliant, hard-working citizens. A high-zeal religion like Islam would be alien to them. It brings to mind the old saying, never put a Dagon tiara on a Shoggoth. It ruins the tiara and annoys the Shoggoth.

Another point: the Chinese are so numerous that they have attained cultural permanence, even supremacy. Thus the interests of the Chinese culture reign supreme over that of the Buddhist belief system. Self-preservation and conservatism must be the rule of the day; what would be the point of the Chinese trying to become more Chinese?

Those learning devices are a pleasure to use, aren’t they? A human from a place called England had a go at one earlier this year. I am afraid the experience improved his respiration but not his central nervous system.

Our next specimen is somewhat of a historical curiosity, but in years past was a powerful force that dominated the planet. It has the proboscis-twisting name of “Christianity.” What do you think are the likely characteristics of this religion?

xtian_gr

It is the first we’ve seen that has high Zeal and high Piety.

An excellent observation. Surely, when brains are selected for tok’l-cylinder journeys, yours will be among the first to be harvested. It should be noted that high Zeal/Piety is an exceptionally powerful yet unstable combination. Religions that are high-Zeal spread without particular trouble. Religions that are high-Piety tend to be introspective cults that wither away. Religions that have both Zeal and Piety are vulnerable to heresies, holiness competition, and vicious fratricidal wars over the most trivial differences — I refer you to the One-Eighth Year War for an example.

Now Christianity’s mysticism and ritual, while considerable, are the minimum needed to prevent its high Piety/Zeal from tearing itself — yes, is there a question?

Why do these charts not show the number of gods for each religion?

Number of gods! It sounds so simple, like the music of Azathoth. You are aware, I suppose, that creatures who for some reason worship one god are known as monotheistic. Yet even this simple concept contains traps for the unwary. The monotheism of the Jews 10 or even 12 years ago, for instance, commanded worship of Yahweh alone — as opposed to other gods, who were recognized as inferior but real. It was of course a simple matter for Jews and others to assert total primacy over other gods by denying their very existence. “There is no God but Allah.”

Meanwhile Christianity claims to be both monotheistic and tritheistic while accepting prayers issued to intermediary figures called saints. Attempting to analyze human belief systems led to frightful arguments and divisions in the department. I can tell you confidentially that lectures such as this were quite impossible.

Luckily, a very clever gentlefungi — modesty prohibits me from uttering its name — conceived an important simplification: that theistic head-counting was totally unnecessary for the analysis of memetic measurement.

Let us move on to the final chart, an system that is much less than a year old and is possessed of very interesting characteristics. For instance, those who practice this religion claim it is a sin to belong to any religion!

How is it possible to practice a religion while professing that religions are immoral?

You must understand that humans are very peculiar creatures. For example, due to the wholly different vibration-rate of their electrons, if you take a picture of a human and develop the film, an image will appear!

(Uneasy scuttling/scratching noises)

Please adjust the controls … the chart for this religion, called “Ultra-Calvinism” or “Universalism”, will now appear.

univ_gr

Surely this religion is not … very stable?

Indeed. One might think it is deliberately created to do the maximum harm to its adherents and bystanders alike.

Is it true that the Old Ones sponsor this belief system?

What? Kindly explain yourself.

The supplemental materials for this course state that in Universalist-ruled societies, “Cthulhu only swims left.”

I did not convene this lecture for purposes of blasphemy.

Imperialism Together

The progressive who happened upon this blog may find Neoreaction a little hard to swallow. Human BiodiversityAmerica Is A Communist Country … these freaks even use the word ‘patriarchy’ non-pejoratively! But there is one facet of policy on which we can agree: Imperialism.

Neoreactionaries are opposed to it, sincerely and in toto. Our policy is roughly that of Ron Paul, but even nicer to foreigners: after not bombing them, we won’t let them in our country. (There are all these tornados and Americans are awful drivers.)

Everything is copacetic, just need to cross the t’s and dot the i’s. Please participate in this short quiz:

1. Cultural Imperialism: I am opposed to America rearranging the native culture of less powerful nations for its profit and convenience.

2. Treaty Imperialism: America should respect treaties. Reinterpreting, renegotiating, or flat out ignoring those treaties is immoral.

3. Clandestine Imperialism: To act in secret to subvert another nation’s government — especially another democracy’s government — is the most flagrant violation of international law possible.

That wasn’t hard, was it? As for scoring:

For each “Yes”, score 5 points, redeemable at a UNICEF store near you.

For each “No,” score 0, and I hope you’re properly ashamed of yourself, warmonger.

For each “Yes” that was insincere because you actually support the form of imperialism in question, score -50 points. And if you lied without even knowing that you were lying, and are now gibbering with astonished resentment: don’t even bother with points. I just burned down the UNICEF store. And built a Chick-Fil-A over the ruins. (Even better: a Hooters. Trannies need not apply.)

* * * * * * * * * *

I live in Northern California; I work in the technology industry. Thus I am bombarded with flyers, emails, social media posts requesting support for this or that progressive cause. One such cause is that of educating girls in the Third World.

Some progressive shibboleths are controversial with the general public. Take global warming. Every time the East Coast goes through a record-setting cold snap, five different progressives pop up in my Facebook feed to snarl that “weather is not climate”.

I have never seen any progressive anywhere defend the education of girls. Girls’ education is self-evidently beneficial. It needs no defending.

One such program is “Girl Rising”. Another is “Peruvian Promise”, which is prominently featured on the home page of the Google-sponsored charity/NGO One Billion Acts of Peace:

When girls are educated and develop a sense of self-worth, they will in turn have a greater chance to succeed in life.

The mission of this important girls leadership and empowerment program, Peruvian Promise, is to unlock the potential of young women through scholarships for education and ongoing mentoring.

Which begs the following questions:

1. Is Peruvian culture suited for this program? 2. Will expanding education for girls lead to conflicts and unrealistic expectations?

3. What is the effect on existing Peruvian schools? 4. Will educators be unloaded from container vessels in Trujillo and Cailao? Or will existing programs benefiting boys be displaced? 5. If Peru is a traditional society, might this program perhaps worsen the education of the people who will actually hold jobs?

Of course these are all rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions suck and are pointless. Rhetorical questions are most suckful and pointless when aimed at someone’s religious beliefs. A good Universalist’s answers to the above questions are 1. What? 2. Are you fucking kidding me? 3. Who cares? 4. Do you think my student loans pay for themselves? 5. If Peru is a traditional male-dominated society, we can fix that.

In other words, Peruvian Promise is precisely the pseudophod of the Cathedral that was suggested by the warning rattle of “leadership”, “empowerment”, and “ongoing mentoring”.

In other words, cultural imperialism.

* * * * * * * * * *

When I was a kid I watched a bit of Star Trek. THE Star Trek, with Kirk and Spock. And Star Trek: The Next Generation, with the bald guy and the robot. One episode that stuck in my mind: A military researcher/spook who installed a cloaking device on Enterprise: TNG and took it for a spin. This infuriated the bald guy, because apparently the Federation made nice with the Romulans and/or Klingons and promised not to research its own invisibility technology.

Even at the age of 16 I knew that there was something very wrong with this. Surely Mr. Cloaking Device Spook, and the government he represented, were behaving normally and prudently. But there was Captain Picard, veins throbbing, saying vehemently that the Federation “signed the treaty in good faith.”

Well. A few years before this episode aired, the British colony of Hong Kong prepared for its own sequel, HK: TNG. The Chinese promised that when they took over the colony in 1997:

In accordance with the One Country, Two Systems principle …, the socialist system of People’s Republic of China would not be practiced in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and Hong Kong’s previous capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for a period of 50 years.

Have the Chicoms kept their promises? It’s been nearly two decades, and Hong Kong
– Maintains its own customs service, even for Chinese nationals
– Does not censor internet access
– Mints its own currency of pretty but rather clunky coinage
– Writes with traditional Chinese characters (a different script from that favored in the PRC)
– Drives on the left side of the road like crazy folk

Suppose the US somehow obtained the reversion of some valuable territory. The Vancouver Reversion, that’s not so hard to imagine. I’d be impressed if 18 years after the handover, Vancouver still used Canadian loons. Wouldn’t you?

Suppose the reversion territory had a private health care system. Do you think it would be allowed to opt out of Obamacare?

So the Chinese, and Hong Kong, have done pretty well. Thus the Umbrella Revolution was totally unnecessary, except as a manifestation of Cathedral evangelism/witless street theater. When my progressive friends and associates discussed the Umbrella Revolution, they were totally self-congratulatory, like … well, like all progressive projects. None of them had the slightest interest in whether the Chinese had held up their end of the bargain. If the Chinese signed the treaty in good faith. Even if they had, so what? Beijing is anti-democratic and the protesters are pro-democracy and what else matters?

In other words, treaty imperialism.

* * * * * * * * * *

A few weeks back some prog friends reshared an Atlantic article about Beate Gordon, a woman who wrote a clause in the Japanese constitution stipulating various forms of gender equity.

And she wrote this clause surreptitiously, with no input from the Japanese or American public. (“In February 1946, she worked in Tokyo on a top-secret project to draft a new Japanese constitution. Her assignment: women’s rights.”)

One bugaboo of the American left has always been “covert action”. Shadowy, secretive spies conduct dastardly deeds to thwart progressive regimes worldwide.

(This is is course silly — the CIA itself is left-wing, and lacks super powers. But what matters for our purposes is what progressives believe: that there exists a room somewhere in Langley with a giant world map, and periodically a spook twirls, let us say, a knob marked “Santiago” and sweet lovable Allende is replaced by vile Pinochet.)

So what did the covert-action-loathing left think of Ms. Gordon?

“It set a basis for a better, a more equal society,” Carol Gluck, a Columbia University professor of Japanese history, said in an excellent New York Times obituary of Gordon. “By just writing those things into the [Japanese] Constitution — our Constitution doesn’t have any of those things — Beate Gordon intervened at a critical moment. And what 22-year-old gets to write a constitution?”

Remember: This is an actual quote. This is not something I invented for purposes of mockery. When clandestinely writing another country’s laws suits progressive goals, it’s all hooray for our team. Not one progressive of my acquaintance showed the slightest qualm about Ms. Gordon’s activities.

Liar Liar Pants on Fire

Reactionary Thought, an aggregator of NRx blogs, has the tagline “Things so obvious I’m afraid to say them.” @freddiedeboer, a college lecturer, tweeted things so obvious about “safe space discourse”/triggering:

I can’t stress this enough: within the safe space discourse there is absolute no ability to call any complaint frivolous or dishonest. None.

If you question even the most obviously dishonest and self-interested invocation of trauma/triggering/etc, you will be criticized severely.

That means that we are totally and permanently vulnerable to dishonest students. And trust me: they are very quick learners in this arena.

I’m just agog at how naive you have to be to think that undergrads would never dishonestly invoke safe space rhetoric for selfish reasons.

Things so obvious … that I or my co-workers would be afraid to say them.

I See It In Your Eyes, Take One Look And Die

Earlier today while explaining NeoReaction I stated that Republicans are frauds, an official and tame opposition:

Republicans are elected and given money due to popular discontent with the system; they have no incentive to actually do anything about it.

Not an hour later I read that conservative blogger Ace of Spades — who was a big deal when I was still in my 20s — is done with the Republican Party. Why?

I know very few of you believe the GOP has much intention of repealing Obamacare, but, being a Republican, I have previously felt the need to present The Official Party Position even knowing it was total bullshit.

I’ve known it was a lie for a year, which is why I hate when it comes up on, say, the Podcast. What am I supposed to say? Am I supposed to pretend the GOP is going to repeal it?

So they’re not. They never were.

It was always a lie. To get you to vote for them. We lose on the issue, so then we Have The Issue to run on.

Brief Introduction

I started this blog as an outlet for my feelings. My workplace, my social circle, exhibit a depressing ideological conformity and ruthlessly police deviance. I had no mouth, and I needed to scream.

Until recently this blog’s traffic was in the single digits. Most referrers responsible for the recent uptick of visits come from elsewhere in the Reactosphere — the excellent Commodore Henry Dampier, Nick B Steves, Free Northerner. Because of this, I have used in-group jargon and have not defined my terms.

For the benefit of my readers who are not familiar with Neoreaction, I present a Brief Introduction to Neoreaction, often abbreviated as NRx and also known as The Dark Enlightenment.

TL;DR; what is NRx?

NRx is the uncomfortable truth.

NRx is recognizing that much of what you have been taught, while it sounds nice, is a lie. Human races and genders do not have identical abilities. Democracy is not an effective or moral system of governance. Western society does not cycle between liberalism and conservatism; we move left with alarming speed.

That bit about races and genders is scary. Are you some kind of … racist?

“Racist” is just hate speech for “white.” (As progressives will tell you, minorities can’t be racist.)

I believe in natural selection. You are probably familiar with Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”. Read its full original title, if you will.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Neo-reactionaries actually believe in evolution. It’s absurd to think that populations in different climates and surroundings would evolve identical brains, identical behaviors. It’s also absurd to think that males and females have identical selection pressures. The only type of person who could believe this is a religious lunatic.

Are neo-reactionaries religious?

I am not. Some are believers in one form of Christanity or another, and I’m happy that their faith sustains them.

A core Nrx tenet on religion: Progressivism is a demented, mutant heresy of Christianity — Universal Unitarianism, which we can abbreviate as Universalism.

But all my progressive friends are atheists! They brag about how they don’t believe in God!

Do Buddhists believe in God?

Progressives believe that all persons are equal, as a classic Christian Universalist might believe that all souls will be saved. Progressives believe in spreading democracy and “human rights” to all nations, in the same manner as a 19th-century missionary spreading the Good Word to the darkest corner of the globe. Progressive rituals such as excessively detailed recycling are akin to religious rituals.

Progressives compete with each other to see who can be holiest, who can have the most outre theology.

If progressives are a problem, does that mean I should vote against them? I voted Republican once when no one was looking, but nothing happened.

Progressives control the popular media and the civil service. Electing this or that politician is pointless; the media makes sure his politics stay within acceptable bounds, and the civil service will just ignore him.

Republicans are elected and given money due to popular discontent with the system; they have no incentive to actually do anything about it. Because progressives have coopted America’s intellectual class, conservatives must pretend to be anti-intellectual, with disastrous results.

As Moldbug said, “Voting in a democracy makes you feel powerful, much as playing the lottery makes you feel rich”.

Who is this Moldbug guy that you quote all the time?

Mencius Moldbug is a third-generation progressive (his father was a diplomat and his grandparents belonged to the CPUSA). He managed the almost impossible feat of seeing the water in which we swim. He read books from the 19th and 20th century, and thought critically about democracy and liberalism — and how we are trained to believe in them as beneficial.

Moldbug wrote long and meandering blog posts from 2007 until last year. While somewhat unfocused, his writing is entertaining and informative. You can find a helpful organization of his posts at Moldbuggery; the most popular series are An open letter to open-minded progressives and How Dawkins got pwned.

Supposing NRx is true … what good is it? To be blunt, what’s in it for me?

Even if the truth is uncomfortable, you should know what it is. The truth helps you understand the world better. There are many phenomena that I could not explain in the past; now I can do so.

It is liberating to examine how you were programmed by society. You can choose whether to cringe when someone says “sexist” or “racist.” You’re an adult; act like one.

Ask yourself which explains the world better, neoreaction or the default liberal-democratic belief system:

Default: If politician X is elected, he will enact policies I like and reverse policies I don’t.

NRx: Presidents behave the way you would expect of the leader of a large country with trade ties to the rest of the globe, who is in charge of a powerful military. The only Republican rollbacks of noxious Democratic policies in my lifetime were welfare reform (with the connivance of a Democratic president) and much of the federal government’s economic regulations (which were of course gradually replaced, then expanded).

Default: We gave blacks trillions of dollars and special privileges. They have not achieved equality with whites. The reason for this is “racism”, which apparently operates like a Higgs field — it doesn’t matter how “liberal” or “conservative” the locale or institution, blacks are arrested at higher rates and represented in professions requiring high intelligence at a lower rate.

NRx: Blacks are not equal to whites. Therefore the “inequality” between these races is expected and makes perfect sense. (This also explains why progressives are unable to come up with a black martyr who was not killed while committing a crime.)

Default: Democracy is an unqualified good. Any country that switches to a democratic government can expect peace and prosperity.

NRx: Democracy can only operate in countries whose citizens respect order, property, and the rule of law. (Even those countries cannot survive democracy indefinitely.) For most nations, democracy is a disaster, which is why Egypt’s military had to intervene to snuff out that country’s nascent government — and why America won the war against Afghanistan and Iraq, then lost the peace.

Default: The progressives of my acquaintance are tolerant, gentle people who would be accepting of my deviance from mainstream intellectual ideology.

NRx: The progressives of my acquaintance hate and fear people with normal mainstream views. They would foam at the mouth with outrage upon discovering that one of their 50,000 fellow employees was a neo-reactionary.