scott alexander just straight up saying that his goal was to sell reactionary talking points to a non-reactionary audience is just such utterly on the nose, smoking gun proof that i was right all along. as i always am.
You’re acting like this is some kind of dramatic confession, but to me the most surprising thing about it is that it was apparently meant to be secret.
I dunno, maybe I’m some weird combination of extremely insightful and extremely dense. But I didn’t think it was any kind of secret that Scott thinks neoreactionaries have some ideas worth spreading. And it seems Scott is actually more suspicious of HBD in private than I expected. The not-denying-it dance he’s been doing for years made me think he was a straight-up believer, not the kind of guy who says “probably partially correct or at least very non-provably non-correct”.
You and I have argued before, mostly about topics like this one. About the allegedly conspiratorial nature of rationalism. Now I’m wondering what, exactly, we disagreed about.
Did we agree about the public message, with you claiming the existence of a reactionary hidden message I didn’t believe in?
Or did we unknowingly agree about the actual message, but disagree about whether it was meant to be hidden?
Maybe we can clarify this with a simple yes-or-no question.
Do you think Scott was lying when he said to Topher that he thinks the majority of reactionary thought is garbage?
first i would like to re-iterate, as i have said many times before, that i believe, and have always believed, that scott is a liberal. a right-wing liberal, loosely affiliated with the right-libertarian cluster, but nonetheless a liberal.
that said, i think what’s instructive here is to look at what specific parts scott does say he considers garbage. to quote the email:
The Neoreactionaries provide a vast stream of garbage with occasional nuggets of absolute gold in them. Despite considering myself pretty smart and clueful, I constantly learn new and important things (like the crime stuff, or the WWII history, or the HBD) from the Reactionaries. Anything that gives you a constant stream of very important new insights is something you grab as tight as you can and never let go of.
Second is goodwill to the Reactionary community. I want to improve their thinking so that they become stronger and keep what is correct while throwing out the garbage. A reactionary movement that kept the high intellectual standard (which you seem to admit they have), the correct criticisms of class and of social justice, and few other things while dropping the monarchy-talk and the cathedral-talk and the traditional gender-talk and the feudalism-talk - would be really useful people to have around. So I criticize the monarchy-talk etc, and this seems to be working - as far as I can tell a lot of Reactionaries have quietly started talking about monarchy and feudalism a lot less (still haven’t gotten many results about the Cathedral or traditional gender).
Third is that I want to spread the good parts of Reactionary thought. Becoming a Reactionary would both be stupid and decrease my ability to spread things to non-Reactionary readers. Criticizing the stupid parts of Reaction while also mentioning my appreciation for the good parts of their thought seems like the optimal way to inform people of them. And in fact I think it’s possible (though I can’t prove) that my FAQ inspired some of the recent media interest in Reactionaries.
as he makes clear, where he diverges from them is that he doesn’t think the monarchy/feudalism stuff is very useful, in addition to the traditionalist gender roles and talk of the cathedral.
now do you think it’s fair to say the majority of reactionary content, even at the height of NRx, consisted of monarchy/feudalism talk and the “cathdral” terminology? or were HBD, crime, class, opposition to social justice, always basically the majority of reactionary content even at peak moldbug era? of the parts he objects to, only traditionalist gender roles got even close to the airtime that those subjects got.
so yes, given scotts own description of what he found to be garbage and what he found to be gold, i think he’s misrepresenting the ratio. i mean, he had to split monarchy and feudalism apart from each other to try to pad his list.
moreover, the fact that “ability to spread things to non-reactionary readers” is something that comes to mind- and specifically comes to mind in the context of why not to become a reactionary- is very telling. seemingly, the concept of “improving” the reactionary movement’s thinking from the inside has occurred to him, but been rejected that specifically on the basis of how it would negatively affect his ability to spread the memes outside that community.
what’s interesting is that that’s not so much a reason why not to become a reactionary as a reason to not tell people if he’s a reactionary. again, i think scott is a right-libertarian, and i think the whole situation is instructive of where right-libertarianism finds itself in alliance with reactionism- but it’s an interesting thing to bring up in that context! it’s simply not something relevant to what he chooses to believe, but rather something relevant to what he chooses to tell people about his beliefs.
Alright, thanks for the rundown. Sounds our main disagreement is about how honest he is about being what he is, and not about what he actually believes.
Still one thing I’m not clear on. When you say Scott is right-wing, how far right do you mean? Obviously he’s to your right; do you think he’s to the right of Sanders? Of Warren? Of Biden?
Sorry if this is something you’ve said a dozen times; I don’t really follow you closely enough to know all the things that you regularly say.
As for your question:
I actually don’t know what the majority of neoreactionary content is/was about. My anecdotal impression was that the chief focus used to be anti-Cathedral stuff, but I have no confidence in that. Since that kind of thing is infinitely more likely to catch my eye than the same old racism is, I’m liable to overestimate its importance.
I’m prepared to take your word for how sizable each issue was within the neo-reacto-sphere.
i would say that i get the impression scott is to the right of all three of those figures and is aproximately politically on par with gary johnson.
regarding the cathedral: that terminology was largely just popular within the very specific context of the scene around moldbug specifically- which gets at the ambiguity at play here, are we talking about the reactionary right in general or NRx specifically? Stefan Molyneux for example is certainly a reactionary, but i don’t recall him using the cathedral terminology much, if at all.
I’m quite confident that’s an over-estimate of his right-y-ness. Though he is, naturally, quite a heterodox thinker.
Past conversations have taught me I shouldn’t assume we’re talking about the same thing. But I had NRX, a few HBD bloggers, and maybe a few incels in mind. Reactionaries that Scott has actually paid mind to, and had in 2014. I’m not sure Scott has ever even mentioned Molyneaux, and his opposition to Trumpism is pretty clearly sincere.
Scott voted for Warren in the 2020 Democratic primary.
as we all know, Scott has a history of being extremely honest about his political views, as evidenced by the emails under discussion.
@philippesaner also how often do incels talk about “the cathedral”? hell, how many time has, say, hbdchick mentioned “the cathedral” in her writing?
edit: and was “his opposition to Trumpism pretty clearly sincere” when he wrote “you are still crying wolf”?
Yes, of course. It’s actually pretty damn common to oppose someone without buying every point against them.
I honestly don’t know. I’d expect a decent bit? Most of them probably don’t call it the cathedral, though; they’d probably rail against “the leftist media” or “academia” or maybe “the professional-managerial class”. It’s been a long while since I looked into that side of the internet, but I remember HBD folks and incels being more interested in railing against the establishment for oppressing them socially than in actual science / getting laid.
And Warren is absolutely on-brand for Scott. That’s my read as someone who suspects he’s more pro-HBD than the emails under discussion make him out to be.
Dude’s a highly-educated polyamorous asexual working in an intellectual field. He’s pro-capitalist, but wants all kinds of major reforms, and is a big fan of nerds trying to redesign society. He’s repelled by the GOP’s embrace of outright stupidity and wants to see “competent” technocrats take on more power. Plus he’s almost white. Apart from being male, he’s pretty close to the archetypal Warren voter.
I honestly don’t know. I’d expect a decent bit? Most of them probably don’t call it the cathedral, though; they’d probably rail against “the leftist media” or “academia”
not an apt comparison since Scott routinely rails against leftist media and supposed leftist bias in academia all the time. if we accept the premise that that’s identical to moldbug’s “cathedral talk” then that would indicate Scott was dishonest in saying he disagreed with that.
the claim that Scott is a “typical warren voter” focuses on peripheral aesthetic affectation and not his actually expressed views. does someone who says they agree with NRx on issues of social justice and class sound like a typical warren voter? no of course not, the claim is patently absurd. and gesturing at “all kinds of major reforms” is a nifty way to avoid the question of which reforms he wants exactly- are the economic reforms desired by someone who says they agree with NRx on matters of class likely to be those that would be favored by a Warren voter?
Vegan or not vegan, your common enemy is capitalism. The company selling you vegan shit is likely owned by a larger company that uses animal products. Please learn class consciousness and fight the real problem.
🤔🤔🤔
these are still literally meat processing plants that are spreading covid the most like…where do you think vegan meat substitutes are processed. this isn’t the gotcha that it seems like. the meat substitutes made by big meat companies are an attempt to cash in on a market these companies don’t currently reach and are also not the main sources of meat substitutes for vegans the way that beyond meat and impossible foods (not owned by big meat companies!) are. also “vegan shit” is anything that isn’t meat or animal products (hate to shock you but you eat vegan food too) so like yes vegans are well aware that food cannot be sourced 100% ethically. but it’s still very clear that mass producing meat has profound health consequences.
“#ya’ll (sic) like reaching huh?”
it’s not reaching to point out the false equivalency here lmao. your original point being “the common enemy is capitalism” isn’t a bad one but if you make it using misinformation that’s a bad look xoxo
My point is capitalism is bad and fuck Tyson in particular. You can reach for a deeper meaning if you want but it’s not there xoxo
The only time you’re going to get ethically sourced food is from a small, local farm, or growing it yourself. If you want something that doesn’t grow around you, you need to do the research and pay the shipping to get it from a small farm. Get it from anywhere else and you’re going to be inadvertently supporting the corporations doing the things you’re against. It doesn’t matter what company you *think* is doing good, 99.9% of the time they’re only in it for profit. Any and every corporation is going to use the cheapest methods to make their products, especially if they’re making vegan products. They want to make as much profit as possible and ethically sourcing stuff isn’t cheap. And I’m not just talking mega corporations. Any company is going to be like that. Anything you buy in a store that’s not literally a farm stand is in it for high profit. I work for a grocery distributor, all of those vegan/organic/etc etc products come from the same manufacturers as their counterparts. They put it in a different box or throw a sticker on it, and suddenly sales are up because people believe the things they’re told without actually looking.
TL;DR Capitalism runs everything. Buy local.
Eating eggs and bacon from a local farm and butchery sourcing from a local farm is always going to be more ethical and more environmentally friendly than eating any vegetable shipped to a supermarket.
A lot of vegans who are vegans for the sake of the environment or for ethical reasons don’t realize that.
Working conditions at every level of the commercial food industry suck. Commercial meat products are environmentally damaging and unethical due to how the industry works, but this is the same for vegetables and meat alternatives. Water use, pesticides, land use, water pollution, processing, packaging, and more are all things that, when managed by any large group that prioritizes profit over all else, are going to be damaging to the environment and the humans they employ.
Can going vegan make a difference? Yes. But there are choices that need to be made beyond that.
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the release of a Tennessee man accused of storming the U.S. Capitol last month armed with zip ties.
In a blistering opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth said Nashville resident Eric Gavelek Munchel, 30, and his mother, Woodstock, Georgia, nurse Leslie Marie Eisenhart, 56, both pose “clear danger to the republic” in ways that would’ve troubled George Washington.
In widely circulated photographs, Munchel was seen inside the Senate chamber with zip ties and a holstered Taser. He was among two men dubbed “zip tie guy” due to the images. Eisenhart was next to him in some of the footage.
Lamberth quoted Washington’s famed 1796 farewell address when the nation’s first president said: “The very idea of the power of and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.”
“Indeed, few offenses are more threatening to our way of life,” the judge wrote of charges against the suspects.
Munchel, arrested on Jan. 10, and Eisenhart, taken into custody on Jan. 16, have been charged with conspiracy, entering a restricted building and disorderly conduct during the deadly riot.
A magistrate judge had earlier granted their release, but stayed the order to allow federal prosecutors to appeal.
Lamberth cited interviews Munchel and Eisenhart both gave to the Times of London, when they compared Jan. 6 to the American Revolution of 1776, as proof they’re allegedly prone violence to achieve political objectives.
“By word and deed, Munchel has supported the violent overthrow of the United States government. He poses a clear danger to the republic,” Lamberth wrote. “By word and deed, Eisenhart has supported the violent overthrow of the United States government. As a self-avowed, would-be martyr, she poses a clear danger to our republic.”
Both will remain jailed until trial, the judgeruled.
Attorneys for the suspects could not be immediately reached for comment on Thursday.
A Hamas-run Islamic court in the Gaza Strip has ruled that women require the permission of a male guardian to travel, further restricting movement in and out of the territory that has been blockaded by Israel and Egypt since the militant group seized power.
The rollback in women’s rights could spark a backlash in Gaza at a time when the Palestinians plan to hold elections later this year. It could also solidify Hamas’s support among its conservative base at a time when it faces criticism over living conditions in the territory it has ruled since 2007.
The decision by the sharia judicial council, issued on Sunday, says an unmarried woman may not travel without the permission of her “guardian”, which would usually refer to her father or another older male relative. Permission would need to be registered at the court, but the man would not be required to accompany the woman on the trip.
The language of the ruling strongly implied that a married woman would not be able to travel without her husband’s approval.
The edict also said that a man could be prevented from travelling by his father or grandfather if it would cause “grave harm”. But the man would not need to seek prior permission, and the relative would have to file a lawsuit to prevent him from travelling.
The ruling resembles the so-called guardianship laws that long existed in ultra-conservative Saudi Arabia, where women were treated as minors requiring the permission of a husband, father or even a son to apply for a passport and travel abroad. The kingdom loosened those restrictions in 2019.
Hassan al-Jojo, head of the supreme judicial council, told Associated Press that the ruling was balanced and consistent with Islamic and civil laws. He dismissed what he called “artificial and unjustified noise” on social media about the edict.
He justified the measure by citing past instances in which girls had travelled without the knowledge of their parents and men had left their wives and children without a breadwinner.
Israel and Egypt have largely sealed Gaza’s borders since Hamas seized power from rival Palestinian forces in 2007. Israel says the restrictions are needed to isolate the militant group, which has fought three wars with Israel, and prevent it from acquiring arms.
The territory is home to 2 million Palestinians. All Gazans must go through a lengthy permit process to travel abroad and largely rely on the Rafah crossing with Egypt, which only opens sporadically. The restrictions make it difficult for people to seek medical care or higher education outside the narrow coastal strip.
This blog is mostly so I can vent my feelings and share my interests. Other than that, I am nothing special.
If you don't like Left Wing political thought and philosophy, all things related to horror, the supernatural, the grotesque, guns or the strange, then get the fuck out. I just warned you.
