It appears that we’ve hit the lucky number seven on these round-ups. That’s actually a fair number of fragments, and I’m pleasantly surprised that I’ve so far been able to think of things to put out each week.
Surprises aside, there have been quite a number of interesting things being said elsewhere this past week, and it only seems fair to give credit where credit is due. As such, this is going to be more of a link-fest than anything else this week.
-Free Northerner took me up on the challenge to tackle bisexuality through a Neoreactionary lens. He makes a clear distinction between bisexuality as a behavior and bisexuality as an innate preference, which I think is an important separation to make.
-Illimitable Man has put together a proper examination of “the shit test”. The shit test, like so many red-pill concepts, is widely conceptualized in a very narrow, limited way and given less analysis than is due. I suppose this failure of imagination is a side effect of the tendency of so many red-pill men to have no further ambitions than getting laid and lifting weights. Illimitable Man is one of the few who has any inclination to see a bigger picture, and thus one of the few red-pill guys left who has anything interesting to say. Both his blog and his Twitter are worth following.
-The term Neo-Reactionary seems to have made its way to the European continent. This is either convergent evolution of a most linguistic sort, or a poaching of the term (you’ll note they use the hyphen, which is so 2012). For what it’s worth, I’ve had 314 visits to this blog from France since its inception. Make of that what you will…
-There was this:
To publicly promote a political profile of peculiarly self-congratulating moral earnestness it is simultaneously necessary to feed the shadows. What happens unseen is essential to the purification of the image…As democracy ‘matures’, reality is processed increasingly in secret.
The more that your world is an illusion, the more you have to turn to the occult to understand it. In a world of so many illusions, the most dangerous people are the ones who know how to fight in the shadows.
-Finally, Nydwracu proposes a tripartite political classification based on the Atlantean/Hyperborean distinction, but with a third category: Turanian.
I think I’ve got that Atlantean and Hyperborean concepts down fairly well (mercantile, cosmopolitan, driven by creative destruction versus traditional, hierarchical system primarily bound together by ethnic and/or religious ties), but I feel like there’s a lot I’m missing and my interpretations are more akin to a caricature than a nuanced interpretation.
For what it’s worth, I’ve conceptualized the two as mobile river/sea people versus sedentary farmers. The tricky bit is in adjusting these mental conceptions to fit with a three-part classification.
I’m not going to pretend I understand this “Turanian” thing. If this is really a sea/synthesis/land distinction, shouldn’t they be the farmers? What if this thing is more akin to sailors/farmers/miners? That doesn’t seem right, but the only clue as to what Turanian encompasses is “Turkmenistan”, which doesn’t tell me much. Maybe Turanianism relies on having large deserts and massive reserves of natural gas? That would tie in chunks of the Middle East, interestingly enough. This may actually be the correct classification for one or two countries in that region (depends on where the split between Turanian and Hyperborean lies).
Or maybe it just means being the gatekeepers of the Door to Hell.
Atlantean: Trade and commerce; Hyperborean: Agriculture; Turanian: Resource extraction? And where the hell does industry fit in?
I’m really hoping we get a more fleshed-out explanation of all this.
Last week, I devoted a big chunk of the fragments to a quick overview of the way I conceptualized ideas of the “deep state” in American society. Normally, talk of such things goes hand-in-hand with a hostility to the idea of secret elites controlling everything and demands that ordinary people (and/or honest politicians…like there is such a thing anymore) do something in order to throw off the tentacles of the deep state. You won’t see any of that with me. I see no need to respond with some knee-jerk reaction that presupposes that the existence of such a thing is such a bad idea. It might be, but I’m not going to jump to that sort of conclusion straight away. Hostility on my part towards any sort of “deep state” is commensurate with the degree to which its interests conflict with mine (which is the same standard to which I hold pretty much everything), not its existence.
Side note: To what degree is the development of a “deep state” an inevitable outcome of a government that becomes as large and complex as that of the United States? Corruption seems to play a key role in the evolution of such a thing (note how initial analyses of the deep state idea were based mostly on Italy and Turkey). My guess is that you need a large bureaucratic network, a certain level of corruption, and an official diffusion of key power in order to sow the seeds that lead to the formation of such things, but that’s just me spit-balling off the top of my head. I have no doubt that someone with 5 minutes and a better understanding of how political systems form could produce a better analysis, but this seems like a decent (if rough) start.
Related: Nick Land has begun a discussion of how to practically deal with a Deep State while simultaneously laying the ground work for a Neoreactionary defense of such a thing, which has prompted Bryce to start putting together a theory of the Deep State. Is the Deep State the next meal on the Neoreactionary platter? I do hope so.
I’m still not totally convinced that it was really North Korea that hacked Sony, but the media sure did hop on that narrative and run with it. What are we to make of that?