First on the menu:
HAPPY BOXING DAY!
I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas and that it was full of spending time with your families or drinking eggnog or dancing around naked on the solstice or whatever it is that all you degenerates do (We pretend not to judge here at The Legionnaire).
I suppose I should throw together some kind of “year in review” and/or some kind of look towards the future. We’ll see if I can put something together or not. Frankly, this year went by so quickly I don’t think I’ll be able to get it all processed until March or so.
That said, let’s start fragmenting:
This little piece is not relevant to anything in particular at the moment, but it was great food for thought.
If large numbers of people believe something, this is very good reason to view it with skepticism, but if no one believes it, there’s probably a good reason for that too.
There are two types of power fantasies: proactive and reactive. Proactive fantasies are those in which an individual is willing to put forth effort and actively engage with the outside world in order to accrue power. Reactive fantasies are those in which power is given to you and you do nothing more than take advantage of it. A fantasy of going off to train in a shaolin monastery for a few years to become an expert in kung fu is an example of a proactive fantasy. Discovering that an unknown relative has bequeathed you a considerable fortune is an example of a reactive fantasy.
Obviously, this can be broken down into various components (how you get power, what you do when you have it…etc), but even taking this into account, I see two big trends dealing with power fantasies lately:
1. Women overwhelmingly gravitate towards reactive fantasies.
2. Reactive fantasies are becoming the dominant narratives in popular culture.
Make of this what you will. I certainly know what I think.
I received a tip-off from a acquaintance working in retail that effeminate-looking guys who work in sales can sell anything to a woman if they use their gayest voice. Their hypothesis was that women will buy anything from you if get them to envision you as some kind of surrogate “gay best friend”. I can’t say that I fit the criteria to pull this off, but I figured I’d pass this along for my readers to test out if they happen to be both effeminate-looking and in some kind of sales position.
In a previous Friday Night Fragments, I suggested a quick tie-in of the 4 temperaments with MBTI. One thing I think I failed to do is emphasize how that was a relative, not an absolute, classification. When I say something along the lines that “INTPs are phlegmatic”, I am saying that they tend towards being generally more phlegmatic than the other rationals. I am not saying that they necessarily are always going to be more phlegmatic (or even that they could necessarily be classified as such).
What makes a society thrive? Many reactionaries would say stability. Yet, how can we define stability? Is it a lack of disruptive influences? Is it the ability to weather numerous challenges? Is it the ability to adapt and overcome changing circumstances?
Is it better to have a stable society or an adaptable one?
Which one to prefer? Which one are we to support? Which one ought we try to build?
Here’s another scribbling from my notebook that I somehow forgot to touch on when I was dealing with all that “Deep State” stuff:
“Deep States and organized criminal associations are manifestations of the same phenomenon.”
Every once in a while, certain ideas pop into my head and I have to reverse-engineer how my mind arrived at the conclusion. This is one of those instances. It looks like what I was thinking here was that the same sort of economic, political, and social conditions that give rise to the emergence of mafia-like organizations also create the same kinds of conditions in which leaders of government and other important institutions begin to exercise power through “less than official” means.
Sounds feasible to me.
Speaking of organized crime, this TED talk is one of the few that isn’t horribly shitty (well, at least the transcript was good…I don’t watch them anymore because it’s so much faster to just read them).
Most people, when trying to figure out what something “is”, resort to trying to understand the ontology of a thing. The general trend with certain neoreactionary types as of late has been to understand the teleology and derive the ontology from that. What it interesting about this approach is that it frequently yields different ontological conclusions than if we had simply tried to understand the ontology itself. what are we to conclude from this?
Have we ever bothered explicitly hashing out what the neoreactionary position is on the relationship between teleology and ontology?
Nick B. Steves has half-jokingly accused me of “dense millennial mysticism” with my “Love the Way You Lie” post. Considering how even I still haven’t figured out quite what it’s about, that’s not an unfair generalization. In the spirit of accommodating St. Nick (see what I did there?), I thought I finish this up with just a bit more dense millennial mysticism:
Fire is strong in proportion to what it is trying to burn. The biggest the tinder the hotter the burn. Men of fire are those who always and inevitably rise to the occasion, gaining — not losing but gaining — energy in the face of nigh-insurmountable challenges…
…And we deflate to apathy and lethargy when there is nothing interesting to do.
AD MULTOS ANNOS!