Cloak and Dagger

Alternative Title: A Grounding Framework for a Theory of Deep States

What is most important to any “conspiracy”?

1. Power Dynamics

2. Proper Networking

3. Feedback Loops

4. An alignment of interests among disparate entities

Centralized co-ordination is key to a conspiracy, but not a “conspiracy”. Is the difference starting to set in?* I hope so. Otherwise you won’t understand it at all when I tell you that most perceived conspiracies are actually “conspiracies” but that there is always room for a conspiracy to exist within a “conspiracy” (though just because a vacuum for a conspiracy can exist within a “conspiracy” does not mean that said vacuum has as of yet been filled).

*If the difference is not clear yet, then I should state clearly that a conspiracy is any intentional plan among a group of people, whereas a “conspiracy” is a phenomenon by which it appears that core actors are intentionally colluding but that this perception is actually the result of emergent phenomena. Think of it as working together for something versus working concurrently towards something.

That should be enough foundation theory for this piece.

Oh wait, not yet. I forgot to mention that the American “Deep State’ (we will discuss the limitations of this theory soon enough) needs to be differentiated from the “global elite” in order to be examined properly, but that there is a certain overlap and level of connection between those two entities (due to the various nodes that are placed within the systematic connections that compose these two partially-overlapping but still distinct “fuzzy”* entities)

*Fuzzy in the sense that they lack clearly defined boundaries. An attempt to physically represent these objects would thus have to use fog as its imagery, and not something with more defined limits on its volume.

Have I lost you all yet? I do hope not. This is about to get a bit more concrete, I promise…but only just a bit.

I have written multiple times about deep states before. However, I feel that I would be remiss if I did not make a comment on my previous works in light of the further nuance I have incorporated into my views on the matter.

In short, the idea of a “Deep State” is an example of a conspiracy, while much of what actually goes on underneath the surface seems much more like a “conspiracy”. I do not rule out the existence of conspiracies, though with the exception of a few particular levels of interaction, it seems much more likely that most actions is dictated by a series of “conspiracies”.

The mental picture you should imagine is a sea of “conspiracies” in which all manner of conspiracies may flourish, with some conspiracies being either bigger and/or more secret than others, and some conspiracies being higher or lower on the “food chain”, as it were.

In light of this, the phrase “deep state” itself seems to be an imprecisely-tuned semantic instrument when it comes to the task of explicating all that occurs in the layers and layers below the surface of “official” politicking and policy-making. State itself as a word implies too much of a conscious intent. In fact, (in the case of the US, at least), talk of a Deep State itself serves to muddy the waters and turn people away from the idea that what lurks in deeper waters is not a deep state, but an entire Deep System, a shadow society with immense impact on the functioning and decision-making of American (dare I even say Anglo-American?) civilizational apparatus.

Talk of deep states is worthwhile because any serious engagement with the idea is remarkably effective at shattering ones previous conceptions of how power works in a complex and advanced non-Formalist state. Whether or not one then acts to dive deeper into the matter is less important from a lay-perspective, as the “Deep State” paradigm is a more truthful one than what existed prior (and it serves as almost a complete examination of power in countries with a less byzantine and elaborate civilizational apparatus than the United States). However, for those cursed with a curiosity and a propensity to stick our noses were we shouldn’t, the “Deep State” paradigm is a tool that is useful but woefully inadequate.

What is really going on?

As I see it, circles within circles within circles within circles and conspiracies within conspiracies within conspiracies within conspiracies, all jostling and hustling and overlapping and intertwining and yet all  still separate forces oscillating and vibrating as they see fit, with every layer able to influence that which is below while operating beyond the rational comprehension of each level below it.

Do you not feel the hum? That buzzing all around you? Can you sense the chaos of this roaring thermodynamic system moving at a speed so beyond comprehension that it takes not a scientist or an engineer to get to the heart of it, but someone who can be something greater?

All that I have written so far in this post has been my best attempt to unpack and explicate exactly quite what I am getting at with that metaphor that has seared itself into my head. I hope for the sake of anyone who managed to read through that whole thing that I was able to make myself at least somewhat clear…

…But I fear I didn’t. I fear I tossed you all into the deep end and gave to nothing with which to float. I apologize to those of you who drowned, but I felt it necessary to hit you with the big picture so all these parts I plan to throw at you will stick together in the right way.

The US government is the 800-pound gorilla. It sits wherever it wants. But “it” is not one entity. It is, again, a network of competing power centers.

Perhaps the most important fact about power is that the powerful are almost always sincere.

The Polygon might be defined as the “extended civil service.” It consists not of those who hold actual formal GS rank, but those whose position demands a sense of civic responsibility – real or fake. The major vertices of the Polygon, by my count, are the press, the universities, the judiciary, the Fed and the banks, the “Hill” (congressional staff), the civil service proper, the NGOs and transnationals, the military, the Beltway bandits (defense and other contractors), and corporate holders of official monopolies (such as “intellectual property”).

Mencius Moldbug

The Governments of all the world’s nation-states, the global mass media conglomerate, the Transnational Investment and Extractor Corporations, Non-Profit Foundations, the entire UN structure including NGO’s, the World Bank and IMF, as well as the members of Global political groups like the …all of these entities and organizations are interconnected and interlocked in a similar manner as the two examples of FXC and BlackRock are highlighted in the Occupy report.

There is no conspiracy theory. There is only an interconnected and interlocked conglomeration of entities conspiring for the maintenance of total global control. Control to maximize shareholder profits by managing the exploitation the world’s vast natural and human resources.

Hawaiian Libertarian

  • There is no end to the number of theories as to who really runs the US, but many of them tend to focus on similar players.

I will not go so far as to attempt to lay out which conspiracies operate within which “conspiracies” and give a grand overview of how these interlocking parts operate and give rise to the systems of power we find ourselves living under. I have only attempted to lay out a framework that explicates the mechanisms by which these things operate while also emphasizing the murky nature of this subject matter. I do not take back my previous writings on deep states, but I hope that this has been sufficient as a critique, an update, and a grounding for the Deep State fragments I have previously released.

Friday Night Fragments #35

Despite having dropped Prohibition-themed fragments a few times over the past few weeks, there’s still a few ideas worth typing I’ve still not shoe-horned in yet. For example, it’s fairly well-known that almost all prohibition agents charged with enforcing the law were on the take. I find this to be an example of an interesting phenomenon: that in which private entities find themselves in a position of taking on a task either not being done or being done inefficiently by a public structure. In this case, said private entities completely nullified the effect of the public structure that opposed them: co-opting as many public agents as they could and finding ways to outwit and out-maneuver those they couldn’t.

Is there a deep state lesson here?

I noticed that #WhoisBurningBlackChurches was trending earlier this week. I will be the first to admit that I have no idea who is burning black churches, being neither a member of a black congregation nor an arsonist specializing in places of worship. However, being an individual with a brain that occasionally works, I do have a few possible idea.

1. The feds are doing it as a follow-up to their false flag attack.*

2. These events are a mere coincidence following the Charleston attack and none (or most) of these fires are the result of purposeful action.

3. Blacks are burning down their own churches and for whatever reason some in the media are trying to paint a usual pattern of activity into something unusual.

4. Some who are sympathetic to Dylann Roof’s intentions are trying to follow up and carry out their own acts.

5. Nothing of any importance is going on and people are just being the mindless apes that are every second of every day.

6. Mountains are being made out of molehills and innocuous acts or teenage shenanigans are being made out to be something far more malicious in light of the current context.

What do I believe? None of these. I don’t know what might or might not be going and I see no reason to engage in anything further than mere speculation.

*This option relies on the assumption that the Charleston attack was some kind of false flag event. I won’t deny that this is a possibility, though I categorically refuse to either believe or disbelieve any interpretation of recent events as such without compelling evidence strong enough to sway me to either conviction.

Hey, speaking of surreptitious maneuvers in the realm of the political, who else noticed that the whole Confederate Flag kerfuffle was a great smokescreen to get a bunch of groundwork laid for approval of the TTP and TTIP trade deals?

I’ll admit that I don’t know enough about these agreements to pass any kind of educated judgement on the matter, but the manner in which their implementation consists of just about every red flag possible, which makes me suspicious. If any of my readers have any good reading on the matter, I hope you share it with me.

Spend too long talking with customer service trying to fix your internet and you realize just how much the idea of enslaving proles is based mostly on emotional satisfaction. Then you take two seconds and realize that to the people who get to make the decisions as to who gets a lifeboat and who gets thrown to the impersonal forces of fate, we’re basically all proles. Relative status can be a bitch sometimes, and it makes one really, really hungry for power; not so much to wield it, but to avoid being prey for those on the top of the food chain.

In other words, I’m honestly not so much opposed to the powers that be so much as I’m interested in not being a piece of chattel they can cash in if it’s in their interest.

Isegoria links to an interesting analysis of how conspiracies usually operate. It also covers quite a bit more than that, so I’m loath to characterize this piece as just that, but if that’s not already an effective hook this might not be of great interest to you anyway. There’s quite a bit of good stuff in there about self-interest, bureaucracies, and how easy it is to mis-attribute the reasons behind the behavior of others.

The word “intent” breaks down because we do not have a handy English word to describe subconscious, institutional, or evolutionary intent. Many low-status outsiders observe the institution acting like a vampire, but they do not understand the internal dynamic, so they assume that the selfishness is conscious, when it is not. Their mistaken analysis of the internal dynamic makes them look like cranks, even though the overall observation is correct.

Because intent is so complicated, it hardly makes sense to even analyze it. To judge an institution, watch what it does. Look at the pressure that shapes its decisions.

Insiders generally know the details of how things work, but are often blind to the over-arching pattern of who is winning and who is losing. They are often quite deluded about the divergence between stated intentions and actual results.

The outsiders can see these patterns, but don’t understand the details, so come across as cranks when trying to do analysis. Should the outsiders gain authority, they have no real power, because they do not know how to work the levers to operate the machine. They don’t even know where the levers are. When they try to fix the machine, they get duped, get discredited, and end up out of power again.

Give it a good read. The read it over again to let the major points sink in a bit.

The tendency to anthropomorphize emergent phenomena has been a characteristic of humanity since at least the idea of nature spirits (and almost certainly longer than that). It’s not hard to see how a species with a record of seeing supernatural forces behind volcanoes and the tides might see conscious intent behind the chaotic turbulence of economic and political structures.

Over-estimation of conscious intent and over-estimation of central co-ordination. These are the most common errors made when outsiders attempt to examine the working of “conspiracies”. These were errors that may have been made in my own work on deep states. Expect updates on my previous work shortly.

Rolling in the Deep

There’s a party game I was introduced to a few years back called “Innuendos”. The rules are simple. Each round, you pick a noun, such as “coffee”. Each person goes around and says “I like my men like I my coffee…” and then follows it up with a sexual joke. For example, you might say:

I like my men like I like my coffee…tall and black.

Or, instead of being banal and unimaginative, you might be clever and say something like:

I like my men like I like my coffee…I pick them up at Starbucks and I finish them in my car.

If you play it with the right people, you’ll often end up in stitches. Make it into a drinking game and things will get uproarious very quickly.

Over the past few months, there have been moments when you would be justified in wondering if Neoreaction likes its governments like it likes its swimming pools…deep. Talk of deep states has been simmering somewhat periodically for about half a year now. I’ve touched on the subject myself a few times. Here I am revisiting it yet again, and this time it gets a full post to itself, instead of a chunk in one of the fragments.

Necessary review here. Read it before we begin.

In democracies, voting is intended to be a feedback mechanism in order to ensure that the actions of the government are in accord with the will of the people. The system starts to function in unintended ways, however, when the will of the people becomes something manufactured by sanctimonious elites striving for secular holiness. The political process stops being a means to ensure that the will of the people is carried out, and instead becomes a tool to stir up social and political tension. This conflict then acts as vector by which to drive surreptitious shifts in targeted societal structures.

So is propaganda and mass media the underlying cause behind the rise of a deep state? I don’t know, but it seems to be something more akin to a “necessary but not sufficient” condition. This description doesn’t quite seem to encapsulate what is actually going on, but as a placeholder term it seems sufficient at this point in the process of this inquiry.

There is still speculation as to which factors are most conducive to the rise of deep states. This is not a topic on which I am versed enough to speculate openly, but I will say this: the Iron Law of Oligarchy does not necessarily entail that the resultant group of decision-makers need be publicly known or acknowledged. This allows for grounds to question whether deep states are likely (or even inevitable) occurrences within sufficiently advanced democratic polities.

A deep state may or may not be an inevitability (or something resembling one) in a democratic society, but in a society that was once capable of democratic government but is now no longer so capable, a deep state becomes a necessity for keeping up the same level of functioning (or perhaps more accurately, the appearance of upholding the same level of functioning). Yet, even though a deep state may be needed, any single deep state that emerges is likely to be an insufficient solution to the growing challenges that would obvious be presenting themselves in any society that had begun degenerating from a prior state of being.

Furthermore, as I’ve mentioned before, it is not an unknown occurrence for the leaders of an organization to run said organization for their own benefit, not for the good of the organization.This is where things get really interesting.

The worrisome implication here is not that the rise of a deep state in a democratic society is a symptom of dysfunction and decline. The worrisome implication here is that the deep state will become an existentially self-justifying entity that facilitates continual breakdown and decline (or at the very least, allows a continued degeneration) as a means of perpetuating its own existence, which seem the be the exact thing that our current deep state is now doing.

I certainly understand the sentiment that a deep state is an improvement on the sclerotic mess that currently masquerades as the center of power in American society. It probably is, but I’m not sure that “being better” is the best metric to go by, especially when one notices that the current powers behind the throne are acting in a way that looks suspiciously like sinking the ship while stealing the life boats. Forgive me if I find it difficult to condone that sort of behavior.

While I do agree that there are situations in which a deep state is a useful (dare I say necessary?) entity, I cannot overlook the simple fact that any particular deep state is likely to still do harm in the long run while enriching itself in the process. Save for remarkable circumstances, we cannot put our faith in deep states as anything more than a temporary mechanism.

We could gamble on it, of course. I’ve got pretty good luck. The lesson you learn when you have luck like mine, however, is to never gamble on any wager that forces you to rely on the luck of others. With 320 million people in the United States, that is exactly what this sort of bet would be.

Friday Night Fragments #8

First on the menu:


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.


Friday Night Fragments #7

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.

Nick Land

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?


Friday Night Fragments #6

Here’s a little scribbling I wrote to myself in my notes for this week:

The Cathedral: The true Deep State, or a cultural and political juggernaut at war with the Deep state?

I’ll be honest, I thought it was fairly clever of me to see a distinction. It looks like I wasn’t the only one, though, and it seems my self-satisfaction was misplaced. Nick Land beat me to the punch on the subject with this post, and several of the ideas that are suggested indicate that I was on the right track but I’d started to go off the rails a bit.

Having perused Land’s post and the relevant links, I think I’ve started to put together some idea of how concepts are intertwined and the relationship they have with each other.

The Cathedral – The high church of modernity. The media and academia give sermons and guidance, while non-profits, NGOs, and the State Department promote the good works.

Shallow State – The network of American political consultants that earn their keep of off knowing how to play politics. Essentially political mercenaries, the degree to which they actually influence policy is probably slim, but ambitious politicians across the world will pay lucrative sums for their expertise. “State” is probably not the right word to use for this group of individuals.

Deep State – An amalgamation of major defense and intelligence agencies, co-ordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. The NSA has co-opted Silicon Valley into the effort, but the degree to which this is voluntary or coercive is up for debate. The same is true of the Deep State’s relationship with Wall Street, which seems to be conducted through the Department of the Treasury. The degree to which Wall Street is an independent player is unknown.

Three entities, each with a certain degree of ambiguity both in their definitions and in their membership. We might be tempted to write off the shallow state, were it not for the fact that it seems that the major shallow state players are tied in closely to certain organs of The Cathedral and of the Deep State. What is their role?

The relationship among the three can only be speculated by those of us not in the know, and even with more information, I fear that any attempt to tease out the connections will be an act of blind men feeling an elephant. Whatever is going on, it is big, it is secret, and there is essentially nothing that we can know for certain.

The degree to which these elements are disparate is also the degree to which their goals may not always align. What happens if there is a conflict among the players in this tripartite web of intrigue?

To the degree do the designs of the Cathedral run counter to the goals of the Deep State?

What if the Cathedral is just a tool of the Deep State to consolidate its power and keep the people in line?

Also in my notes this week, I postulated this:

ENTP – Sanguine
ENTJ – Choleric
INTP – Phlegmatic
INTJ – Melancholic

This is more a general rule of thumb and not a ironclad law, obviously, but anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that this is generally the temperamental pattern that (more often than not) people seem to gravitate towards. If I had to guess, I would go even further and say:

ExxP – Sanguine
ExxJ – Choleric
IxxP – Phlegmatic
IxxJ – Melancholic

Interestingly enough, this would seem to suggest that it is one’s relationship to the outside world and how one perceives it that influences personal temperament (or vice versa…it’s hard to tell and the causal relationship could go either way), and not cognitive processing style. This is odd, as it makes sense to expect that cognitive processing style would have an impact here, but I guess the influence of cognitive style is one of the murky factors that make this a general correlation and not a hard and fast rule.

To what degree is it a good idea for a young man to learn a few foreign languages and some other in-demand skills and become a globe-trotting, techno-commercialist financial/business mercenary?

I’ve linked to Paul Cooijmans before, including some of his stuff on genius (long story short, his theory is that Genius = IQ + conscientiousness + associative horizon). I had a weird thought recently regarding the relationship between IQ and conscientiousness. It seems likely to me that a deficiency of conscientiousness would mildly hamper performance on an IQ test (inattention to detail and things like that causing someone to incorrectly answer questions that their intelligence would predict them to answer correctly), which would lower the final score. In light of this, low conscientious people might score 1 – 3 points lower (my unsubstantiated guess…actual number may be higher) on an IQ test than they would otherwise have received.

A lot of people are square boxes in round holes. Most get ground down into the proper shape over time. Some never do. What sets these people apart is an intrinsic quality and strength of self that makes it impossible for them to ever be ground down to the degree they are “supposed to be”.

If you are one of these people, you will always be one of them. No matter how well you may fit in, no matter how well you may play with others, no mater how functional and successful you may be, you will always be a square peg in a round hole. You will never quite fit, and there will always be a part of you that yearns for the life of the wanderer, always seeking out new horizons and always searching for something new to master and conquer.

You will always be restless. You will very quickly find that staying in the same place and doing the same things is anathema, and anathema is death.

You are cursed to never be content.

Once you accept this, though, there is nothing you cannot do.


Friday Night Fragments #3

If asked, most people will claim to desire peace:

Techno-commercialist: It does not benefit us to go to war. We gain far more from the current arrangement.
Ethno-nationalist: We simply wish to live in peace among our own kind. We do not care what other people do.
Religious-traditionalist: Peace is harmony is love. God did not make us to be bloodthirsty savages.
All: We desire only to be left alone in peace and live our lives the way we best see fit.

And yet, it is so easy to rile them up for war:

Techno-commercialist: We must eliminate this threat to our stability and prosperity.
Ethno-nationalist: The burden falls upon us to protect our race.
Religious-traditionalist: Deus Vult.
All: We will do what we must to protect ourselves against this threat to us that cannot be stopped any other way.

What shall we make of this?

Bryce Laliberte has been thinking about the destructive effects of public school on children.

I want this sound bite plastered on the doors of every school in this country.

This brought to my mind a memory from this summer when I was meeting up with Aimless Gromar. At some point I mentioned to him that I had gone through my entire K – 12 indoctination education process in the public school system, and he had half-jokingly asked how I had managed to get through it without ending up seriously messed-up.

Let me tell you all a story. In second grade, I was identified as one of the “gifted” children and sent to a special study group with other “gifted” children. We were given more difficult math problems to work on than the other students. The teacher in charge of this group had, for whatever reason, not worked out the answers to these problems beforehand, and so was concurrently attempting to solve them at the same time as her charges. This became an issue when I needed to check my answers, because it was discovered that I was solving the problems faster than the person who was supposed to be teaching the concepts to us.

Experiences like that do not set one up very well for a lifetime of respecting authority and following orders.

Perhaps because of numerous experiences like this one, I’ve always had a bit of an anti-authoritarian streak and a tendency to question the ideas most people want me to have. I credit this tendency — along with my auto-didactic impulses — as being key to my getting through public school without becoming a brain-dead zombie.

Side thought: If you wanted to find a living, breathing example of a philosophical zombie, a public school would be a good first place to look.

In a previous Friday Fragments, I asked which president was the best (as defined by neoreactionary terms). George Washington and Andrew Jackson seemed to be the most common answers (though there was some disagreement on that front). The general theme seemed to be that the earlier presidents were considered more aristocratic, and thus better, than the ones who came afterwards. Given this, I find it especially surprising that no one suggested Thomas Jefferson, who would be my pick for the top spot (edging out George Washington by virtue of the Louisiana Purchase).

Mark Yuray wonders if Neoreactionaries should speak and write in Latin, coming to the conclusion that you should speak the language of those whose ideals you wish to uphold. I wonder what the guy who ENDS HIS POSTS WITH LATIN QUOTES and goes by the name of LEGIONNAIRE thinks about this? Such a pity I can never decide which empire was the best: British or Roman.

For what it’s worth, however, I think the Ottoman Empire was the next-greatest after those two, but don’t expect to see blog posts written in Turkish any time soon.

Intuition is a beautiful thing, and I admit I rely on it more than a careful person should (but not nearly as much as I think would provide me with optimal benefit). Sometimes I get burned (usually when relying on it for trivia and other minute facts), but my biggest mistakes in life have been those when I didn’t follow my intuitions.

Some people have intuitions geared towards big picture ideas and unseen connections, but they can’t see all the steps that are needed to confirm these connections as valid. Some people have intuitions about the inner workings of things, but have difficulty seeing the big picture. As you can probably guess, I think this a manifestation of the verbal/mathematical split I discussed here.

Is progressivism an ideology, or is progressivism a vector?

The new video game Assassins Creed Unity recently found itself being blasted by some left-leaning Frenchies (original french here) for portraying the French Revolution as a chaotic and unstable time period and the revolutionaries as bloodthirsty savages driven by less-than-noble ideals. Quelle horreur!

Yes, the game does do that, which is a major point in its favor. The best part of this portrayal, however? The subtle way that the game paints Napoleon as not only supremely competent, but also dangerously ambitious. It is equal parts impressive and foreboding and is, all in all, a sublime characterization that deserves much credit and acclaim.

That said, the game does not include two of the most interesting characters of the time period: Joseph Fouché and Charles-Maurice Talleyrand, so it loses major points in my book for that.

Also of note: towards the end of the game, the main character has chased down Robespierre and is interrogating him for the location of an assassination target. Robespierre isn’t talking, so your female companion shoves a pistol in his face, blows his jaw off, and orders him to shut up and write down the location in one of the most gloriously satisfying acts of historical license I have ever seen. So there’s that.

If you’ve ever read The Gervais Principle, you’ll understand this next bit, though I’ll try to make it clear to those who haven’t perused that work. I had a realization the other day that the official branches of the US government are made up of losers and the clueless (this is so obvious in retrospect that I cannot believe I didn’t realize this sooner).

Now for the creeping horror: If the official branches are full of these types, then where are the sociopaths who always end up running the show? I’m not sure I can think of a stronger argument than this for the existence of a deep state.

Counter-argument: High-level politicians need to be sociopaths in order to attain their positions.

Counter-counter-argument: The sociopath-clueless-loser dynamic is based on relative differences. The real power players are going to be the sociopaths of the sociopaths (or, perhaps even more dangerously, the sociopaths of the sociopaths of the sociopaths).

Every woman wants you to hurt her, and if you don’t hurt her enough, she will never forgive you for it.