I’ve got a number of posts I’ve been thinking about writing, but they’ll be delayed for now. It will likely be a few days as there are some things I really need to get around to doing.

At first I thought I wouldn’t add the Odessa Syndicate to my blogroll even though they put me on theirs. I figured linking to Mencius Moldbug and Robert Lindsay was enough, as combining them results in something a lot like it. Rethinking things, I decided they really are unusual enough to merit it. Most racialists on the internet really do seem to have nothing but contempt for the left and wouldn’t bother considering any ideas of merit that it has to offer while their own vision often seems to simply consist of the America we already know but consisting only of white people. Prozium picks out some of the very worst ideas the left has to offer (though to his credit he doesn’t seem to think much of old-style nationalism), but I’ll give him points for novelty. Ian Jobling at the Inverted World tries to position their eternally impotent movement as “true liberals”, but that’s tired and second-hand. I’m all for progressives giving back up the name “liberal”, but I’ve grown sick of all the positioning as “the good guys” or the “side of the angels“. Back from that digression, I suppose Bill White might be somewhat similar to what Odessa imagines, but he really just seems like an attention-whoring bullshitting asshole than the representative of any ideology to me. He’s called himself a “utopian anarchist” and “libertarian socialist”, which I don’t think gels with the Odessa synthesis. Since I talk about Vox Day a lot, I’ll add him to the roll as well. I look forward to when TIA becomes a downloadable pdf, as I don’t really feel like paying for it. I’ve got some other blogs I’m thinking of adding to the roll, but that’s for another day and another post.

I notice that in his most recent post Prozium echoes UR in stating that conservatism/the right always loses (on the bright side we can look forward to less of the right-triumphalism wrought by fall of the Soviets, with Fukuyama’s hegelianism and talk of having “won the battle of ideas”, while occasionally imbibing in nostalgia which I admit is still enjoyable). I wouldn’t put it so absolutely, and I can imagine another plausible historical narrative in which liberalism/the left always loses (I have to read Gabriel Kolko’s Triumph of Conservatism some day, and maybe some anarchist and deviationist communist literature as well) which sites like A Tiny Revolution, the Defeatists, Stop Me Before I Vote Again and others of an IOZian bent seem to be pushing. At any rate, if libertarianism is to be judged by the growth of the state (which I think it is), it has certainly lost. I agree with Tyler Cowen that that’s largely going to be a function of technology so it’s not surprising that they will pretty much constantly lose, but I disagree with him (and Keynes) about their ideas being important and I’m also less optimistic about the future. My capitulation is a bitter one. I don’t believe in any and don’t see myself in any way related to a side of the angels, and I’ve dropped the last vestiges of a “Whig theory of history” for a verdict of absurd (I’ll highlight a blog pushing a starker version of that than mine in a later post). Modern conservatism, libertarianism, liberalism/progressivism will all lose. The winner might be termed “idiocracy”, but Mike Judge’s is the entertaining version while the more realistic one is Phillip Longman’s Return of Patriarchy, though of course the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the ultimate result will be the heat death of the universe. My lack of optimism seems to indicate one of Bryan Caplan’s four biases, but I would still like to enlist Caplan on my side against Cowen by pointing to his The Totalitarian Threat. The North Korean model is rather stable and it is what all states may be said to aspire to even if they think otherwise. The boot may indeed stamp on the human face forever.

Getting back to the original topic, at No Treason Josh Sabotta points out to me some amusing links about the inter-fascist split, both during The Big One and today. Some interesting things to point out include Tristan Torriani’s reference to “the genocide perpetrated against Slavs in the name of Marxism and Bolshevism” while ignoring the one perpetrated against them by Nazis and his attempt at claiming minority-victim status that thankfully failed for Italians in the past. Judging by his last name I am likely more related to Richard McCulloch, but despite that and the Anglophile mild bigotry I share with John Derbyshire (even against my own Catholic Irish ancestors, though it is fading with my old Whigness), I’ll have to side with Torrianni and Rienzi. McCulloch’s main problem with Southern Europeans (Torrianni uses the term IIB, or Italian-Iberian-Balkan) is that they will breed with Northern Europeans and bring about the extinction of the more distinctive types. As someone who agrees with Assman that the world-center of hotness is nearer to the Mediterranean than Sweden (though I’m open to women of all races and willing to prove it on camera given a suitably pun-filled title), I find his restrictions unacceptable. Though I’m a big proponent of secession and panarchy/intentional communities (which seasteading should help if it works out) racial separatists often seem to ignore how marginal their viewpoint is and don’t consider the fact that there will be a lot of white people like me who want to live in mixed areas. I want them to leave, and I’d like the option to leave, but I don’t want to be forced to leave with them. A fortunate exception is Michael H. Hart (maybe it’s the result of his malevolent Southern European/Ashkenazi Jewish genes!) who proposes dividing the U.S into white, black and mixed thirds. Aside from where our large number of Hispanics fit in, I think his proportions are off and I’m interested in a much higher degree of division on numerous factors, but it’s a start.

The other link from Sabotta was on the Italian military in the Far East. The alliance between European fascists and Japanese rather than Chinese Nationalists strikes me as rather arbitrary (kind of like the Italian alliance with pre-Anschluss Austria and then it’s Nazi German rival), and the fact that they were the only side with a major non-white element really makes the claim that they carried the banner of the White Race seem ridiculous (as does all the harm they did to other white people). Like I said before, it is only through willful stupidity that Hitler’s cheerleaders today can continue considering him a hero. As Robert Lindsay put it, nationalism/racism rots the brain. So why do I even bother with this stuff rather than reacting like someone threw a diseased rat my way? Like Ross Douthat said, when you’re on the fringe you tend to cease caring worrying about other fringe-types. It’s the respectable center that actually has power and causes the problems and the possibility of these people gaining any power is slim enough that I can dismiss the consequences.

Advertisements