but

this is exceptional

failure to resist it is a moral failure

this isn't simply normal social forces out of control

no it is definitely exceptional

The ancients and medieval people understood that only the best transcended humanity

Somone like Gaddafi wouldn't last long in medieval times.

we can't see it as temperamentally open vs. temperamentally conservative

He would not have the power to continur his perversions

naturally that axis will play a part

in the way things develop

also regarding that force coming from the bottom

I think that's totally wrong

social change comes in a top down way

bottom up is a marxist lie

Gaddafi was maybe the biggest pervert in the middle East leadership

Well he almost certainly was

even marxism is usually a small (intellectual) elite

The pedophilia and medical fetishism

"crowdism" is bullshit basically

though there are crowd effects

Is unheard of and is way weirder than degradation fantasies

Like a lot of Arabs have

I've never heard of that

They want to degradation a woman not their wives

degradation fantasies

I guess @Nester would know

Yes spitting, peeing, shitting.

Dirty talk

So they have affairs or fuck hookers

sounds like a Maaratian fantasy man

but will confirm

It's not that weird compared Gaddafi who would jerk off to gynecological exams.

he's one man though, and in an exceptional position

He had his victims examined and then would jerk off to it. That is a much rarer paraphilia

Sometimes they would just be examined and that was enough for him.

Teenage girls.

it's a mistake to think every specific weird behaviour is a specific paraphilia

speculum porn is widely available

It's medical fetishism taken to the next level.

and has been popular for decades

Yeah but that wasn't enough

also I'm skeptical about some of this stuff

I do think he was a sex pervert

The voyeur aspects is what turned Gaddafi on

He only had nurse porn

Other than his own tapes he made.

haha speculum porn what the hell

yeah its weird

No

thought so

Arabs don't have fetishes

They don't have a porn culture, and aren't complicated people.

Chinese people, I would think, also don't have fetishes

a fetish seems like something that would develop in a culture where either sex or porn is widely available

Yes

Like the west

Or japan

Or indians

Germany

the Indians definitely yeah

You need both porn culture and a certain type of people

yeah, can't imagine too many crazy african fetishes

maybe a loose attitude to being turned on

but not specific fetishism

I'm excluding homosexuality

Where did you get that, @Death Strike's Bat ?

Spitting, peeing, shitting

have any of you guys been to africa

and if so, north, or sub-sahara

Never

@Nester gulf Arabs are big business for call girls as they can charge double or triple for that.

These are rich people

Yep

Rich people like these are deviants everywhere

We're talking 2-3k AN HOUR for this.

And do what rich deviant people do.

No, a lot of it's in Dubai mainly

For this fetish

Is there a difference between "fetish" and what africans do like is it sexuality as just another expression of a fundamental barbarism or something

It's in Dubai as it can't be anywhere else.

@fallot I think the other axis of the hierarchies thing we were talking about is the difference between people who view society as moving toward some better, higher, more perfect state of humanity and away from our fundamental nature. And people who see things as more cyclical or eternal and accept the fundamental human nature.

And the linear view is a very christian, particularly a very protestant view

Moldbug is right about the modern left being basically nothing more than secular protestants from some perspectives. That's why they freak out whenever any right wing thing happens - because it's not supposed to happen in a very visceral, fabric-of-reality sense

They have the reaction to non-linearity in politics that people in lovecraft stories have to Dagon or whatever

*the thing that should not be*

@UOC I think that's the same axis

a Christian can see society moving towards an ideal of godliness

Well I think it's particularly protestant to see a flattening of hierarchies as moving closer to "heaven"

I can see it as two axes but I would agree that we're only in like one quadrant of the plane or whatever

I don't think that's specifically protestant, rather such a mindset proliferated amongst westerners who became protestant

first

probably because of their own rebellion against hierarchy

modern religious protestants are anything but this

Yeah I tend to agree, I think people are less motivated by religion and more often use religion to achieve their goals

subconsciously maybe

modern protestants in the US vary. I have a weird degree of insight into this due to very religious parents lol

but I think you're broadly right about the religious ones, although Episcopalians are pretty god damn degenerate

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/can-we-have-common-sense-without-god.html

I'm very sympathetic to religious positions in politics but I'm not ultimately very religious. I think it makes sense to develop a basis for a secular right. There are a lot of atheists and they all vote left

yeah im spiritual but not religious

I think any "secular right" is doomed to fail

it will eventually become leftism

lemme make a very basic argument to you

I won't be offended at all if you think its dumb or unworkable and it's also not very developed

please, I'd love to hear it

I don't necessarily disagree that any secular right will become leftist either, I want to explore that later

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PizBVqcAn0o

@fallot https://nonaurosedferro.wordpress.com/2017/01/27/a-model-for-secular-conservative-thought/

I think I've read this before, reading

you can skim the first part, it's just background

why don't you go on while I read

nah that's the argument.

so the argument is utilitarianism

is that right?

Maybe a derivation of utilitarianism.

But more of a law and econ point about transaction costs

it's the same as prozakian nihilism

this kind of pragmatic/utilitarian ideology will always fail, it is inferior to leftism

in moral terms

I agree

PC leftism will always be morally superior to it

My goal was to come up with a way to justify a secular right-ism

I think nationalism is a temporarily workable solution

I think the best argument is the transaction costs point, but I think it will always be eroded

basically an antichrist ideology that raises the nation to god levels

fascism++

that in theory could work for a few generations at least

the other argument I am still going to write at some point is basically Filmer's argument filtered through Darwin, which is that all authority flows from Fatherhood, which imposes a non-theological hierarchy

I don't agree that this is a non-theological hierarchy

as fatherhood must also proceed from somewhere

Filmer's premise was God as Father, but I think you could do with out that

if it is incidental, then this is just arbitrary

and argue that it procedes from biology

yeah, it has to be "God the Father" to work

to work well

to work okay, you can sub in Darwin maybe

I appreciate the procession from biology but

that also removes your ability to raise this one aspect

and also, it reduces to utilitarianism

because your argument is ultimately "this works"

no framework for what working ultimately is, or what is good or bad

ignoring the ultimate metaphysics

hence always prey to the bigger scope of leftism

I think there's another question here as well

why do you, or anyone else, feel a draw to secular right etc. at all?

No, and I note in the post that you would need to develop that framework a lot a lot. I was just interested in whether there was a workable basis

why is it good that things works out, rather than they be changed

even at a cost

for some moral good

I don't, my only interest in a secular right is in shifting a large block of US voters

I now think there is no workable basis, ultimately

but temporarily?

I think you could do it, I would consider it evil however

I wish there was a workable framework, it would make things much easier

Eh. Everyone is religious. Some people just have a certain misinterpretation of what religion is and call themselves atheists and oppose themselves to random doctrine

A secular rightism that appeals to them on those terms but causes them to follow the action of a fundamentally religious ideology

could eventually correct their adolescent reaction to "religion" haha

idk

just a thought experiment

yeah, I understand dont worry about it

happy to engage

I've had the same thought

about reaction -> religion

there's a couple of really big problems with that though

number 1 is just being able to accept it

after that there is the issue that if someone is misled into thinking that ultimately there can be a secular "reaction", they will be further from religion than if they had simply experienced the hypocritical degeneration of PC morality

and more: it leads to an inhuman style of thinking

which I feel ultimately deadens one to reception of such stuff

in a way honest leftism does not

2 is a good point

for the last point, Nietzsche is the best example

ultimately a tragic figure

the concern I have with that perspective is first that these slides happen on such a bigger-than-human timeframe it's hard for some people to connect the dots. They don't necessarily even see that they have problems, much less that their neurotic leftist moralising is causing those problems

and second that the advance of technology is a crutch that props up bad government

and makes it hard to point out the flaws because people revert to "well look at how far we've advanced"

you're quite right

however regarding the timeframe stuff you said, I used to have a perspective like yours and still sometimes reflexively slip into that sort of thinking

its ultimately a secular and pragmatic mode of thinking, whereas I've been converted to a perspective that values individual souls first

and in such a picture, things could work out just fine

while seeming to be disastrous

from a more utilitarian or pragmatic pov

what you actually said is perfectly valid though

Hmm I don't think we really differ on perspective that much. Most of the time I spend thinking about political stuff on the national / world scale and talking about us voting blocs is just out of genuine hobbyist interest. My priority is always the good people around me and my own inner growth and life.

I don't sweat the other stuff, I'm just an interested observer

I see, yeah I think you're right

have you read Seraphim Rose's essay on "Nihilism" @UOC

no, link me

it addresses all of these concerns in a broad fashion

http://web.archive.org/web/20100111142452/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html

my little brother is texting me some good shit right now. I was worried he had the soul of a leftist but I trusted him and he's coming through

depending on what is meant by leftist, I don't think anyone does

I know what you mean though

even people like you or me absorb a lot of leftist assumptions

In this case I guess I meant an inability to be honest enough with himself to acknowledge the difficult truths

that remain unquestioned

the alt-right at the moment is simply anti- or inverted leftism

a mirror image

that's what I was ranting about yesterday

I'll read this essay on my walk home for lunch

what does the alt-right have to say about the proper level of protection for intellectual property?

I don't think it has any unified position

alt-right is just an umbrella for anti-leftism

I think those are the kind of sorta drab questions you can't be a real political platform until you can answer

probably a relatively libertarian mindset

yeah, probably relatively libertarian

I don't agree with you about that

what's Trump's position on intellectual property?

this is falling into the trap of accepting things as they are

Nah my point is more like

your broader point I accept

How could Trump's ideology be applied to that question?

fair enough

he's a pragmatist, so it couldn't

I don't care what it actually is, but if it doesn't have a cohesive enough set of principles to answer the question, it should be more cohesive

although that question in particular is maybe a bad choice.

maybe too drab lol

alright, signing off for a bit to read this essay and walk home

tell me what you think about it

when you do

http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-year-i-lost-eidetic-memory-was-year.html

England is my city

Creativity is playgrounding meanings

Yes it's nick crompton and my collar stay POPPIN

what do you think about Stalin @DankCaesar ?

Not a Stalin fan at all

But I enjoy history so my name tends to get attention

But yeah I'm no commy

what do you think about him

I think he was an incompetent leader and really did no good for the Soviet Union

He was isolationist

And completely went against what trotsky and Lenin wanted for the Soviet Union

He played right into nazi germanys hands

And it was only luck that helped him beat the Germans

alright, thanks

No worries

Yourself?

he was a sociopath who used marxism to prop himself up (as such a situation naturally allows)

I don't think he beat the germans by luck though

That's a fair assumption, I think he was lucky with Germany because obviously Russia is nearly impossible to take in winter and also Stalingrad was really his final hoorah, if they'd lost Stalingrad, there's no way the soviets keep Moscow

I THINK HE GOT LUCKY

THE RUSSIAN INVULNERABILITY IS A MYTH

HOWEVER

YOU HAVE TO GET YOUR SUPPLY LINES RIGHT

MORE ACCURATELY, IT IS VERY HARD TO WIN A TWO-FRONT WAR

BUT REALLY, THE GERMANS WERE BEATEN BY BULK

GERMAN WEAPONS AND MEN WERE TOO EXPENSIVE TO PRODUCE

WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?

Yes and the fact the Germans had to fight on two front lines compared to 1 for the Soviets

WHO IS SHOUTING?

yeah the russians had devastating losses