Install this theme
All philosophy that is not ideology/wishful thinking based is conservative. If you believe that reality is more important than what other people think, and can anticipate the results of actions in the future, you are a conservative, even if unaware of it (as I was for almost three decades). The problem is that conservatism — that is, the abstract idea and concrete practice of being conservative — has been hijacked by both mainstream conservatives who turn it into liberalism, and underground conservatives who tend to make it into a personal crusade against a world that has done them wrong.
PC, PC, PCs and the return to tribalism

PC, PC, PCs and the return to tribalism

Since the past half century or so, three PCs have been on the rise. On the other hand, they do all have something in common: they’ve caused people to move apart, withdraw into secluded communities.

The first happened almost naturally. After the second world war, colonial empires stretched all over the world frayed at the edges. Out of the various possibilities, what emerged were scores of…

View On WordPress

And this is how you come to live in a world where there are these two separate concepts, “politics” and “democracy,” with opposite emotional valence. Calling anything “political” is a harsh condemnation. But if it is “democratic,” it is good and sweet and true. But what is democracy without politics?

We live in a capitalist world.

Corporations are the natural extension.

So, your choices are: go Amish, go Entrepreneur, or pick the least bad Corporations.

The OAS of General Salan; the Rhodesian Front of Ian Smith and PK van der Byl; the weird empire of Bao Dai; the Novo Estado of Dr. Salazar… Ordinary honest men know nothing of these stories, and the specialists in the field are all professional liars. If the truth exists, it is in books. Very obscure, hard-to-find and not unbiased books
Mencius Moldbug
Democracy represents the opposite principle to these (insofar, that is, as it can be said to represent any principle): democracy is dissolute; it liquefies all achieved structure and all justified value-subordination in its amoeba-like abolition of true differences.
On elegance in science

From the preface of "Relativity: The Special and General Theory", by Albert Einstein, 1920.

THE PRESENT book is intended, as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus 1 of theoretical physics. The work presumes a standard of education corresponding to that of a university matriculation examination, and, despite the shortness of the book, a fair amount of patience and force of will on the part of the reader.

The author has spared himself no pains in his endeavour to present the main ideas in the simplest and most intelligible form, and on the whole, in the sequence and connection in which they actually originated. In the interest of clearness, it appeared to me inevitable that I should repeat myself frequently, without paying the slightest attention to the elegance of the presentation. I adhered scrupulously to the precept of that brilliant theoretical physicist, L. Boltzmann, according to whom matters of elegance ought to be left to the tailor and to the cobbler.

I make no pretence of having with-held from the reader difficulties which are inherent to the subject. On the other hand, I have purposely treated the empirical physical foundations of the theory in a “step-motherly” fashion, so that readers unfamiliar with physics may not feel like the wanderer who was unable to see the forest for trees. May the book bring some one a few happy hours of suggestive thought!

We hear much of the conflict between science and religion, but our conflict is with both of these. Science and religion always have agreed in opposing and suppressing the various witchcrafts. Now that religion is inglorious, one of the most fantastic of transferences of worships is that of glorifying science, as a beneficent being. It is the attributing of all that is of development, or of possible betterment to science. But no scientist has ever upheld a new idea, without bringing upon himself abuse from other scientists. Science has done its utmost to prevent whatever science has done.

Would we, if we could, educate and sophisticate pigs, geese, cattle?

Would it be wise to establish diplomatic relation with the hen that now functions, satisfied with mere sense of achievement by way of compensation?

I think we’re property.

I should say we belong to something:

That once upon a time, this earth was No-man’s Land, that other worlds explored and colonized here, and fought among themselves for possession, but that now it’s owned by something:

That something owns this earth—all others warned off.

Presented purely for its weirdness, an extract from “The Complete Works of Charles Fort”