Moldbug’s mission completed

Moldbug has a new post of substance, but not a whole lot of substance.

That a significant proportion of votes are fraudulent, disproportionately in the most critical states, such as Ohio, and everyone piously turns a blind eye to voter fraud on a scale that makes the difference between one presidential candidate winning, and another winning, is interesting in that everyone turns a blind eye. Democracy is now so dead that it is impolite to pay attention.

It is not interesting in that even honest elections would not produce results markedly different.  OBamacare, Romneycare, who cares? The Democrats move the left hand edge of the Overton window leftwards, the Republicans move the right hand edge of the Overton window leftwards. Bush quietly abolished the difference between Republicanism and the early years of Obamanism, which is to say, he closed the overton window from the right, while Obama now vigorously re-opens it to the left.

Back in 2009 the left won all future elections once and forever in the old fashioned way: By buying the electorate they wanted:

In 2009 the Mises institute pointed out that a Virginian family of three needed to earn sixty thousand dollars to do better than earning nothing – which is why males earning substantially less than sixty thousand generally cannot form families.

What this means is that the class of lesser paid workers has no incentive to become better paid workers, or even to work at all. The women do better off having three children by three thugs, and the men have no prospect of wife or biological descendents. From zero to sixty thousand, no incentive. From sixty thousand to a hundred thousand, low incentives. Normal incentives for a middle class lifestyle, and the normal prospects of normal middle class sort of marriage, set in only with a six figure income.

So if you make a living and support a family and all that, you are outvoted. Outvoted forever. Honest elections would only make some boring minor change in the details.

Hey presto, a majority underclass nation, with the majority living on their votes.

Moldbug’s analysis of how our society worked, and how it came to be, was an epochal insight, of enormous importance. We had become uprooted from time, the spin out leftwards had blinded us to the spin out leftwards. Like Winston Smith, we had lost our past. Moldbug reminded us of how the world looks from a viewpoint rooted in deep time, reminded us that that was the way to see what was happening, and understand what was happening, was to see the present from the past.

And then he pretty much shut up, apart from the occasional silly or trivial post. This one is not silly or trivial. It reminds us of how quietly deranged the debate on voter fraud is, how quietly deranged our criminal justice system is, how the progressive religion trumps sanity, but really, all that is a minor corollary of his great insights.

And what, precisely, are his great insights? It is hard to say them briefly. Since he was deliberately verbose, each of his readers is apt to summarize them in a superficially different way.

Viewing the present from the past, the world looks much different from official reality, with a multitude of differences that cannot be briefly described.

19 Responses to “Moldbug’s mission completed”

  1. Toddy Cat says:

    A lot of Moldbug’s stuff is full of shit, like his comparison of U.S. strategic bombing (which was fully within the international laws of war at the time) with the Holocaust, and his absurd taking of everything the John Birch Society said in the 1950’s as revealed truth, but his general concepts are pretty much correct. He’s a useful corrective, and if he sometimes takes German war propaganda a bit too seriously, at least he’s getting a different perspective. I’m glad he’s back.

  2. Steve Johnson says:

    “This could be done either by outlawing anti-Republican parties for ten years, or by adopting an electoral system that would automatically give a firm majority to the greatest single group of Republicans, which, by iron control of army, bureaucracy, schools, etc, would be in a position to stave off possible insurrection from right or left, while allowing the democratic idea time to grow in the minds of the people.”

    …What is so “creepy” about any of this?

    Maybe you haven’t noticed but the same party controls the army (more so each day), bureaucracy, schools, etc in this country and has the same attitude about letting the “democratic idea time to grow in the minds of the people”. The democratic idea, of course, is whatever leftist insanity is slightly further left than the current leftist insanity.

    What’s creepy about the plans for post-war Germany is how similar they turn out to be to the policies for the post-war United States.

    Even if you think that imposing these policies on Germany was a good idea because Germany was war mongering* you really should wonder why all those policies and goals were imposed on the United States. Maybe the goal all along was the imposition of those policies – which boil down to “power for the Cathedral over all humanity”.

    *That idea is pretty well undermined by reading the primary source material that Moldbug links to as well)

  3. Jake says:

    I can’t say I feel very enlightened by what I have read of Moldbug’s work, which I’ve perused only recently. He seems to me to have a tendency to overthink things and miss obvious truths.

    [ World War II: Primary Sourcebook], a poorly argued piece written from a relativistic perspective, is a good example. Moldbug contends that “billions” of people believe WW2 was about “Allied revenge for the Jews”, but I know no-one who actually thinks this way, and public schools/historical commentators often emphasize the reality that the Holocaust was not an American or Allied concern. He tries to blame the Allies for “motivating” the Holocaust, condemns Allied bombing as “demented and psychopathic,” and insists that there is something “creepy” about wanting to destroy Germany’s capacity to wage future wars. He concludes by informing us that we’ll never look at “Band of Brothers” or “The Greatest Generation” the same way again, although his post isn’t nearly profound enough to merit such praise.

    He singles out supposedly outrageous quotes from Allied political and intellectual leaders:

    “Besides the pressure which our men’s sympathy might create to divert supplies from countries even more devastated than Germany, there is a danger of weakening controls for which the armies of occupation are a guarantee. To an American soldier it may well seem unfair that an apparently goodhearted German who has fed him beer and a hard luck story should not get a little piece of machinery from abroad. It may well seem harsh that an unhappy businessman should not smuggle out a few concealed assets to a brother in America or Switzerland. The American may be persuaded much more easily than a Frenchman or an Englishman or a Russian to turn the other way from sheer goodness of heart while the transaction is completed. That very transaction may be a strong link in the chain leading to the rebuilding of Germany for another war.”

    “As for Germany, that tragic nation which has sown the wind and is now reaping the whirlwind – we and our Allies are entirely agreed that we shall not bargain with the Nazi conspirators, or leave them a shred of control – open or secret – of the instruments of government.”

    “Consider the situation: a politically retrograde people goes over to self-government. Unprepared. Almost unwillingly. Hopelessly divided. A numerically weak but highly daring and unscrupulous minority opposes democracy in the name of the dictatorship of the proletariat. A numerically strong but temporarily discredited minority wishes to restore the old regime, or something very like it. The remainder, the Republicans, are a majority divided into several groups, separated by such stout wedges as property and religion. What must the rulers do? Clearly, establish, if only for a time, a system that will automatically exclude all but Republican parties from politics. This could be done either by outlawing anti-Republican parties for ten years, or by adopting an electoral system that would automatically give a firm majority to the greatest single group of Republicans, which, by iron control of army, bureaucracy, schools, etc, would be in a position to stave off possible insurrection from right or left, while allowing the democratic idea time to grow in the minds of the people.”

    Of these quotes, he writes: “If this doesn’t creep you out, there may be something wrong with your creepy-sensor.”

    But an emotion is not an argument. What is so “creepy” about any of this? Here Moldbug sounds like a Chomskyite America-hater, complaining that Dresden is no less an atrocity than Auschwitz, denouncing the use of nuclear weapons on Japan, implying that the Western Allies were somehow “too mean” (!) to the conquered Germans. He takes for granted the fact that his audience is likely to view “Germany Rolls the Clock Back” as some sort of sinister propaganda, rather than as a sadly neglected but prophetic look at what was to come.

    I am not strictly an Objectivist, because I know that in matters such as race the Objectivists are naive, but I wholeheartedly endorse the Objectivist ethics when it comes to war. If you are attacked–as America was at Pearl Harbor–you should respond with sufficient force to destroy the aggressor as quickly as possible, with whatever tactics are necessary to reduce casualties on your own side. You should not care about enemy civilians, who are the responsibility of their own government. You should not be lenient, set up “coalition governments,” negotiate conditional surrenders, or apologize for collateral damage. The use of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was one of history’s profoundly moral acts, but not just because it probably saved the lives of millions of Asians.

    That was one of the worst of Moldbug’s commentaries. Others–such as “A Nazi Perspective on the Holocaust”–continue to mystify me. (Was he effectively denying the Holocaust? Claiming that the truth was somewhere between the Nazi POV and the “American POV”? Suggesting that the USA regularly commits comparable “Holocausts” of its own?) His predictions certainly have not been reliable: Moldbug stated that the Libyan civil war was entirely incited by Americans for our own “sick entertainment”, but US foreign policy was so spectacularly immoral we were planning all along to abandon the rebels and never dreamed of offering them military aid. Although Moldbug insisted the rebels would be crushed, Qaddafi was later overthrown with US military support. Moldbug confidently asserted that civil wars would only happen in Islamic societies, like Libya and Egypt, that tilted towards the US–citing Syria, a Cold War ally of the USSR and a friend of Iran, as a prime example of a Muslim country that would not have a civil war despite the “Arab Spring”. Oops.

    Then there was the one about Stalin’s “gay” kiss with the American ambassador. That was alright, but for someone who has been described as subtle, I don’t think he needed to remind us that Stalin was a bad man at the end.

    • ulesjim says:

      The Cathedral rules the world. Moldbug’s point is that this was not an accident. See his analogy with a lifeboat containing only one survivor:

      Imagine you are the captain of a merchant ship, and you pick up a lifeboat in the Sargasso. In the boat are two men, one living and one who has just died of thirst, and assorted small body parts of a third. The living man explains that the third was a murderous cannibal who wanted to eat the other two, who had to kill him in self-defense. They have the wounds to prove it. Since he was dead, well… but then the survivor noticed an ugly glint in his partner’s eye, and the two faced each other down with marlinspikes until one died of thirst. The question is: what actually happened in the lifeboat? Did it contain one cannibal, two, or three? And do you want the survivor to come aboard, or should you just gaff him and push the boat back out to sea?

      The living man in his analogy is the USG/Cathedral, or what I call the anglosphere left.

      The US needed to do what it took to defeat Germany. Did it need to do what it took to impose progressivism, or the simulation of progressivism, on Germany?

      Theoretically, the Cathedral rules by soft power. In the Congo and neighboring states, does not look all that soft. Similarly, in imposing progressivism on Germany, was not all that soft.

      Let us consider the Congo/Rwanda/Uganda wars.

      There are multiple black races, some of them worse than others, some of them markedly better. Early explorers and travelers, who had no reason to be biased, considered the Tutsi nearly equal to whites, while depicting most of the rest as varying from somewhat subhuman to animals smart enough to be dangerous.

      The Cathedral imposed on the region, and continues to impose on the region, rule by the inferior majority. Even Tutsi ruled Rwanda piously gives lip service to progressivism, purporting to democratically represent all Rwandans equally: “We are all Rwandans”.

      The Tutsi elite regularly come under severe international pressure to reconcile with the Hutus, while no one suggests the Hutus need to reconcile with the Tutsis, much as Israel, rather than the Palestinians, is supposed to give land for peace, regardless of whether peace is actually offered. While everyone theoretically opposes the genocide, it seems that the Tutsi are not doing enough to expiate their criminal failure to be genocided.

      The Cathedral funds refugee camps, which funding, much like its funding of Palestinian refugee camps, winds up funding Hutu terrorism. The Cathedral created, sponsored, and fully funded regime in the Congo not only applies mass state sponsored rape as a weapon to terrorize superior minorities, but, finding this insufficient, murders large numbers of women by impaling them vaginally with very large objects. The Cathedral admits its complicity in this muppet regime terrorism by piously averting its eyes, and when it notices what is going on, blaming everyone except their muppet regime.

      People commenting on the Congo wars say the Congo needs “stronger institutions”. What it needs of course, is an end to private crime, state crime, and semi state crime. By semi state crime I mean crimes by large organized groups, such as militias, state sponsored “revolutionary” groups, NGOs, and so forth. By State crime I mean mass state sponsored rape and the systematic torture of of women and children as an instrument of of terror by the official Congo regime and its official Cathedral funded army. Observe that in Rwanda, private crime is damn near nonexistent, government crime is very low by African standards, and semi state crime only exists because it is Cathedral funded and Cathedral sponsored.

      Conclusion: The only way to get stronger institutions in the Congo is for nature to take its course, and the superior to rule the inferior – which the Cathedral will not permit, and is using horrifying and extraordinary means to prevent. In this sense, Chomsky is correct, and imperialism is still going full swing, though Chomsky would doubtless argue that the imperialism consists of the fact that the Cathedral is failing to entirely exterminate the evil Tutsi, while I argue, and Moldbug would probably argue, that the imperialism consists of imposing democracy and equality at gunpoint on people entirely unsuited for it – that democracy and equality are bad and oppressive things, and the worse and the more oppressive when groups are markedly unequal.

      • Jake says:

        Joseph Kabila is the current leader of the Congo. Kabila seized power from his father, Laurent-Désiré Kabila, a warlord and cannibal who collaborated with Che Guevara and fought the CIA during the Congo Crisis.

        From what I understand, the Rwandans invaded Congo to overthrow the longtime US ally Mobutu, effectively installing the Kabila regime. Then they turned on him, or perhaps he turned on them.

        I have to ask how the USG “created” this Congolese regime?

        The academic Far Left does, indeed, hate the Tutsis. Chomsky’s sidekick Edward Herman is a case in point. He denied the Srebrenica massacre, just as he denied the Hue massacre, even though some 6,000 of the 8,000 named Srebrenica victims have been found in mass graves and identified with DNA; I think something like 4,000 of 6,000 killed at Hue were recovered. (In fairness, Herman then tried to obfuscate the issue by claiming there was really no way to know who was buried in the graves, we can’t trust the forensic experts, the witnesses and survivors might be liars, you can’t really prove that some of the dead were not killed in combat or perhaps from famine, ect.) He denied the Cambodian Holocaust, even though the Documentation Center of Cambodia has found 1.5 million victims of execution buried in 20,000 mass graves located at Khmer Rouge execution centers, strongly suggesting an excess death toll well beyond 2 million (it may yet be possible to construct a list of victim’s names, and the population decline from 8.4 to 5.9 million in three years is irrefutable). He also denied the Rwandan genocide, even though it was carried out in broad daylight in front of international observers, and investigators have been able to document the names of over 900,000 of the corpses (of whom some 96% were Tutsi). Herman’s arguments in the case of Rwanda are rather typical denial fare–he accepts the highest death estimates at face value, but embraces the official Hutu government statistics for the Tutsi population, concluding that the deficit can only be explained by a “dual genocide” of Hutus mysteriously devoid of any witnesses or survivors. Herman has accused others of inflating genocides for political reasons, but this is obviously a projection. (To Herman, the Iraq sanctions were far worse than the North Korean famine, even though childhood obesity was an epidemic in Iraq and North Korean children were stunted and malformed; to Herman, Indonesia’s war in East Timor was the worst crime ever committed in history; to Herman, the 25,000 to 45,000 Hutus killed by the RPF can be inflated into a vast massacre sadly “unreported” by the media; to Herman, Pinochet was worse than Pol Pot.) There are several academics who deny the Rwandan genocide, and while they are not taken very seriously, there does seem to be academic resistance to the more accurate, higher estimates of the death toll. That Leftists and the UN are deeply hostile to the Rwandan role in Congo is no secret. Wikipedia is certainly very biased against the Tutsis.

        Herman’s self-delusional fairytale holds that the Tutsis are murderous agents of American imperialism, armed and trained in the USA to hurt France and promote greedy Western capitalists. I’m inclined to believe the truth of the matter is very starkly different, but what you are proposing is exactly the reverse: The Hutus are murderous agents of American imperialism, financed by the Cathedral in the name of some perverse “equality.”

        I’m sure aiding the Hutu refugees, most of whom were guilty of genocide, has only increased the violence. I’m sure that France armed and abetted the Hutus. I’m sure the UN is hostile to Rwanda. However, as someone not that knowledgeable about Congo, can you point me to the evidence for your claim that the USG installed Kabila and that only Kabila’s men have committed genital impalement or mass rape? (The war involved two dozen armed groups, and I’ve heard many feminists speak about sexual violence in Congo without mentioning this intriguing element of the “War on Women”.)

        • jim says:

          However, as someone not that knowledgeable about Congo, can you point me to the evidence for your claim that the USG installed Kabila and that only Kabila’s men have committed genital impalement or mass rape? (The war involved two dozen armed groups, and I’ve heard many feminists speak about sexual violence in Congo without mentioning this intriguing element of the “War on Women”.)

          I am sure someone can find plenty of incidents of non Cathedral forces using mass rape to crush resistance, to balance examples of Cathedral forces using mass rape to crush resistance. It is a common, popular, and effective tactic, the canonical example that everyone keeps mentioning over and over and over again being its use by the non Cathedral Serbian forces. Genital impalement, however …

          That feminists are as reluctant to mention genital impalement as they are to mention Clinton’s cigar should tell you that genital impalement is an instrument of the Cathedral.

          That when genital impalement is mentioned, as it rarely is, somehow no one identifies who did it and who the victims are, much as when corruption in the US is mentioned, no one mentions the party of the corruptocrat, should tell you which side is doing it. Genital impalement is not some random criminal act. It is an army pacifying an enemy population. It is a political act, the most extreme possible political act. One might expect the army and the enemy population to be named – and the only time I have seen the army named, that army was Forces Armées de la République Démocratique du Congo, a military force that is entirely Cathedral funded and Cathedral armed. The curious absence of names the rest of the time is reminiscent of the propensity of groups of “youths” to randomly attack random passers by, and the fact that the party affiliation of leading wall street criminals such as John Corzine is seldom mentioned. When the anti Cathedral Serbs used mass rape to quell an obstreperous Muslim population, did anyone neglect to mention who was raping and who was being raped? If the Tutsis were using mass rape, let alone genital impalement, we would know as much about it as we know about Serbian rape. Instead, everyone is overcome with delicacy, as they are with Clinton’s cigar.

          • Jake says:

            I’ll buy that.

            Still, financial aid is arguably a lesser crime than “creating” or installing the regime in the first place. Wasn’t Kabila originally the ally of the Tutsis against (formerly US-backed) Mobutu?

            • jim says:

              Normally, when Mobutu was mildly threatened, the Cathedral would send in UN forces and military logistics. When seriously threatened, would send in white troops.

              Then, in 1997, when Mobutu was dying of cancer, everyone jumped on him, and the Cathedral sat on its hands this time. Alliance des Forces Democratiques pour la Liberation du Congo-Zaire seized the capital. Now since the main part of the Alliance des Forces Democratiques were Tutsis, one might expect Tutsis to govern, with Kabila as their front man to reduce racial tensions and gain Cathedral approval, and at first that is exactly what happened, with James Kabarebe (Tutsi) exercising the real power. Cathedral loved Kabila the elder, who features as the good guy in numerous highly romantic mythical accounts of how the Congo only went bad due to evil racist colonialists. Cathedral hates James Kabarebe, who is Tutsi, therefore racist colonialist, and, worse than that, called James, therefore not authentically black. Probably the reason they sat on their hands for the overthrow of Mobutu, unlike all the previous times, was in part that the hero of their self serving myths about the Congo was leading, or perhaps nominally leading, the Alliance des Forces Democratiques.

              In 1998, Kabila the elder double crosses the Tutsi – which would have immediately led to his military defeat and swift execution, were it not for heavy handed Cathedral intervention in his favor. Second Congo war ensues, Cathedral versus Banyamulenge (Banyamulenge being Tutsis who live in the Congo.) Second Congo war is, more or less, still going, or maybe it stopped to be swiftly followed by the third Congo war, depending on how you count them.

          • Jake says:

            Thanks for that information.

  4. spandrell says:

    I think the mission Moldbug started isn’t really finished. He probably is, and he certainly did enough. But the sense of deep history he tried to introduce is still very undeveloped. We need an army of people reading old books trying to make sense of what’s going on.

    • jim says:

      New insights need new people. Moldbug is running out of stuff to say, even though viewing the present from the past is a gigantic task.

      We will make slower progress than the manosphere, since the manosphere was driven by urgent practical need, in that political doctrine on male female relationships had serious individual adverse consequences that were and are of intense interest to everyone, whereas rather fewer people are interested in the truth on economics and political institutions.

  5. […] Moldbug’s mission completed « Jim’s Blog […]

  6. With the thoughts you'd be thinkin says:

    As always deeply insightful commentary. Also you mucked up the link

  7. Steve Johnson says:

    Voter fraud would be an improvement.

    If it were just voter fraud the country wouldn’t actually be importing people who are easily bought off by things like Obama phones. Instead they’re really both importing a new people and trying their best to degrade the people who are here so they can be bought off cheaply.

    And why? So they don’t have to commit voter fraud. So they can legitimately claim to win elections.

    • jim says:

      That is in fact Moldbug’s solution: That they should just declare Democrats the permanent party of goodness and power, and Republicans the permanent party of evil, shame, humiliation, and defeat, and stop bothering with the elections.

  8. Zimriel says:

    It’s not even about voter fraud. It’s the whole system which is a fraud. Romney’s role in the last election was to keep white men involved in the Cathedral, as was Palin’s role in 2008. If Romney had won he would have been the dog who caught the speeding car. The Clerisy would still rule.

    • jim says:

      If Romney had won he would have been Bush III. Obama piously argues he is not all that radical because, as he quite truthfully observes, he is continuing Bush’s policies.

      Of course he is continuing Bush’s policies: They are both of them PR officers for the Cathedral!

  9. red says:

    It’s funny, most of the rank and file conservatives I know realize voter fraud was huge and they can’t deal with the fact that their leaders are ignoring it. They can’t grok the idea that they’re leaders are on the other side. They are just left bewildered by the bizarre behavior of their party they’ve sported most of their lives.

    So they go around making sniping comments about voter fraud and shake their heads in confusion.

Leave a Reply for With the thoughts you'd be thinkin