Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
There is no such thing as a "victimless crime."
leads you into war to be wounded or killed, you must obey. To do so is right, and one must not give way or retreat or leave one’s post, but both in war and in courts and everywhere else, one must obey the commands of one’s city and country, or persuade it as to the nature of justice. It is impious to bring violence to bear against your mother or father; it is much more so to use it against your country.” What shall we say in reply, Crito, that the laws speak the truth, or not?
CRITO: I think they do.
SOCRATES: “Reflect now, Socrates,” the laws might say, “that if what we say is true, you are not treating us rightly by planning to do what you are planning. We have given you birth, nurtured you, educated you; we have given you and all other citizens a share of all the good things we could. Even so, by giving every Athenian the opportunity, once arrived at voting age and having observed the affairs of the city and us the laws, we proclaim that if we do not please him, he can take his possessions and go wherever he pleases. Not one of our laws raises any obstacle or forbids him, if he is not satisfied with us or the city, if one of you wants to go and live in a colony or wants to go anywhere else, and keep his property. We say, however, that whoever of you remains, when he sees how we conduct our trials and manage the city in other ways, has in fact come to an agreement with us to obey our instructions. We say that the one who disobeys does wrong in three ways, first because in us he disobeys his parents, also those who brought him up, and because, in spite of his agreement, he neither obeys us nor, if we do something wrong, does he try to persuade us to do better. Yet we only propose things, we do not issue savage commands to do whatever we order; we give two alternatives, either to persuade us or to do what we say. He does neither. We do say that you too, Socrates, are open to those charges if you do what you have in mind; you would be among, not the least, but the most guilty of the Athenians.” And if I should say “Why so?” they might well be right to upbraid me and say that I am among the Athenians who most definitely came to that agreement with them. They might well say: “Socrates, we have convincing proofs that we and the city were congenial to you. You would not have dwelt here most consistently of all the Athenians if the city had not been exceedingly pleasing to you. You have never left the city, even to see a festival, nor for any other reason except military service; you have never gone to stay in any other city, as people do; you have had no desire to know another city or other laws; we and our city satisfied you.
“So decisively did you choose us and agree to be a citizen under us. Also, you have had children in this city, thus showing that it was congenial to you. Then at your trial you could have assessed your penalty at exile if you wished, and you are now attempting to do against the city’s wishes what you could then have done with her consent. Then you prided yourself that you did not resent death, but you chose, as you said, death in preference to exile. Now, however, those words do not make you ashamed, and you pay no heed to us, the laws, as you plan to destroy us, and you act like the meanest type of slave by trying to run away, contrary to your commitments and your agreement to live as a citizen under us. First then, answer us on this very point, whether we speak the truth when we say that you agreed, not only in words but by your deeds, to live in accordance with us.” What are we to say to that, Crito? Must we not agree?
CRITO: We must, Socrates.
SOCRATES: “Surely,” they might say, “you are breaking the commitments and agreements that you made with us without compulsion or deceit, and under no pressure of time for deliberation. You have had seventy years during which you could have gone away if you did not like us, and if you thought our agreements unjust. You did not choose to go to Sparta or to Crete, which you are always saying are well governed, nor to any other city, Greek or foreign.
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
There is no such thing as a "victimless crime."
You have been away from Athens less than the lame or the blind or other handicapped people. It is clear that the city has been outstandingly more congenial to you than to other Athenians, and so have we, the laws, for what city can please without laws? Will you then not now stick to our agreements? You will, Socrates, if we can persuade you, and not make yourself a laughingstock by leaving the city.
“For consider what good you will do yourself or your friends by breaking our agreements and committing such a wrong. It is pretty obvious that your friends will themselves be in danger of exile, disfranchisement, and loss of property. As for yourself, if you go to one of the nearby cities—Thebes or Megara, both are well governed—you will arrive as an enemy to their government; all who care for their city will look on you with suspicion, as a destroyer of the laws. You will also strengthen the conviction of the jury that they passed the right sentence on you, for anyone who destroys the laws could easily be thought to corrupt the young and the ignorant. Or will you avoid cities that are well governed and men who are civilized? If you do this, will your life be worth living? Will you have social intercourse with them and not be ashamed to talk to them? And what will you say? The same as you did here, that virtue and justice are man’s most precious possession, along with lawful behavior and the laws? Do you not think that Socrates would appear to be an unseemly kind of person? One must think so. Or will you leave those places and go to Crito’s friends in Thessaly? There you will find the greatest license and disorder, and they may enjoy hearing from you how absurdly you escaped from prison in some disguise, in a leather jerkin or some other things in which escapees wrap themselves, thus altering your appearance. Will there be no one to say that you, likely to live but a short time more, were so greedy for life that you transgressed the most important laws? Possibly, Socrates, if you do not annoy anyone, but if you do, many disgraceful things will be said about you.
“You will spend your time ingratiating yourself with all men, and be at their beck and call. What will you do in Thessaly but feast, as if you had gone to a banquet in Thessaly? As for those conversations of yours about justice and the rest of virtue, where will they be? You say you want to live for the sake of your children, that you may bring them up and educate them. How so? Will you bring them up and educate them by taking them to Thessaly and making strangers of them, that they may enjoy that too? Or not so, but they will be better brought up and educated here, while you are alive, though absent? Yes, your friends will look after them. Will they look after them if you go and live in Thessaly, but not if you go away to the underworld? If those who profess themselves your friends are any good at all, one must assume that they will.
“Be persuaded by us who have brought you up, Socrates. Do not value either your children or your life or anything else more than goodness, in order that when you arrive in Hades you may have all this as your defense before the rulers there. If you do this deed, you will not think it better or more just or more pious here, nor will any one of your friends, nor will it be better for you when you arrive yonder. As it is, you depart, if you depart, after being wronged not by us, the laws, but by men; but if you depart after shamefully returning wrong for wrong and mistreatment for mistreatment, after breaking your agreements and commitments with us, after mistreating those you should mistreat least—yourself, your friends, your country and us—we shall be angry with you while you are still alive, and our brothers, the laws of the underworld, will not receive you kindly, knowing that you tried to destroy us as far as you could. Do not let Crito persuade you, rather than us, to do what he says.”
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
There is no such thing as a "victimless crime."
Crito, my dear friend, be assured that these are the words I seem to hear, as the Corybants seem to hear the music of their flutes, and the echo of these words resounds in me, and makes it impossible for me to hear anything else. As far as my present beliefs go, if you speak in opposition to them, you will speak in vain. However, if you think you can accomplish anything, speak.
CRITO: I have nothing to say, Socrates.
SOCRATES: Let it be then, Crito, and let us act in this way, since this is the way the god is leading us.
Have said it before and I'll say it again: you shouldn't be able to quit a job just because you want to. The West has fallen. No serious civilization would allow no-fault quitting.
Forwarded from Smoke Pit V
One of my favorite historical episodes of America is the crossing of the Delaware to kill the Hessians in their beds on Christmas.
Turns out you can just do things, as a matter of fact.
Turns out you can just do things, as a matter of fact.
Smoke Pit V
One of my favorite historical episodes of America is the crossing of the Delaware to kill the Hessians in their beds on Christmas. Turns out you can just do things, as a matter of fact.
One of the truisms of the world, and you can find this in basically any text on the question worth reading, in Plato and in the Bible, is that committing evil harms the actor more than it harms his victim.
I wonder how a country established on such a barbarous act might look 250 years after its inception.
What's that? "New Spiritual Pythons, plenty of them; enormous Megatherions, as ugly as were ever born of mud, loom huge and hideous out of the twilight Future on America," you say? Very curious. Thanks, Carlyle.
I wonder how a country established on such a barbarous act might look 250 years after its inception.
What's that? "New Spiritual Pythons, plenty of them; enormous Megatherions, as ugly as were ever born of mud, loom huge and hideous out of the twilight Future on America," you say? Very curious. Thanks, Carlyle.
Merry Christmas!
Fixed my PC. The regular posting can now continue. Telegram is dooooooooomed.
Negative reacts are back for a limited time.
Here’s one way to know you haven’t had a regime change. There are still 50 DMVs.
Are there still 50 DMVs? Is there any reason, other than history, that there need to be 50 DMVs? Are the states really the “laboratories of democracy?” In… motor vehicles? Is there an “Arkansas way of driving?” (Don’t answer that last one.) No? All no? Then you haven’t had a real regime change. Go back to sleep. Nothing ever happens.
Are there still 50 DMVs? Is there any reason, other than history, that there need to be 50 DMVs? Are the states really the “laboratories of democracy?” In… motor vehicles? Is there an “Arkansas way of driving?” (Don’t answer that last one.) No? All no? Then you haven’t had a real regime change. Go back to sleep. Nothing ever happens.
Here is how they beat you. Besides outright cowards, traitors and grifters, there are two main tricks. One: they convince you that you’ve won, when you haven’t won anything yet. You declare victory, and lose. Two: they accuse you of something you need to do, but aren’t yet doing. You deny it, and lose.
This cure for power was perfected long ago with the institution of symbolic monarchy. The Merovingian or Hanoverian king would enjoy all the trappings of royalty, with none of the power. I always used to wonder how so many dynasties, in so many periods and regions, had been convinced to surrender their kingdoms while maintaining their thrones. The same thing has happened to our republic. It has happened (despite his best efforts) to the President. And it has happened to the voters.
Oligarchy (“meritocracy”) has cucked both monarchy and democracy (“populism”). We prefer pretending to be in charge, to actually being in charge. Like any 20th-century ceremonial “monarch,” we are scared of power from head to toe, President to peasant. On the streets, we are the best of husbands. In the sheets, we are nowhere near man enough for our wives. Power will only be serviced by the Deep State or the Cathedral. The sneer with which Washington obeys the Trump administration, when it really must, is the sneer of a woman who wants her husband’s child—but not her husband. This is the “marriage” between institutions and politicians.
How does this trap work? Fundamentally, the upper class sees itself as a subordinate class, and the middle class sees itself as a dominant class. “Progressivism” is the universalist faith of the upper class (with an exception from universalism for its own clients’ tribalism). “Conservatism” is the ideology of the middle class. Conservatives fail because they can never see that America is actually not their country. Liberals win because they can never see that America actually is their country.
The splinter of deference that the administrative state affords a Republican President or Presidential candidate—a delicate kabuki that dates back to Wendell Willkie—just enough relevance that he feels genuinely important, but not enough to do systemic damage—is part of the delicate engineering of the post-Roosevelt political system.
The more genuinely the Republicans, the President or the voter, feel they have won, without any actual prospect of winning—the deeper they are in the trap. We’re winning, and winners can’t be rebels. Our Constitution is intact, after all! We must preserve our threatened Constitution. But at least we have it. Sad! These people have nothing. The Judas goat is already leading them up the ramp.
Since they are so easily convinced that they have won, our conservatives are weak and passive in resistance. Since they are so confident that they are the daring underdogs, liberals stamp out this weak resistance with the heroic energy of a (very lucky) rebel.
This cure for power was perfected long ago with the institution of symbolic monarchy. The Merovingian or Hanoverian king would enjoy all the trappings of royalty, with none of the power. I always used to wonder how so many dynasties, in so many periods and regions, had been convinced to surrender their kingdoms while maintaining their thrones. The same thing has happened to our republic. It has happened (despite his best efforts) to the President. And it has happened to the voters.
Oligarchy (“meritocracy”) has cucked both monarchy and democracy (“populism”). We prefer pretending to be in charge, to actually being in charge. Like any 20th-century ceremonial “monarch,” we are scared of power from head to toe, President to peasant. On the streets, we are the best of husbands. In the sheets, we are nowhere near man enough for our wives. Power will only be serviced by the Deep State or the Cathedral. The sneer with which Washington obeys the Trump administration, when it really must, is the sneer of a woman who wants her husband’s child—but not her husband. This is the “marriage” between institutions and politicians.
How does this trap work? Fundamentally, the upper class sees itself as a subordinate class, and the middle class sees itself as a dominant class. “Progressivism” is the universalist faith of the upper class (with an exception from universalism for its own clients’ tribalism). “Conservatism” is the ideology of the middle class. Conservatives fail because they can never see that America is actually not their country. Liberals win because they can never see that America actually is their country.
The splinter of deference that the administrative state affords a Republican President or Presidential candidate—a delicate kabuki that dates back to Wendell Willkie—just enough relevance that he feels genuinely important, but not enough to do systemic damage—is part of the delicate engineering of the post-Roosevelt political system.
The more genuinely the Republicans, the President or the voter, feel they have won, without any actual prospect of winning—the deeper they are in the trap. We’re winning, and winners can’t be rebels. Our Constitution is intact, after all! We must preserve our threatened Constitution. But at least we have it. Sad! These people have nothing. The Judas goat is already leading them up the ramp.
Since they are so easily convinced that they have won, our conservatives are weak and passive in resistance. Since they are so confident that they are the daring underdogs, liberals stamp out this weak resistance with the heroic energy of a (very lucky) rebel.
Unconditional state capture cannot be achieved by the same mechanisms as constitutional participation. As a normiecon, you think of Washington as your narcissistic, impossible, insufferable, and also alcoholic mother-in-law. If you have no choice but to deal with this person, your job is to lead her to reason and maybe even sobriety. Some kind of intervention. But she’s family and you have to respect that.
While that’s a reasonable attitude in this situation, it’s not the real situation. The real situation is: your real mother-in-law died in the 1990s. What you are calling “Doris” is a 6200-year-old Egyptian vampire—real name: Khemon-Ra.
You cannot, as you expect, “have an intervention” with Khemon-Ra. “She” is not a “narcissist” or even an “alcoholic”—just your basic Chalcolithic vampire. You have to hammer a wooden post into its heart and out through the shoulderblades. During this process, it may be harder to restrain than you think.
While that’s a reasonable attitude in this situation, it’s not the real situation. The real situation is: your real mother-in-law died in the 1990s. What you are calling “Doris” is a 6200-year-old Egyptian vampire—real name: Khemon-Ra.
You cannot, as you expect, “have an intervention” with Khemon-Ra. “She” is not a “narcissist” or even an “alcoholic”—just your basic Chalcolithic vampire. You have to hammer a wooden post into its heart and out through the shoulderblades. During this process, it may be harder to restrain than you think.
Entropy is naturally gradual and/or self-sustaining: fast revolution, or slow subversion. Extropy is the opposite. A right-wing regime change is a spike of political energy that crosses a threshold and jumps the system to a new, benign stable state.
This spike takes more energy than many think, but it needs to be sustained only momentarily. And this energy is not chaotic, inconsistent violence—but peaceful, irresistible force. This will rapidly develop its own stability—but only if it is irresistible. It must demonstrate this irresistible character in every area of life.
This spike takes more energy than many think, but it needs to be sustained only momentarily. And this energy is not chaotic, inconsistent violence—but peaceful, irresistible force. This will rapidly develop its own stability—but only if it is irresistible. It must demonstrate this irresistible character in every area of life.