5 ms·

> Witch hunts cannot actually be carried out by losers, big or small: the agent of a witch hunt must have power. Aaaaay, and now the public conversation has fi

> Witch hunts cannot actually be carried out by losers, big or small: the agent of a witch hunt must have power. Aaaaay, and now the public conversation has finally advanced. The contention of the far right is that this statement is exactly right, but not in the way the author means. That is: there is no coherent rightist opposition to the national religion of progressivism, and this can be verified by checking for who is doing the hunting. From he-who-must-not-be-named: >Think about it. Obviously, if the witches had any power whatsoever, they wouldn't waste their time gallivanting around on broomsticks, fellating Satan and cursing cows with sour milk. They're getting burned right and left, for Christ's sake! Priorities! No, they'd turn the tables and lay some serious voodoo on the witch-hunters. In a country where anyone who speaks out against the witches is soon found dangling by his heels from an oak at midnight with his head shrunk to the size of a baseball, we won't see a lot of witch-hunting and we know there's a serious witch problem. In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of hobbyists on the weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn.

vkou 9y ago
> That is: there is no coherent rightist opposition to the national religion of progressivism, and this can be verified by checking for who is doing the hunting. Just because a bunch of people can do some witch hunting on twitter doesn't make it a lucrative and safe career. Twitter slacktivists aside, who do you think currently has an easier job - people fighting for civil rights, or people who are fighting against them? One side in this fight uses water cannons in freezing weather on unarmed people. The other gets hit by water cannons in freezing weather. One side is untouchable. The other gets routinely beaten, harassed, and arrested - legally or otherwise. One side has killed ~50 people over this year in a series of hate crimes. The other... Punched a few nazis. Or hell, if you want to talk about twitter slacktivism, have you seen how much abuse feminist writers, BLM activists, and LGBT people receive? You may claim that some martyr or other of the conservative sphere received similar levels of censure, but I assure you, the people on the other side of this are not having easy, cushy lives.
- ogre_magi 9y ago
  Both sides have their frame and mythology. I get that you feel like you're doing what's right and true by advancing yours, but it's narratives and semiotics all the way down.
  - bmcfeeley 9y ago
    Is there a grand realization i'm missing in the observation that all people's belief systems are composed of data points that lead to those beliefs? This seems tautologically true to me, and mostly irrelevant.
    - ogre_magi 9y ago
      "Data points" That feels like a charitable euphemism but I suppose it is literally true in a way. My point was simply: "We can tell when you're preaching." I think HN functions well when it talks about topics where the community is roughly on the same side.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > Both sides have their frame and mythology. ... it's narratives and semiotics all the way down. That's an old propaganda standby - both sides are the same, it's all just opinion. Nothing distinguishes U.S. policy from Stalin's, they would say in the Cold War. But there is good and evil in the world, and if we don't distinguish between them then we are accomplices for the latter. Furthering hate is not the same as opposing it; oppressing people is not the same as fighting for their freedom.
jmcqk6 9y ago
I've been rereading this trying to see a coherent argument, but I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. The thing that you quote seems like it could win an award for stretching metaphors.
- ogre_magi 9y ago
  It's part of the charm. The issue of course is that if you don't flit in a distant metaphor, you tread disrespectfully upon _sacred ground_. To toe the line a little for you, the witch-hunters are activists (good, noble ones) looking for sinners (bad, evil ones) and preaching about a world where the sinners have all the power. In such a world, why would there be so many successful witch-hunters?
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > a world where the sinners have all the power. > In such a world, why would there be so many successful witch-hunters? Because neither group has all the power (and there are many other groups too). The allegory, as someone pointed out, and the reasoning are both stretched past breaking.
    - rhizome 9y ago
      Because neither group has all the power About 45 years ago there was a chance that they might, but Nixon saw to that by inventing the War on Drugs.
      - forapurpose 9y ago
        > Because neither group has all the power > About 45 years ago there was a chance that they might There was no chance. In the 1972 election, Nixon was re-elected winning 49 states (not a typo - he won 49 of 50 states) and won the popular vote by 23%. And that was while the Watergate scandal was exploding. Per Wikipedia, not long before the November election, "On October 10, the FBI reported the Watergate break-in was part of a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage on behalf of the Nixon re-election committee."[0] There was no chance that the Democrats or anyone on the left was going to take "all the power". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Cover-up_and_its_unraveling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Cover-up_and...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Isn't he a straight up monarchist?
  - empath75 9y ago
    Yes. The post above was just dark enlightenment nonsense.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
    - mturmon 9y ago
      "I'd recommend diving into his works" I was intrigued by a Moldbug comment (i.e., conveyed by MM himself) on a high-quality politics blog about a decade ago, and followed it up with extensive reading of his site. Contrary to the comment above, I would recommend NOT diving into Moldbug's works. It really is reactionary bullshit, obliquely conveyed, which piques interest ("just what does he mean by this..."). The intrigue is all in the showmanship - which is considerable, I'll admit. It is simply a waste of time. I say this as someone who reads a lot, a subscriber to NYRB (where OP was published), and has a lot of patience with unraveling complex ideas, blah, blah, blah. It is valuable time that you won't get back.
    - eropple 9y ago
      There's very little "misinformation" about him at all. He's cased, and cased correctly. Your own cite demonstrates it amply. You struck me as better than buying this shit. You don't have to care, but I am disappointed.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
pavlov 9y ago
Are you saying there are no witch hunts on the American right? (Pizzagate, Benghazi, emails?) Nobody with a stable and lucrative career in these witch hunts? (Alex Jones, most of Fox News?) No hobbyists who enjoy witch-hunting on the weekend? (Again Pizzagate - an extreme case of the right-wing “do your own research to pierce the media veil” bullshit rabbit hole.) If that’s not what you’re saying, why is the actual point dressed up in that overwrought allegory?
- pls2halp 9y ago
  But I could replace your “pizzagate, Benghazi, emails” with “pissgate, Russia, tax returns”. This is a non partisan issue.
  - nicwolff 9y ago
    And there's the false equivalency. Fake news: Pizzagate - demented and wholly made-up Benghazi - thoroughly debunked in Congressional hearings emails - no criminality and no exposure of classified information vs real news: pissgate - a well-respected expert on Russian dirty tricks claims among other things that Trump hired prostitutes in Moscow to pee on each other. Some of those other claims have been corroborated - and we found out today that the special counsel investigating Trump's Russian connections (a Republican) has met with the author. Russia - Trump's family, campaign officials, and appointees met with Russian operatives and lied about it repeatedly. His campaign manager offered private briefings to Putin's close ally. His sons bragged about Russian funding that Trump denies. tax returns - Trump, who has a long well-documented history of shady financing and unsavory deal-making, would have rather lost the election than reveal where his money comes from.
    - mythrwy 9y ago
      LOL. Pizzagate wasn't wholly made up. The conclusions were silly and and almost certainly false, but there were real circumstances and posts that inspired it. And you are seriously claiming pissgate is real news because "someone said"? I understand you feel strongly, but if we can't emotionally detach when it comes to determining reality it just keeps going around and around in the same circle. Which is what I think OP was trying to say.
forapurpose 9y ago
> there is no coherent rightist opposition ... A common tactic of any populist group is to paint itself as a persecuted outsider. The far right and right have possibly never been stronger in the West, in fact. Throughout Europe, right-wing parties run government and far right parties have never had more power since perhaps WWII (and run government themselves in some countries). In the U.S., there is a large, coherent rightist power structure that dominates government and politics, not an opposition. The rightists control the White House (and thus all regulatory agencies and the rest of the executive branch), both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, 70% of governorships, and a large majority of state houses. Most police are right-wing (AFAIK). The most popular cable news channel (Fox) and the most popular newspaper among the business elite (WSJ) both serve right-wing propaganda as a modus operendi (the WSJ on its editorial page). There are a vast number of other popular right and far-right publications. There are many major funders (Kochs, Adelson, Mercers, etc.); there are major think tanks, such as Heritage, dedicated to generating intellectual cover for the right and far-right agenda. And the power structure works together to a surprising degree; you can see read Heritage talking points in many places, often without realizing the source. Here's an article I just read talking about the coherent rightist power structure, including a chief advisor to the President: https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart-and-milo-smuggled-white-nationalism https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart... > national religion of progressivism There is no such thing. Again, see the actual state of affairs, described above (and in this religiously progressive country, Donald Trump won). The far right again tries to portray itself as persecuted and also tries to portray anyone who disagrees as mindless followers of "religion", like the right-wing ideologues, not reasoned supporters of human rights, democracy and freedom.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > There are a vast number of other popular right and far-right publications. There are many major funders (Kochs, Adelson, Mercers, etc.); The Kochs fund far-right publications? Which ones? They seem explicitly not far right, or even really right at all.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

vkou 9y ago

> That is: there is no coherent rightist opposition to the national religion of progressivism, and this can be verified by checking for who is doing the hunting. Just because a bunch of people can do some witch hunting on twitter doesn't make it a lucrative and safe career. Twitter slacktivists aside, who do you think currently has an easier job - people fighting for civil rights, or people who are fighting against them? One side in this fight uses water cannons in freezing weather on unarmed people. The other gets hit by water cannons in freezing weather. One side is untouchable. The other gets routinely beaten, harassed, and arrested - legally or otherwise. One side has killed ~50 people over this year in a series of hate crimes. The other... Punched a few nazis. Or hell, if you want to talk about twitter slacktivism, have you seen how much abuse feminist writers, BLM activists, and LGBT people receive? You may claim that some martyr or other of the conservative sphere received similar levels of censure, but I assure you, the people on the other side of this are not having easy, cushy lives.

ogre_magi 9y ago
Both sides have their frame and mythology. I get that you feel like you're doing what's right and true by advancing yours, but it's narratives and semiotics all the way down.
- bmcfeeley 9y ago
  Is there a grand realization i'm missing in the observation that all people's belief systems are composed of data points that lead to those beliefs? This seems tautologically true to me, and mostly irrelevant.
  - ogre_magi 9y ago
    "Data points" That feels like a charitable euphemism but I suppose it is literally true in a way. My point was simply: "We can tell when you're preaching." I think HN functions well when it talks about topics where the community is roughly on the same side.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > Both sides have their frame and mythology. ... it's narratives and semiotics all the way down. That's an old propaganda standby - both sides are the same, it's all just opinion. Nothing distinguishes U.S. policy from Stalin's, they would say in the Cold War. But there is good and evil in the world, and if we don't distinguish between them then we are accomplices for the latter. Furthering hate is not the same as opposing it; oppressing people is not the same as fighting for their freedom.

jmcqk6 9y ago

I've been rereading this trying to see a coherent argument, but I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. The thing that you quote seems like it could win an award for stretching metaphors.

ogre_magi 9y ago
It's part of the charm. The issue of course is that if you don't flit in a distant metaphor, you tread disrespectfully upon _sacred ground_. To toe the line a little for you, the witch-hunters are activists (good, noble ones) looking for sinners (bad, evil ones) and preaching about a world where the sinners have all the power. In such a world, why would there be so many successful witch-hunters?
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > a world where the sinners have all the power. > In such a world, why would there be so many successful witch-hunters? Because neither group has all the power (and there are many other groups too). The allegory, as someone pointed out, and the reasoning are both stretched past breaking.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    Because neither group has all the power About 45 years ago there was a chance that they might, but Nixon saw to that by inventing the War on Drugs.
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      > Because neither group has all the power > About 45 years ago there was a chance that they might There was no chance. In the 1972 election, Nixon was re-elected winning 49 states (not a typo - he won 49 of 50 states) and won the popular vote by 23%. And that was while the Watergate scandal was exploding. Per Wikipedia, not long before the November election, "On October 10, the FBI reported the Watergate break-in was part of a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage on behalf of the Nixon re-election committee."[0] There was no chance that the Democrats or anyone on the left was going to take "all the power". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Cover-up_and_its_unraveling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Cover-up_and...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Isn't he a straight up monarchist?
- empath75 9y ago
  Yes. The post above was just dark enlightenment nonsense.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
  - mturmon 9y ago
    "I'd recommend diving into his works" I was intrigued by a Moldbug comment (i.e., conveyed by MM himself) on a high-quality politics blog about a decade ago, and followed it up with extensive reading of his site. Contrary to the comment above, I would recommend NOT diving into Moldbug's works. It really is reactionary bullshit, obliquely conveyed, which piques interest ("just what does he mean by this..."). The intrigue is all in the showmanship - which is considerable, I'll admit. It is simply a waste of time. I say this as someone who reads a lot, a subscriber to NYRB (where OP was published), and has a lot of patience with unraveling complex ideas, blah, blah, blah. It is valuable time that you won't get back.
  - eropple 9y ago
    There's very little "misinformation" about him at all. He's cased, and cased correctly. Your own cite demonstrates it amply. You struck me as better than buying this shit. You don't have to care, but I am disappointed.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

pavlov 9y ago

Are you saying there are no witch hunts on the American right? (Pizzagate, Benghazi, emails?) Nobody with a stable and lucrative career in these witch hunts? (Alex Jones, most of Fox News?) No hobbyists who enjoy witch-hunting on the weekend? (Again Pizzagate - an extreme case of the right-wing “do your own research to pierce the media veil” bullshit rabbit hole.) If that’s not what you’re saying, why is the actual point dressed up in that overwrought allegory?

pls2halp 9y ago
But I could replace your “pizzagate, Benghazi, emails” with “pissgate, Russia, tax returns”. This is a non partisan issue.
- nicwolff 9y ago
  And there's the false equivalency. Fake news: Pizzagate - demented and wholly made-up Benghazi - thoroughly debunked in Congressional hearings emails - no criminality and no exposure of classified information vs real news: pissgate - a well-respected expert on Russian dirty tricks claims among other things that Trump hired prostitutes in Moscow to pee on each other. Some of those other claims have been corroborated - and we found out today that the special counsel investigating Trump's Russian connections (a Republican) has met with the author. Russia - Trump's family, campaign officials, and appointees met with Russian operatives and lied about it repeatedly. His campaign manager offered private briefings to Putin's close ally. His sons bragged about Russian funding that Trump denies. tax returns - Trump, who has a long well-documented history of shady financing and unsavory deal-making, would have rather lost the election than reveal where his money comes from.
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    LOL. Pizzagate wasn't wholly made up. The conclusions were silly and and almost certainly false, but there were real circumstances and posts that inspired it. And you are seriously claiming pissgate is real news because "someone said"? I understand you feel strongly, but if we can't emotionally detach when it comes to determining reality it just keeps going around and around in the same circle. Which is what I think OP was trying to say.

forapurpose 9y ago

> there is no coherent rightist opposition ... A common tactic of any populist group is to paint itself as a persecuted outsider. The far right and right have possibly never been stronger in the West, in fact. Throughout Europe, right-wing parties run government and far right parties have never had more power since perhaps WWII (and run government themselves in some countries). In the U.S., there is a large, coherent rightist power structure that dominates government and politics, not an opposition. The rightists control the White House (and thus all regulatory agencies and the rest of the executive branch), both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, 70% of governorships, and a large majority of state houses. Most police are right-wing (AFAIK). The most popular cable news channel (Fox) and the most popular newspaper among the business elite (WSJ) both serve right-wing propaganda as a modus operendi (the WSJ on its editorial page). There are a vast number of other popular right and far-right publications. There are many major funders (Kochs, Adelson, Mercers, etc.); there are major think tanks, such as Heritage, dedicated to generating intellectual cover for the right and far-right agenda. And the power structure works together to a surprising degree; you can see read Heritage talking points in many places, often without realizing the source. Here's an article I just read talking about the coherent rightist power structure, including a chief advisor to the President: https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart-and-milo-smuggled-white-nationalism https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart... > national religion of progressivism There is no such thing. Again, see the actual state of affairs, described above (and in this religiously progressive country, Donald Trump won). The far right again tries to portray itself as persecuted and also tries to portray anyone who disagrees as mindless followers of "religion", like the right-wing ideologues, not reasoned supporters of human rights, democracy and freedom.

microcolonel 9y ago
> There are a vast number of other popular right and far-right publications. There are many major funders (Kochs, Adelson, Mercers, etc.); The Kochs fund far-right publications? Which ones? They seem explicitly not far right, or even really right at all.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]