02 January 2007

Comments 2

Continued from earlier comments. [Use this post to comment or feedback on anything discussed on this site, or anything in the Mediocracy book.]


Peter Horne said...

Moldbug says

"Therefore, the sine qua non of any regime change whose goal is to defeat mediocracy is the complete defeat and liquidation of the old mediocratic power structure. There is absolutely no need to restrict freedom of speech, or any other personal freedom. The problem is entirely organizational. Disestablishment of the Universalist information organs is sufficient."

This is, of course remarkably similar to Sean Gabb's prescription
"On the whole, I would prefer a more radical programme. Moderation has its place, but not here. Given a reliable majority, I would not bother regarding the Enemy Class as an unavoidable ally in government. I would regard it as Margaret Thatcher did the unions - as an enemy crying out to be smashed."

Discussion about what "Mediocracy" is is all very well, but where does it get us? We all know who the enemy is. Let's get the bastards.
PS. Liked the book. Not enough jokes!

Sen. Peter Higham Paul said...

Pity you're not offering comments on the next post, Fabian because that's the one I wanted to comment on.

Fabian Tassano said...

Please comment here about any of the posts.

Sen. Peter Higham Paul said...

Fabian, I made it in here but am a bit puzzled still. Why would you want comments on "Nose Size", for example, under this post's header? Still, I'm sure you have your reasons.

Now as for the Nose Size, that has to go in tomorrow.

Ultraviolents said...

Robert Spencer's overriding theme is, can we talk with the Muslims about our mutual differences? And he keeps pointing out how that's not possible, because the Muslims' agenda is absolute and is built into their religion and so they have no interest in dialogue.

It's Ironic, you may think that is slightly crazy but we're not so different. For we believe that human beings are endowed with rights given to them by the Universalist world state (Geist by upon it). These rights, are inalienable and beyond discussion.

Peter Horne said...

Nosism is a terrible thing. The government should do something about it.
Excuse me while I go for a We.

Fabian Tassano said...

Nosism (from the latin "nos" = "we"). What a very useful word, if it means what I think it means. I.e. not just using the royal "we", but also claiming to speak on behalf of the collective. Is there some connection to this?

Peter Horne said...

Indeed. Tony likes a nice "We".

Mark Twain once said, "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people
with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we'."

That said. maybe Tony has worms...that would explain a lot..the pained expression...the scrawny frame...that's what he needs - worming powder!

Simon Clark - Formerly The Cynical Libertarian said...

Is mediocracy pronounced "mee-dee-ocra-see" or "mee-dee-O-cra-see" (the "O" being the sound of a capital "O"). When I first came here I assumed from your explanations of the word that it derived from the word "media" (the connection in my mind being that everything in mediocracy is media centered i.e. mediocentric/mediocratic, appearances and intentions over reality and ends etc) but now you said it derives from the word "mediocre" in that it's about making everything, well, mediocre. Interesting.

Fabian Tassano said...

Pronunciation is your option one. You may be thinking of "mediaocracy" (try googling it) - horrible word. There is a connection, as you note. Emphasis on mass media, appearances, collective opinion, populism; but also media controllers pulling the strings. I.e. phoney populism with an elite behind the scenes manipulating the way people view the world. And, of course, the media is in some ways the most important elite in modern society.